your village voice

Obama and Gaza

2008-01-23T14:00:00.000-05:00

This is what Obama wrote about the Israeli wall break in Egypt to the Ambassador:

Dear Ambassador Khalilzad,

I understand that today the UN Security Council met regarding the situation in Gaza, and that a resolution or statement could be forthcoming from the Council in short order.

I urge you to ensure that the Security Council issue no statement and pass no resolution on this matter that does not fully condenm the rocket assault Hamas has been conducting on civilians in southern Israel...

All of us are concerned about the impact of closed border crossings on Palestinian families. However, we have to understand why Israel is forced to do this... Israel has the right to respond while seeking to minimize any impact on civilians.

The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks... If it cannot bring itself to make these common sense points, I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

This is what I wrote to Obama:

Senator Obama,

I have supported you for some time well before your meteoric rise to the public eye. After embracing your stance on reducing nuclear weapons proliferation (including the US and other countries that have been previously exempt) and your ideas on peaceful resolution to conflicts, I was disappointed to read the letter you wrote to Ambassador Khalilzad. Although I too condemn the violence committed against Israel, I cannot believe that you would choose to ignore the greater humanitarian crisis in Gaza. No matter what the acting government has committed or sanctioned, an entire people cannot and should not be contained arbitrarily within a cage. I would have thought a candidate of your persuasion would have long ago decried the escalation tactics used both by Palestine and Israel, and like Reagan, condemned the walls that separate them.

How can you as a Christian condone walling up people and allowing no access from the outside? How can you as a humanitarian allow people to be treated like a herd of cattle? How can you as a candidate for the United States reject the principle of unlawful imprisonment in Guantanamo and accept this imprisonment? Is it really any surprise that the wall is coming down by brute force? What alternative do the people of Gaza have?

As a front runner for the president, I ask that you publically deplore this situation and demand that Israel allows some level of freedom in and out of the Gaza strip. Surely, that is more "common sense" than what you have proposed to the ambassador. And I think it would be a better way to display your "concern" for "Palestinian families."

Sincerely,

Joshua Hester
Concerned U.S. Citizen

Whether you agree with me or not, please write to Senator Obama if you have a chance.

Thanks for being involved. Pass this onto anyone who is remotely interested.

Betrayal

2007-05-25T09:52:00.000-05:00

Democrats or Republicans, neither is interested in establishing a lasting peace in Iraq.

From Keith Olbermann yesterday :

This is, in fact, a comment about… betrayal.

