"drew3000 June 18th, 2009 1:05 pm

Thank you for making my point. Wingnuts abound. So, you left the U.S., making you an immigrant somewhere. Whose space are you invading?"

I invaded Quebec for school and, later, cheap labour jobs Quebecers didn't want to do, but not really for that reason; having invaded mainly due to this being my ancestral patrie dating back to around 1459 and I can't make up for the migrations of that era. My mother was a Canadian citizen when givng birth to my brother and myself in the U.S., so there's a little inheritance that comes along with the mother's citizenship and I didn't choose for my parents to move to the U.S. from Quebec, but was born there anyway.

The H-1B program wasn't used to promote immgration; it was only a temporary, 3-year worker visa program and really was primarily used for literally [replacing] U.S. citizen professionals. So there's a bit of a difference. I applied for a Linux server job with Greenpeace in Amsterdam several years ago and they were interested, but after having experienced the national impact of importing H-1Bs to replace U.S. citizens and residents, I told Greenpeace that I was interested, but wanted them to make sure that if they hired me and I took the job, then I wouldn't be doing to a citizen or resident of Holland as happened to me and many, very many other U.S. citizen professionals due to the H-1B program racket. That cost me the job in Amsterdam, and it was a place I would've loved to worked and live in, but I didn't want to harm the chances of qualified candidates from there, either.

From what I recall, the H-1B impact was to the extent that it drove evidently a serious lowering in student enrollments in computer science, f.e., in the U.S.

In Canada, I never took jobs other Canadians would really want; having worked cheap labour jobs and for an employer in Ottawa who most professionals would stay away from because of his cheapness. So I didn't take any jobs Canadians particularly cared for, and all of the employers I worked for here wouldn't have provided better conditions if I hadn't taken the jobs.

The H-1B program was a racket; always was, from the very start. Prof. Norman(d?) Matloff of U. of Cal., Berkeley I think, contested this program in Congress, having excellently argued that a max. of around 15,000 visas could be justified or were justified per year, but only for jobs requiring people with masters degrees and PhDs, because the U.S. had more than enough professionals and graduating students, graduating in computer science and sufficiently related studies, such as math and sciences, business, ...; he and either the Dept of Commerce or Labor having said that there were around 152,000 new graduates with bacelor's degrees and college certificates, like in computer programming courses, every year. But he and the Dept of Commerce or Labor, which entirely opposed the creation of the H-1B program lost and employers, large hi-tech cies, banks, universities, all kinds of employers "won", as also did recruiters, job placement recruiters and immigration lawyers.

It was related to globalisation, as well. The large hi-tech cies, Microsoft, Intel, IBM, ... wanted to offshore their production to India, where they've majorly built up over the past 15 years or more. And by bringing in many of the H-1Bs from India, this meant that these corporations would eventually have trained people of India to return to that country in order to manage the businesses there, once they'd be set up there. And they're very built up there now. There was a documentary on CBC or another Canadian tv station over the past year or so about how majorly built up U.S. hi-tech corporations are in India, while having also included a little from an Indian entrepreneur who wants to have Indians create their own hi-tech cies. He was starting his own, or had already started it, and emphasised that people of India need to do this, instead of mostly having U.S. corporations establish greater monopolies, etcetera.

I contributed to nothing of the like being done to others; never harmed any Canadians' chances of getting work and did plenty that others here wouldn't want to do, but while the employers would not provide better compensation, so it was a matter of taking the jobs as offered, or not getting the jobs. Farmers could and perhaps still can pay less than min. wage and I worked two full summer seasons on this basis, $1.50 an hour less than min. wage. All students were paid this by the farmer and most students didn't want this job except for the easy part, esp. providing guidance to people coming to pick their strawberries. I did everything that had to be done, except for spraying pesticides and herbicides, which was done by an elderly worker who did this at night and knew how to drive the large tractor.