Few men or women elected in our history—whether executive or legislative, state or national—have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious, nor instructions more clear:
Get us out of Iraq.
Yet after six months of preparation and execution—half a year gathering the strands of public support; translating into action, the collective will of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies, the Democrats have managed only this:
The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a president—if not the worst president, then easily the most selfish, in our history—who happily blackmails his own people, and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand, that the Democrats “give the troops their money”;
The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans;
The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government.
The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised, are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.
You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions—Stop The War—have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you… for a handful of magic beans.
You may trot out every political cliché from the soft-soap, inside-the-beltway dictionary of boilerplate sound bites, about how this is the “beginning of the end” of Mr. Bush’s “carte blanche” in Iraq, about how this is a “first step.”
Well, Senator Reid, the only end at its beginning... is our collective hope that you and your colleagues would do what is right, what is essential, what you were each elected and re-elected to do.
Because this “first step”… is a step right off a cliff.
And this President!
How shameful it would be to watch an adult... hold his breath, and threaten to continue to do so, until he turned blue.
But how horrifying it is… to watch a President hold his breath and threaten to continue to do so, until innocent and patriotic Americans in harm’s way, are bled white.
You lead this country, sir?
You claim to defend it?
And yet when faced with the prospect of someone calling you on your stubbornness—your stubbornness which has cost 3,431 Americans their lives and thousands more their limbs—you, Mr. Bush, imply that if the Democrats don’t give you the money and give it to you entirely on your terms, the troops in Iraq will be stranded, or forced to serve longer, or have to throw bullets at the enemy with their bare hands.
How transcendentally, how historically, pathetic.
Any other president from any other moment in the panorama of our history would have, at the outset of this tawdry game of political chicken, declared that no matter what the other political side did, he would insure personally—first, last and always—that the troops would not suffer.
A President, Mr. Bush, uses the carte blanche he has already, not to manipulate an overlap of arriving and departing Brigades into a ‘second surge,’ but to say in unequivocal terms that if it takes every last dime of the monies already allocated, if it takes reneging on government contracts with Halliburton, he will make sure the troops are safe—even if the only safety to be found, is in getting them the hell out of there.
Well, any true President would have done that, Sir.
You instead, used our troops as political pawns, then blamed the Democrats when you did so.
Not that these Democrats, who had this country’s support and sympathy up until 48 hours ago, have not since earned all the blame they can carry home.
“We seem to be very near the bleak choice between war and shame,” Winston Churchill wrote to Lord Moyne in the days after the British signed the Munich accords with Germany in 1938. “My feeling is that we shall choose shame, and then have war thrown in, a little later…”
That’s what this is for the Democrats, isn’t it?
Their “Neville Chamberlain moment” before the Second World War.
All that’s missing is the landing at the airport, with the blinkered leader waving a piece of paper which he naively thought would guarantee “peace in our time,” but which his opponent would ignore with deceit.
The Democrats have merely streamlined the process.
Their piece of paper already says Mr. Bush can ignore it, with impugnity.
And where are the Democratic presidential hopefuls this evening?
See they not, that to which the Senate and House leadership has blinded itself?
Judging these candidates based on how they voted on the original Iraq authorization, or waiting for apologies for those votes, is ancient history now.
The Democratic nomination is likely to be decided... tomorrow.
The talk of practical politics, the buying into of the President’s dishonest construction “fund-the-troops-or-they-will-be-in-jeopardy,” the promise of tougher action in September, is falling not on deaf ears, but rather falling on Americans who already told you what to do, and now perceive your ears as closed to practical politics.
Those who seek the Democratic nomination need to—for their own political futures and, with a thousand times more solemnity and importance, for the individual futures of our troops—denounce this betrayal, vote against it, and, if need be, unseat Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi if they continue down this path of guilty, fatal acquiescence to the tragically misguided will of a monomaniacal president.
For, ultimately, at this hour, the entire government has failed us.
Mr. Reid, Mr. Hoyer, and the other Democrats... have failed us.
They negotiated away that which they did not own, but had only been entrusted by us to protect: our collective will as the citizens of this country, that this brazen War of Lies be ended as rapidly and safely as possible.
Mr. Bush and his government... have failed us.
They have behaved venomously and without dignity—of course.
That is all at which Mr. Bush is gifted.
We are the ones providing any element of surprise or shock here.
With the exception of Senator Dodd and Senator Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidates have (so far at least) failed us.
They must now speak, and make plain how they view what has been given away to Mr. Bush, and what is yet to be given away tomorrow, and in the thousand tomorrows to come.
Because for the next fourteen months, the Democratic nominating process—indeed the whole of our political discourse until further notice—has, with the stroke of a cursed pen, become about one thing, and one thing alone.
The electorate figured this out, six months ago.
The President and the Republicans have not—doubtless will not.
The Democrats will figure it out, during the Memorial Day recess, when they go home and many of those who elected them will politely suggest they stay there—and permanently.
Because, on the subject of Iraq...
The people have been ahead of the media....
Ahead of the government...
Ahead of the politicians...
For the last year, or two years, or maybe three.
Our politics... is now about the answer to one briefly-worded question.
Mr. Bush has failed.
Mr. Warner has failed.
Mr. Reid has failed.
So.
Who among us will stop this war—this War of Lies?
To he or she, fall the figurative keys to the nation.
To all the others—presidents and majority leaders and candidates and rank-and-file Congressmen and Senators of either party—there is only blame… for this shameful, and bi-partisan, betrayal.

Letter to the President

2007-05-15T22:37:00.000-05:00

Dear President Bush:

As a proud citizen of the United States of America and humble follower of Jesus Christ, I ask, in your capacity as chief executive of the federal government and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, that you close Camp Delta and Camp Echo in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prosecute all offenders to the fullest extent of our civil law, and negotiate releases for all detainees who cannot be so charged. All international citizens remaining uncharged or innocent should be re-integrated into their country of origin or if not, returned to their country of capture.

As another Republican war leader once appealed to his country, I, too, wish to address “the better angels of our nature.” For Jesus said, “[W]hatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” (Matt. 25:40) As Christians, we are led by example to feed the hungry, offer drink to the thirsty, give clothes to the stranger and visit those sick and in prison. As a citizen and believer, I cannot understand the need for detainment facilities operating outside of the United States and its laws, nor the meaning behind violating the rights of these detainees protected by both the United States and its allies.