I deweeded 4 acres of leeks that couldn't be seen until you were right over them, deweeding by crawling on the ground for $1.5 less than min. wage.

Really, I doubt that most Canadians would complain about not getting the jobs I took. And I'm always careful to try to make sure to not harm other peoples' chances for employment.

And the H-1B program, btw, is not for Mexicans or Canadians, who normally get work, when legally, with the NAFTA program's TN1 visa. Helping Mexicans and other extremely poor people of Central American countries is something I support, but importing hi-tech workers from across the planet and really to only replace U.S. citizens and legal residents in the U.S. is simply not acceptable. The H-1B program has always been a racket, except for the relatively few cases in which the program is used for hiring people with masters' degrees and PhDs. Very few of the visas are used for such candidates though.

Paul Craig Roberts has his faults, but he has not been wholly wrong on what you call anti-immigration, because while some people would incorrectly call him that due to his writings on, f.e., the H-1B importation program, he's been right about this and I'm one of the many victims he refers to, so I know first hand that he's right on this topic. And the imported H-1B workers, TN1's, ... are anti-American, because they love helping to send us to the poor house while they enter and profit from our country.

It's why I had to leave the USA, to make room for invaders. I could've stayed and resided on park benches, if there were any still available for vacancies, but preferred getting a room and headed north for this.

People like you, however, would have us all in the poor house, or rather no house at all, and still preach to us about how good this'd be for us while you would live in luxury.

Is this the anti-immigration person you mean about Paul Craig Roberts? If it is, then sorry, but I have no sympathy for your thoughts; only pity. Maybe he's written other things and I'm not aware of them yet, but all I know of, so far, is his writings on the economy, including the fact that the H-1B program has been killing jobs for a lot of Americans, including myself. And those people still aren't satisfied with having helped to screw U.S. professionals for well over a decade, going on nearly two decades now; they still bitch for their so-called rights. EWeek.com has articles on this now and then.

What the hell is to really discuss about this US mainstream media damn hot air a solid poll Paul Craig Roberts cites in his article says the presidential contest results in Iran are valid, thus showing the fraud is in the US mainstream media coverage of same or these jack asses are lying to us again for their damn hidden agendas based on their being big UIS business political prostitutes. That advertising money from the bastard US elites is the US mainstream media's bread and butter, but luckily for us these flunkies are about to take a big fall, and it looks like we may start getting a lot more of the truth from the likes of Paul Craig Roberts and others. The mainstream media is losing money and dying. Rejoice, damn it, rejoice!

AD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRwUZ-u6KFo&feature=player_embedded

This link from ABC news circa 2007 which is embedded in the rest of the video. This details the US funding of Black ops inside Iran, the financing of opposition groups and the go ahead to de-stabilize Iran.

As John Pilger, the greatest journalist writing for the British media and winner so many awards for his journalism and documentaries says,
it is not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers without understanding the hidden agendas of the message and myths that surreound it." While we're on the topic, read what Paul Craig Roberts and others in CounterPunch have to say about all this.

Common Dreams has done some good things on a variety of issues, but here somebody needs to dig deeper as Roberts and others at CounterPunch have. It's about the hidden agendas of Western and especially US elites who are throwing their support to the candidate Paul Craig Roberts is convinced actually did lose the presidential race and cites an independent poll which found just that happened, but obviously we won't get any of that out of the echo chamber for the quid pro/status quo/ old and older order US mainstream media most especially at CNN or Time and the rest. Sometimes, like Alexander Cockburn I relish the thought of the collapse of the mainstream, big business owned political prostitutes.

AD

GottaGetOffTheGrid ,

Yes, i agree, Chris Floyd seems to be an unbiased analyst and writer, after having read enough articles by him. There might possibly be a thing or two that I view differently, but haven't come across any instances, so far. He really seems unbiased and well informed, so another person I appreciate reading from.