As you have so often asserted, “We're a nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws.” We ask other countries to define democracy by the standards we set. We laud our system of check and balances, habeas corpus, and freedom of speech. We demonstrate our distaste for tyranny, no matter where it is found in the world. For in these beliefs, we echo the soul of our ancestors:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Despite these ideals, we detain at least four hundred people in Cuba, including sixty who were captured as children. Of these detainees, over two hundred may never face a trial, held indefinitely without charge. At least 38 prisoners are held by the CIA as “ghost detainees” and many covert intelligence camps exist throughout the world, outside of our justice system. This does not include the detainment camps in Iraq where countless Sunnis and Shiites have been tortured and killed at the hands of militias whose funds and weapons we supply.

In over five years, only one detainee has ever been convicted. Entering a plea agreement, Australian David Hicks received only a nine-month sentence. Unlike Australia, many countries who once clamored for release of their citizens now refuse to accept them back. No doubt the world fears that if these people were not terrorists before, they have now become so. The CIA has confirmed this reality.

We all must agree that the need for security is great, but surely, the part is not greater than the whole. As the events of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 have proven, the spirit of the United States cannot be crushed by tragedy. The spirit of the United States is defined by the defense of liberty and justice, not by the avoidance of these ideals. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” You have echoed the same sentiment:

The desire for freedom resides in every human heart. And that desire cannot be contained forever by prison walls, or martial laws, or secret police. Over time, and across the Earth, freedom will find a way.

Although our past may be riddled with low points, we are a country held to high aspirations. Through our missteps and scandals, we remain and should continue to remain committed to a global community united in peace. The undefined detainment of suspects does not hold the world to an example we wish them to follow. When we imprison without domestic or global jurisprudence, how can we emphasize law and order? When we claim that international law does not apply, how can we condemn the isolation and arrogance of other nations? The moral justification seems hypocritical and disingenuous.

As a supporter of the Civil Rights movement, I am sure you will remember the civil disobedience model implemented by Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Incarcerated for twelve days, he wrote the famous Letter from Birmingham Jail, where he justified the movement as a struggle of “moral law or the law of God” over what is “morally wrong and awful.” His example followed that of Mahatma Gandhi, whose fasting in prison both broke the back of oppression and calmed the angry spirit of his people. They were neither the first, nor surely the last that we should honor and respect as defenders of freedom and justice.

When I read of the hunger strikes in Guantanamo Bay, I was dismayed at how soon this history is forgotten. We answered their refusal to eat, not with the dignity every individual deserves, but with feeding tubes forced down their throats. Some tubes went so deep as to draw blood and puncture lungs. General Bantz Craddock even joked that at least hunger strikers got to choose the color of their feeding tube and the flavor of lozenge. Stripped of all rights as citizens or lawful enemy combatants, we extend the travesty further and deny them to be human beings.

As a member of the community of life, I know you must appreciate the value of life no matter how seemingly insignificant. Life cannot be curtailed or made forfeit by a whim, but only under due process of the law. Having overthrown the yoke of British oppression, our Founders intended the Bill of Rights as a safeguard against oppression, by protecting individuals from “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and ensuring that those arrested are “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.” Without lawful trials and just treatment of our enemies, how can our system of justice overcome the wanton violence of terrorism? If we define terrorism as unjust violence against innocent individuals, then should we not determine each detainee’s guilt or risk becoming terrorists ourselves?

For what claims can we make for freedom and justice if Guantanamo Bay remains as a log in our eye? If we are to combat terrorism and injustice, we must do so with the spirit and breadth of our laws or risk the legacy we leave to coming generations. It is when we are most desperate that we do the most astounding and terrible things. A breeding ground that generates desperation can only engender separation and hostility. If we are to fight against lawlessness, then should we not do it with the full force of the law? If we do not protect the rights of all people, there will be no difference between the innocent and the guilty. As Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. once observed:

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

I ask that you, as a man of faith and endowed with great power, will shut down the bases in Guantanamo Bay, and the extralegal system associated with them, to demonstrate to your people and the rest of world the ideals upon which our country is founded. This powerful gesture would echo in the halls of history for generations to come, and you would remain a leader of freedom and justice in troubled times.

Sincerely,

theprisoner6

Another World is Possible

2007-02-14T08:09:00.000-05:00

The Peace Surge in Washington

“I have talked to those in power, of both parties. I tell them there is another way to achieve global security. Not through hatred and war, but through love and compassion.”

“Do you know what they say?”

“Be realistic, Michael.”

“Do you know what I say?”

“Screw realism!”