As for twitter? Beware. I just got some warning(s) from eweek.com about twitter being used to spread viruses, or trojans, or ... some mal-ware anyway; besides having previously read that it's another CIA-related website for collecting personal information on users. The latter could be done with any website with user accounts when the website providers accept to "help" the CIA, or do so unwittingly, not realising they're dealing with CIA shmuckery. And the viruses, etcetera, I read that there are plenty of wholly respectable websites that, normally, should be safe to visit, but some virus makers have found a way to insert (say) viruses, etcetera, without the website providers knowing about this.

In any case, beware with "social" websites like twitter and facebook, f.e.

I use Firefox with the Noscript add-on, which is helpful, for it permits specifying what to allow, vs not, within webpages, instead of only websites; but this only helps as much as users are [careful]. We can negligently allow Noscript to allow things we really shouldn't. Not bad at all; it allows loading webpages while killing any scripts or programs included in the pages.

We should not be going to places like twitter and not knowing everything that happens within our Web browsers and with our PC's during these visits. We should know [everything] that goes on when we surf the Web. The problem is Firefox (a Mozilla product) is certainly not the safest browser, per se; but it's apparently safe with respect to the amount of time it takes for patches to be released, either before public warnings, or after, but, either way, much faster than Microsoft. Opera's apparently the fastest and safest option; safest (from what I've read) because it's not used much. Opera's very good (definitely!), but has a much smaller user base, so it's not targeted by virus, ... makers. How does Opera compare to Firefox with the Noscript add-on? I don't know and Noscript is certainly of value. If Opera doesn't provide this level of protection control, then I guess I want to stick with Firefox and Noscript.

Complicated, eh? Yes. Complicated and downright annoying.

Anyway, beware of twitter and such
"social" websites. There are plenty of good organisations, citizen groups, ... with accounts at facebook, f.e., but the website itself is suspect; the providers and their affiliates or associates, like the CIA, that is.

CIA’S CANDIDATE LOSES IN IRAN: WHAT IS THE BIG FUSS
Americans have been in control of Iran since Reza Pahlavi's time and now for the third time they are using massive money to modify the system so that the suffering masses of Iranians remain impoverished, while their assets are transferred to the West. Reza Pahlavi's begging letter to President Roosevelt indicates the depth of his powerlessness! It is funny that Reza Junior ignores the fact that he is just a pawn to be used to extract concession in this international game of control of resources in Iran! Neither he nor anybody residing abroad speaks for the suffering masses of Iran.
　
Now, again for the Third time in Iranian history Americans want to modify the Regime, without changing the structure of economic dependency! This is not acceptable. It is a fraud planned and executed by the CIA and is designed to force the modification of foreign policies rather than basic structural changes in Iran!
It is amazing that American Propaganda and money is again pouring into Iran to challenge the result of such a clear victory. Again CIA agents and America News media is supporting Mousavi, who actually supervised the massacre of 7500 Iranians in 1979 and executed the US policy of fighting a proxy war with Iraq that devastated Iran's economy. He also, is the protégé of Mullah Rafsanjani, the gangster whose Mafia is mainly responsible for the economic bankruptcy of Iran. They are the same crooks who have made Iran 80 per cent dependent on imported Gasoline!

It is unfortunate that almost two millions of Americans, Canadians, Germans, Australians, British who, speak Farsi now act as proxies for US policies, paid or unpaid, have become freedom lovers and are pushing for regime change in Iran, which means nothing but preservation of the American and British interest in Iran!
America failed to impose Mullah Rafsanjani's hand picked candidate on Iran, despite massive financial, organizational agitation and propaganda by CIA, the Voice of America and all its radio and television Networks! So what! Mousavi is a fraud and he did not get the vote! America should not have double standards and should shut up when talking about human rights and democracy while occupying Iraq, murdering freedom fighters in Afghanistan, having one million Palestinians in Gaza Concentration Camp and is supporting Mobarak and Faisal. Mousavi, has been promoted as Iran’s Obama by the US despite his supervision of massacre of 7500 Iranians under the guidance and approval of the CIA’s official and General Huyser in particular in.
The result and margin of victory was so devastating that proves the effectiveness, organizational skill and popularity of the regime among the masses of Iranians. By any standard 63 percent is great enough to slap American agents and millions of ex-patriots, who now under different nationalities, different flags, different passports and citizen-ships are working against the Islamic Regime.
Unfortunately, these ex-patriots have become the corner stone of opposition in Iran and are hand in hand with American and British agents to destabilize the regime, which is under economic pressure. The question is who and what agency can be hold responsible for the devastation of Iranian Economy. The single most agents responsible for everything bad happening in Iran is Rafsanjani Crime Family, there are obviously others, who has been running Iran and setting Reagan’s liberalization policy that has led to massive unemployment and devaluation of Iranian Rials, despite oil revenues.
Rafsanjani’s handpick Mousavi was not only responsible of mass murder of 7500 innocents who were murdered as corrupt on Earth but also on expropriation of their properties, businesses by transferring most of the Iranian Crown Corporations into the hands of few Mullahs and their so-called Foundations.
In addition Rafsanjani and his gang transferred Iranian assets to Dubai, Australia, Canada and many other locations to make Iranian economy dependent on foreign Capital forever. Rafsanjani was involved with the CIA from the fall of Mossadegh to the mass murder of all new Iranian leadership that emerged under Beheshti. Rafsanjani has ruled Iran and has tried very hard to destabilize the regime for his sinister purposes that are total dependence of Iran on foreign products. Promoting his Candidate as Iranian Obama is laughable, as both are responsible for running all crime Mafia’s in Iran from Smuggling Opium, selling it in underground market to Human trade and exporting Iranian girls as whores to the Persian Gulf. Mousavi and Rafsanjani have been involved in massive smuggling operations, in which the Iranian Oils is transferred to Arabian sea via separate pipelines, that are not under the Iranian Petroleum Co., so it could be sold in open Market in Cash payment without any control.

I haven't heard the discussion of this video yet, but just came across the following piece.

"Hypocrisy and Hope: Western Coverage, Iranian Courage", by Chris Floyd, June 16, 2009

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=55193

EXCERPT(S):

It does seem clear, by all the evidence so far -- particularly studies of past voting patterns -- that the final vote totals were rigged and padded rather clumsily (much as they are in Russia, for example), although that doesn't necessarily mean that Ahmadinajad actually lost. Again, we just don't have enough information on this point yet. It would be good if he did lose and had to step down -- but I think it's highly unlikely that the powerful elites who back him will allow this to happen.

Then again, the Iranians are in general a braver, bolder people than some other peoples we might mention, who in recent memory sat slack-jawed and supine when their franchise was stripped from them in broad daylight by powerful elites.

END EXCERPT

The USA?

As for the powerful elites backing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I'd use stronger wording; like, f.e., backing and using, manipulating, controlling, ..., because he, as President, isn't allowed to rule according to his own mind. He's not even permitted to go to a female beauty pageant (or whatever the female exhibition was in, I think, Jordan; a bathing or swimming suit exhibition by women) without being whacked on the knuckles for attending. He wasn't backed about that "mis-step" he made; he was whacked for it. So being controlled seems more fitting than being backed is.

EXCERPT (continued):

But while the Iranians continue to work out their own destiny, coverage of the events in the Western press has largely fallen into the expected -- indeed, predestined -- patterns. Western media have swiftly fitted the Iranian unrest into the now-standard "color revolution" template -- seen in Serbia, Georgia, Lebanon, and other -- where plucky, pro-Western (i.e., reliably pliable to American interests) forces rise up against their oppressors. The leaders of these forces are invariably depicted as "moderates" committed to installing Western-style governments and liberal, Western-style social orders, etc. For example, the recent election in Lebanon was presented as a great triumph for the "pro-Western March 14 Faction" led by the son of slain tycoon Rafik Hariri -- even though this "pro-Western" faction includes Sunni extremists aligned with Osama bin Laden.