Although Rabbi Michael Lerner’s words lacked the eloquence of the UCC Justice and Peace slogan (“Imagine – Another world is possible”), they hushed the hundreds in the Lutheran Church of the Reformation and left us gaping at their simplicity and sincerity. After a Buddhist meditation from Bhante Suhita Dharma and the rousing processional Siyahamba (“We are marching in the light of God”), Rabbi Lerner’s sermon lifted us beyond that day and challenged us to transform the world. After all, do we not believe in a God of transformation, that through God anything is possible?

On the heels of that epiphany, we were to turn to someone we did not know and answer the following:

“What experience or image or text has made you believe that a world of love and generosity is possible?”

Yes, I cheated and looked ahead in the leaflet, breaking that unwritten rule of worship. Even so, I could not find an answer. All that came to mind were visions of hatred: ecstatic Janjaweed pursuing Darfurian women and children as they attempted to draw water, the smoldering remains of a once-bustling Baghdad market after an IED explosion, the nude bodies of tortured detainees piled like trash in Abu Ghraib, and the wild eyes of a kidnapped contractor as harsh, indiscernible voices barked commands. When the moment came, I could do nothing, but turn to my left and exclaim there has to be a better way to treat each other.

* * *

On the same weekend that Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton spoke at a Des Moines high school with no mention of the Iraq War and Republican Senator from Virginia John Warner admitted guilt for allowing a troop surge in Vietnam, over half a million protestors rallied on the Washington Mall. As the Capital Police corralled us to the sidewalks and helicopters circled overhead, we were shouting, “This is what democracy looks like!” Considering the diversity of people assembled, this chant was especially apt.

There were gray-haired bongo drummers haunted by Vietnam ghosts and street entrepreneurs selling “Washington Peace March” shirts (where the date seemed conspicuously scrawled as if by magic marker). There were college students affiliated with the College Democrats, Democratic Society and Communist Youth Movement alongside US Army veterans, some having served in Iraq and at least one in active duty. There were Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Methodists, Mormons, Quakers, Presbyterians and of course Congregationalists. There were women from Code Pink screaming “Pull out!” and worker union chapters passing out “Impeach Bush” cards. There were teachers and children with signs reading “Less war; more education” and an angry Red Hat Society, some wheel-bound while others used canes. There were people carrying hastily scrawled messages on simple cardboard signs and one group with an elaborate white fabric structure in the shape of spine that read “Congress, get a backbone!” There were peace insignias and “Department of Peace” posters as well as signs that read “New Orleans, our Baghdad.” There were rally speakers of all kinds, from famous actors to legislators, from religious leaders to grass-root organizers.

I waited for over an hour to move five feet as we surged in both directions toward the capital. It took another half an hour before I could discern where the street was, feeling lost in the hundreds of thousands of bodies. It was at that moment that I realized the root of the despair and loneliness that brought me here. When I was alone, I felt insignificant. But when united with others, we seemed able to overcome anything. We were members in the Body of Christ that day. We were Church.

As if to punctuate the realization, I joined my voice as a large group belted out “This little light of mine.”

For more information on the Georgia Peace Movement in Atlanta, visit www.georgiapeace.org.

For more information on UCC Social Justice, visit www.ucctakeaction.org.

Good for them

2006-01-25T15:08:00.000-05:00

Law students left in protest at recent Attourney general talk

It's lies, it's lies and it's more lies!

2006-01-15T18:35:00.000-05:00

The Countdown to War with Iran
by Mike Whitney, www.dissidentvoice.org
January 15, 2006

Iran must defend itself if it is attacked by the United States or Israel.

Defending one’s country against unprovoked aggression is sanctioned under international law and is a requirement of true leadership. We would expect no different if either the United States or Israel was attacked.

The Sharon and Bush administrations have done an admirable job of poisoning public opinion against Iran, interpreting President Ahmadinejad’s comments about Israel and the Holocaust as a potential danger to Israel’s welfare. But such statements, however offensive, are commonplace in the Middle East and cannot be construed as a credible threat.

In fact, Iran has not demonstrated any territorial ambitions nor is it involved in the occupation of any foreign country as is true of both the United States and Israel.

source

More Lies About Iran
by Mike Whitney, www.dissidentvoice.org
January 15, 2006

There’s been a lot of rubbish written about Iran’s “removing the seals” from its uranium enrichment equipment.

The fearmongering Western media have exploited the expression for all it’s worth. Even those who are normally skeptical of the Bush propaganda machine are taken aback by this ominous sounding phrase.

What gibberish!