END EXCERPT

That's a very interesting point! I knew the election(s) in Lebanon were surely screwed up, but the West root'in for Osama Bin Ladin pals? Now that's a new twist; well, sort of new, a little, anyway. I wasn't quite expecting anything so forward or obvious for clues, say.

I knew the U.S. government rather made sure to not track down and capture UBL, et al, but that the U.S. government actually was publicly root'in for UBL, et al is ... quite some news.

EXCERPT (continued):

Similarly, the Iranian opposition leader Mir Hussein Moussavi is universally depicted as a "moderate." Yet, as Professor As'ad AbuKhalil points out, when Moussavi was Iran's prime minister under Ayatollah Khomeini, he "presided over a regime far more oppressive than Ahmadinajad's." AbuKhalil's take on the hypocrisy of the Western media coverage on Iran is worth quoting more fully:

... I am in no way sympathetic to Moussavi. He is a man who suddenly discovered the virtues of democracy. When he was prime minister back in the 1980s, he presided over a regime far more oppressive than Ahmadinajad's. And why has no Western media really commented on his rhetoric during his own campaign: the man kept saying that he wants a "return" to the teachings of Khomeini. I in no way support a man who wants a "return" to the teachings of Khomeini.

END EXCERPT

So Iranians want someone who'll make their society more, instead of less, oppressive, eh? Well, I won't plan on moving there any time soon.

As much as I can disagree with the Iranian government in some respects, President Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah have always been open to mutually respectful dialogue with the U.S. or "west". It's the latter that has refused to comply! Western "news" media would have us believe the opposite though; including the NewYorker.com, based on an article about the presidential election in Iran. The west's "news" media have been publishing serious distortions, treating the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as if it was obstructive, uncooperative, ..., when these attributes describe the west and not Iran, which has been willing to dialogue, on the condition of real [mutual respect], which is not too much to ask for.

I don't like the Iranian government, albeit that's not unusual, for I also don't like most governments, anyway. But I will always aim to be truthful in my views and, therefore, criticisms.

EXCERPT (continued):

Of course, Moussavi -- like some other politicians we could mention -- has now become, for millions of people, an emblem for genuine changes and reforms that he probably has no desire or intention to enact, even if given the chance. Like Barack Obama, he is of the power structure, .... ...

But as we noted above, the Iranian people have already demonstrated the courage to stand up for their rights. Unlike the acquiescent Americans, seemingly content with cosmetic makeovers of the imperial management, the Iranians may yet force their emblem to more fully inhabit the role that the times -- and their own ardent desires for change -- have created for him.

END OF EXCERPT

clovis ,

Coloured revolutions; velvet, red, ...? Fitting analogy or reference.

Pre-planned mission to strike Iran, militarily? I doubt it, because they know very well if they ever did launch military attacks on Iran, then its leadership has promised to reply as much as they can and that's plenty. Even if Iran doesn't have nukies, it still has a lot of punch that it packs and will deliver to or against Israel and surely U.S. forces in Iraq and, perhaps anyway, Afghanistan, Pakistan, as well as the USN in the Persian Gulf area. I doubt anyone who reins the U.S. government would want to risk causing or forcing Iran into such broad and hard re-actions.

They will, however, commit plenty of fearmongering; like threats of striking Iran, but threats which aren't to be followed through upon, only being used to try to frighten us all out of our wits.

Similarly, they will not side with Israel attacking Iran, which, if Israel did, would require Israeli bombers flying through air space controlled by the U.S., the air space over Iraq. That, in turn, would mean that the U.S. was complicit in Israel's attack on Iran and then ... count on many coffins coming from Iraq with U.S. troops as the occupants; dead U.S. troops, that is.