How else does one make nuclear fuel for electric power plants if the fuel-producing mechanism is under lock and key?

The fear-engendering description provided in the news would have the reader believe that “diabolical” Iranians are ripping off the seals with crowbars so they can quickly assemble their secret nuclear stockpile to bomb Tel Aviv.

This is the worse type of demagoguery.

The fuel that is produced from these uranium enrichment reactors DOES NOT PRODUCE WEAPONS-GRADE MATERIAL. That requires thousands of centrifuges which Iran does not have.

source

Iran should not be attacked because such an act would be based on lies, lies, lies...

What's your reason Iran shouldn't be attacked? Join and tell us.

I'm sure there's no reason to worry...

2006-01-01T08:44:00.000-05:00

US and Iran: Is Washington Planning a Military Strike?

Recent reports in the German media suggest that the United States may be preparing its allies for an imminent military strike against facilities that are part of Iran's suspected clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Published on Saturday, December 31, 2005 by Der Spiegel

It's hardly news that US President George Bush refuses to rule out possible military action against Iran if Tehran continues to pursue its controversial nuclear ambitions. But in Germany, speculation is mounting that Washington is preparing to carry out air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear sites perhaps even as soon as early 2006.

German diplomats began speaking of the prospect two years ago -- long before the Bush administration decided to give the European Union more time to convince Iran to abandon its ambitions, or at the very least put its civilian nuclear program under international controls. But the growing likelihood of the military option is back in the headlines in Germany thanks to a slew of stories that have run in the national media here over the holidays.

The most talked about story is a Dec. 23 piece by the German news agency DDP from journalist and intelligence expert Udo Ulfkotte. The story has generated controversy not only because of its material, but also because of the reporter's past. Critics allege that Ulfkotte in his previous reporting got too close to sources at Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the BND. But Ulfkotte has himself noted that he has been under investigation by the government in the past (indeed, his home and offices have been searched multiple times) for allegations that he published state secrets -- a charge that he claims would underscore rather than undermine the veracity of his work.

According to Ulfkotte's report, "western security sources" claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission.

DDP also reported that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan have been informed in recent weeks of Washington's military plans. The countries, apparently, were told that air strikes were a "possible option," but they were given no specific timeframe for the operations.

In a report published on Wednesday, the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel also cited NATO intelligence sources claiming that Washington's western allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. Of course, Bush has publicly stated for months that he would not take the possibility of a military strike off the table. What's new here, however, is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year.

Links to al-Qaida?

According to DDP, during his trip to Turkey, CIA chief Goss reportedly handed over three dossiers to Turkish security officials that purportedly contained evidence that Tehran is cooperating with Islamic terror network al-Qaida. A further dossier is said to contain information about the current status of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Sources in German security circles told the DDP reporter that Goss had ensured Ankara that the Turkish government would be informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened. The Turkish government has also been given the "green light" to strike camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran on the day in question.

The DDP report attributes the possible escalation to the recent anti-Semitic rants by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose belligerent verbal attacks on Israel (he described the Holocaust as a "myth" and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map") have strengthened the view of the American government that, in the case of the nuclear dispute, there's little likelihood Tehran will back down and that the mullahs are just attempting to buy time by continuing talks with the Europeans.

The German wire service also quotes a high-ranking German military official saying: "I would be very surprised if the Americans, in the mid-term, didn't take advantage of the opportunity delivered by Tehran. The Americans have to attack Iran before the country can develop nuclear weapons. After that would be too late."

Despite the wave of recent reports, it's naturally difficult to assess whether the United States has any concrete plans to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. In a January 2005 report in the New Yorker, US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh claimed that clandestine American commando groups had already infiltrated Iran in order to mark potential military targets.

At the time, the Bush administration did not dispute Hersh's reporting -- it merely sought to minimize its impact. In Washington, word circulated that the article was filled with "inaccurate statements." But no one rejected the core reporting behind the article. Bush himself explicitly stated he would not rule out the "option of war."

How great is the threat?

So is the region now on the verge of a military strike or even a war? In Berlin, the issue is largely being played down. During his inaugural visit with US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Washington last week, the possibility of a US air strike against Iran "hadn't been an issue," for new German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung, a Defense Ministry spokesman told SPIEGEL ONLINE.

But the string of visits by high-profile US politicians to Turkey and surrounding reports are drawing new attention to the issue. In recent weeks, the number of American and NATO security officials heading to Ankara has increased dramatically. Within a matter of only days, the FBI chief, then the CIA chief and, most recently, NATO General Secretary Jaap De Hoop Scheffer visited the Turkish capital. During her visit to Europe earlier this month, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also traveled to Turkey after a stopover in Berlin.

Leading the chorus of speculation are Turkish newspapers, which have also sought to connect these visits to plans for an attack on Iran. But so far none of the speculation has been based on hard facts. Writing about the meeting between Porter Goss and Tayyip Erdogan, the left-nationalist newspaper Cumhuriyet wrote: "Now It's Iran's Turn." But the paper didn't offer any evidence to corroborate the claims.

Instead, the paper noted that the meeting between the CIA chief and Erdogan lasted longer than an hour -- an unusual amount of time, especially considering Goss had previously met with the head of Turkey's intelligence service, the MIT. The Turkish media concluded that the meetings must have dealt with a very serious matter -- but they failed to uncover exactly what it was. Most media speculated that Erdogan and Goss might have discussed a common initiative against the PKK in northern Iraq. It's possible that Goss demanded secret Turkish intelligence on Iran in exchange. Regardless what the prospects are for a strike, there's little chance a US air strike against Iran would be launched from its military base in the Turkish city of Incirlik, but it is conceivable that the United States would inform Turkey prior to any strike.

Skepticism in Ankara

Until now the government in Ankara has viewed US military activities in the region at best with skepticism and at worst with open condemnation. At the beginning of 2003, Ankara even attempted to prevent an American ground offensive in northern Iraq against the Saddam regime. A still-irritated Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly blamed military problems in Iraq on the fact that this second front was missing.

Two weeks ago, Yasar Buyukanit, the commander of the Turkish army and probable future chief of staff of the country's armed forces, flew to Washington. After the visit he made a statement that relations between the Turkish army and the American army were once again on an excellent footing. Buyukanit's warm and fuzzy words, contrasted greatly with his past statements that if the United States and the Kurds in northern Iraq proved incapable of containing the PKK in the Kurd-dominated northern part of the country and preventing it from attacking Turkey, Buyukanit would march into northern Iraq himself.

At the same time, Ankara has little incentive to show a friendly face to Tehran -- Turkish-Iranian relations have long been icy. For years now, Tehran has criticized Turkey for maintaining good relations with Israel and even cooperating with the Israeli army. Yet despite those ties to Israel, Ahmadinejad's recent anti-Israeli outbursts were reported far less extensively in Turkey than in Europe.

Still, Erdogan has been demonstrably friendly towards Israel recently -- as evidenced by Erdogan's recent phone call to Ariel Sharon, congratulating the prime minister on his recent recovery from heart surgery. In the past, relations between Erdogan and Sharon have been reserved, but recently the two have grown closer. Nevertheless, Turkey's government has distanced itself from Sharon's threats to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon on his own if nobody else steps up to the task.

The Turkish government has also repeatedly stated that it opposes military action against both Iran and Syria. The key political motivation here is that -- at least when it comes to the Kurdish question -- Turkey, Syria and Iran all agree on one thing: they are opposed to the creation of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. But if the United States moves forward with an attack against Iran, Turkey will have no choice but to jump on board -- either as an active or passive partner.

It's a scenario that has Erdogan and his military in a state of deep unease. After all, even experts in the West are skeptical of whether a military intervention against nuclear installations in Iran could succeed. The more likely scenario is that an attack aiming to stop Iran's nuclear program could instead simply bolster support for Ahmadinejad in the region.

© 2005 Der Spiegel

source

Why should we not attack Iran?
Because it's utterly wrong.

Join so_many_reasons and give your reason why we should not attack Iran.

More Abuses In Iraq

2005-11-16T09:46:00.000-05:00

Not surprisingly, the US-backed "Salvador Operation" (Police Or Terrorists With Badges) in Iraq has led to widespread abuses by the Shiite majority and the commandos it employs. Yesterday, American troops found 173 detainees in the basement of an Interior Ministry building in Baghdad. They were brutally tortured and were found desperately malnourished.

In a CNN Interview, Major General Hussein Kamal described what he saw:

I saw signs of physical abuse by brutal beating, one or two detainees were paralyzed and some had skin peeling off various parts of their bodies.

Both American authorities and the Iraqi government attempted to distance themselves from the situation. American guards claimed that only 40 men were held in the building before the raid, and Iraq Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari organized a news conference to denounce the abuse and declare an investigation into it.

If this surprises anyone, then they have not been observing the Iraqi situation during the last few years. Regardless, it is saddening and sickens me that the US government is in collusion with the constant degradation of human rights in Iraq.