The U.S., however, has had some special ops in Iran for some years now. I don't know what the active, vs non-active, status of these ops are now, today, June 2009, but Seymour Hersh wrote about otherwise covert U.S. ops in Iran for causing ... as usual, havoc, instability, ... problems. I am not sure, but think Scott Ritter also wrote about such covert U.S. ops; yes, in Iran, I mean.

That "business" fits with the "coloured revolutions" the U.S. evidently is always behind. But war on Iran, bombing Iran? This has to be baseless fearmongering; that is, there's a point to it, but it's to only instill fear in all of us when the threat, bombing Iran, is absolutely, definitely not going to be done, at all. We'd have to be dumb to think that the corruptors of the government of the USA would be so dumb that they'd bomb Iran when they, like all of us, have been adequately informed that Iran would retaliate and strongly so.

And we also know that the U.S., so its soldiers and treasonous rulers, don't war on countries that have serious defence capabilities. We know they can't stand being challenged, so they don't challenge capable countries; but they do work on trying to whittle away the capabilities of capable countries, as the U.S. did in its years of trying to clobber Russia, f.e.

Nope. The U.S. ain't gonna be committing any warring on Iran and also will not support Israel doing so without the U.S. obviously taking part in the attacks. Israel will be kept in its cage.

"If every day a man takes orders in silence from an incompetent superior, if every day he solemnly performs ritual acts which he privately finds ridiculous, if he unhesitatingly gives answers to questionnaires which are contrary to his real opinions and is prepared to deny his own self in public, if he sees no difficulty in feigning sympathy or even affection where, in fact, he feels only indifference or aversion, it still does not mean that he has entirely lost the use of one of the basic human senses, namely, the sense of humilation." — Vaclav Havel

I'm glad someone said "Hands off Iran" here. I'll leave with this: http://www.hopoi.org

Read it in English, or read it in farsi. your lack of seeing the farsi signs in the crowd illustrates how far from it you actually are.

As I've said before, this very much resembles the NED-CIA-coached "color revolutions" of Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Lebanon etc. In those places, too, there were prominently featured demonstrators with signs in perfect English, ready for consumption by chip-munching Americans in front of their TVs. What truly amazes me--though it shouldn't--is the arrogance of the American meddlers, who think they can pull this sort of thing off ad infinitum, always in the exact same way, and still get away with it. In this case, though, the purpose may be even more sinister: that is, it may be a pre-planned excuse to be used to justify the bombing of Iran that Israel and her hysterical U.S. minions have been calling for for the past couple of yeras.

I have noticed the proliferation of English language placards carried by the protesters. Interestingly, the English on these signs was generally correct. This surprises me because I do know that the vast majority of Iranians don't particularly know correct English. For the same reason, the amount of tweeting in English by the protesters has surprised me. Further, people like Rafsanjani (who is probably very corrupt) and Mossavi are part of the establishment. So I am puzzled why "progressives" in Iran would be so fervent in their support of Mussavi.

Hands off Iran!

In another post I linked to a site that suggested some 5 percent TOTAL Of Iranians had knowledge of English as a first or second language.

Here another interesting article showing how the majority of the Twitter messages are going out in ENGLISH.

The author also concerned with how the accounts were created pointing out the Jerusalem post went out of their way to mention the three.

http://www.chartingstocks.net/2009/06/proof-israeli-effort-to-destabilize-iran-via-twitter/

>>These twitting spammers began crying foul before the final votes were even counted, just as Mousavi had. The spammer @IranRiggedElect created his profile before a winner was announced and preformed the public service of informing us in the United States , in English and every 10 minutes, of the unfair election. He did so unselfishly, and without any regard for his fellow friends and citizens of Iran, who don’t speak English and don’t use Twitter!

Read that a couple times. This was PLANNED.

I personally have made no conclusions as to whether this election rigged. I am just trying to make it clear that over the past decade Iran has been demonized by the Western Media and its Governments and we should be very careful of the conclusions we draw when the sources are THAT suspect.