I applaud Major General Hussein Kamal for his heroism in uncovering this issue, no matter how accidental:

They were being abused. This is totally unacceptable treatment and it is denounced by the minister and everyone in Iraq.

We're going to hit every single one of them.

We need more Hussein Kamals in Iraq . . . and fast. If it takes this much pressure to mediate between the Shiite majority and Sunnis/Kurds, I have little doubt the US presence is only prolonging the civil war.

Middle East Peace Sputters Alive

2005-11-15T14:33:00.000-05:00

Even as I lamented the fate of Middle East peace, a bright spot has materialized. Thanks in large part to the last-minute support of US Secretary Condoleezza Rice, Israel and Palestine have agreed to open the Gaza-Egypt border checkpoint at Rajah on November 25th. Passenger bus convoys are to begin on December 15th and truck convoys in January 2006. This is small step towards allowing Palestinians some measure of control over their own borders. A small step that has taken months to iron out and required the US Secretary to mediate has finally been taken.

Rice set forth an ambitious vision despite the overwhelming deadlock:

The important thing here is that people have understood that there is an important balance between security on the one hand, and, on the other hand, allowing the Palestinian people freedom of movement.

The other important point is that everybody recognizes that if the Palestinians can move more freely and export their agriculture, that Gaza will be a much better place, where the institutions of democracy can begin to take hold.

I applaud Condoleezza Rice for her efforts. But if it takes a US Secretary to negotiate every step of the peace process, I fear the these two countries will never resolve their differences. Without a momentum pushed by both countries, more international effort will be needed. Or at least a more consistent international support in the mediation process.

Meanwhile, as the BBC News reports, politics never rest, even after this recent agreement:

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas - facing a serious challenge from the Islamist group Hamas - wants to see movement on the big issues of borders, settlements, refugees and Jerusalem.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon - facing challenges from within his ruling Likud Party and from a Labour Party struggling to revive its fortunes - wants to avoid the big sensitive issues and concentrate instead on the need to curb Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups.

The danger is that any momentum will be discarded by potentially more radical administrations. The world needs to take notice and end this affair before the righteous rampage engulfs the entire Muslim world. This should be part of a larger US strategy to end Islamic terrorism, hopefully not a gambit at higher poll numbers.

Not All Detainees Are Terrorists

2005-11-14T13:45:00.000-05:00

I have argued the assertion many times (Close Down Gitmo, Redefining Liberty & Justice) that detainees are guilty of their crimes. It is assumed that a detainee is either a terrorist or in collusion with terrorist network simply because of their internment. It is only on this assumption that the US executive is able to detain these individuals and short-circuit the American legal system. Indeed, it is a fargone conclusion that terrorists deserve any rights afforded to US citizens or other nationals.

But what if the means are not justified by the ends? What if an innocent person is detained? How can the system be justified if it is applied to non-terrorists? P. Sabin Willett, one of the lawyers representing Gitmo detainees, claims it cannot be, and detainees should be afforded the right to question the detainment:

As the Senate prepared to vote Thursday to abolish the writ of habeas corpus, Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl were railing about lawyers like me. Filing lawsuits on behalf of the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Terrorists! Kyl must have said the word 30 times.

As I listened, I wished the senators could meet my client Adel.

Adel is innocent. I don't mean he claims to be. I mean the military says so. It held a secret tribunal and ruled that he is not al Qaeda, not Taliban, not a terrorist. The whole thing was a mistake: The Pentagon paid $5,000 to a bounty hunter, and it got taken.

The military people reached this conclusion, and they wrote it down on a memo, and then they classified the memo and Adel went from the hearing room back to his prison cell. He is a prisoner today, eight months later. And these facts would still be a secret but for one thing: habeas corpus.

Only habeas corpus got Adel a chance to tell a federal judge what had happened. Only habeas corpus revealed that it wasn't just Adel who was innocent -- it was Abu Bakker and Ahmet and Ayoub and Zakerjain and Sadiq -- all Guantanamo "terrorists" whom the military has found innocent.

Habeas corpus is older than even our Constitution. It is the right to compel the executive to justify itself when it imprisons people. But the Senate voted to abolish it for Adel, in favor of the same "combatant status review tribunal" that has already exonerated him. That secret tribunal didn't have much impact on his life, but Graham says it is good enough.

Adel lives in a small fenced compound 8,000 miles from his home and family. The Defense Department says it is trying to arrange for a country to take him -- some country other than his native communist China, where Muslims like Adel are routinely tortured. It has been saying this for more than two years. But the rest of the world is not rushing to aid the Bush administration, and meanwhile Adel is about to pass his fourth anniversary in a U.S. prison.

He has no visitors save his lawyers. He has no news in his native language, Uighur. He cannot speak to his wife, his children, his parents. When I first met him on July 15, in a grim place they call Camp Echo, his leg was chained to the floor. I brought photographs of his children to another visit, but I had to take them away again. They were "contraband," and he was forbidden to receive them from me.

In a wiser past, we tried Nazi war criminals in the sunlight. Summing up for the prosecution at Nuremberg, Robert Jackson said that "the future will never have to ask, with misgiving: 'What could the Nazis have said in their favor?' History will know that whatever could be said, they were allowed to say. . . . The extraordinary fairness of these hearings is an attribute of our strength."

The world has never doubted the judgment at Nuremberg. But no one will trust the work of these secret tribunals.

Mistakes are made: There will always be Adels. That's where courts come in. They are slow, but they are not beholden to the defense secretary, and in the end they get it right. They know the good guys from the bad guys. Take away the courts and everyone's a bad guy.

The secretary of defense chained Adel, took him to Cuba, imprisoned him and sends teams of lawyers to fight any effort to get his case heard. Now the Senate has voted to lock down his only hope, the courts, and to throw away the key forever. Before they do this, I have a last request on his behalf. I make it to the 49 senators who voted for this amendment.

I'm back in Cuba today, maybe for the last time. Come down and join me. Sen. Graham, Sen. Kyl -- come meet the sleepy-eyed young man with the shy smile and the gentle manner. Afterward, as you look up at the bright stars over Cuba, remembering what you've seen in Camp Echo, see whether the word "terrorist" comes quite so readily to your lips. See whether the urge to abolish judicial review rests easy on your mind, or whether your heart begins to ache, as mine does, for the country I thought I knew.

Have Veteran's Day But Keep Your Mouth Shut

2005-11-11T11:33:00.000-05:00

While US citizens celebrate their veterans and the war in Iraq continues its bloodshed, Veterans Affairs Committee Chairperson Steve Buyer (R-Indiana) announced on Tuesday that veteran groups could no longer make legislative recommendations at joint House-Senate hearings. This, after a $1 billion shortfall in the Veteran Affairs Department for 2005 leads many veterans to believe their opinion is being trimmed out of Congress.

Dennis Cullinan, director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), was understandably appalled:

We think it's an absolutely abhorrent idea. These things were initiated somewhere around 1950, and they represent a crowning moment for our grassroots membership.

This is very convenient as the $700 million difference between the House and Senate appropriations is currently under intense scrutiny by veteran lobbyists. Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington) warns this will undermine the extra $1.5 billion added to the Senate version of the bill:

Veterans had a victory in July, but that victory is about to be snatched away because no one is watching. The Senate allocation is the number that should be sent to President Bush for his signature. Every dollar below that Senate level is a dollar taken away from a veteran.

Whether you agree or disagree with the government policies that lead us to war, our veterans deserve to be treated well. Not only should their voice be heard, but they shouldn't have to speak up again. They already proved through their actions their devotion to our country. Now it is our turn to show our appreciation back.

Email your representatives and let them know how you feel about this (House | Senate).

Blair defeated in critical vote.

2005-11-10T11:20:00.000-05:00

Thank goodness. It depresses me that we even have to have this argument to be honest. The idea of 90 days without trial should be a repellent one to anyone who believes in basic justice.

I think even ignoring the human rights issue, the fact is that internment (which is really what this is) does not work. What many people don't realise is that the police get it wrong, and on something as difficult to work out, they get it wrong a lot. However, the people they might well accuse are those who were probably swaying on the issue of terrorism. Being thrown in jail without charge for 3 whole months may not cause them to attack innocent people, but they might be more inclined to help those who would. They certainly will never come to the police with information again.

The sad thing is is Tony Blair seems to truly believe he is doing the right thing. Its so true that those who believe wholeheartedly in their cause are capable of doing the most harm.

Effects of Globalization and Racism On France

2005-11-10T08:16:00.000-05:00

After two weeks of violence in France's city suburbs, the riots seem to be slowing down. According to National Police Chief Michel Gaudin, only 482 cars were burned and 203 people arrested last night. This does not indicate an end to the violence, but compared to 617 torched cars and 330 arrests the night before, it does signal a "significant decline." Now is the time to clear away the rubble and begin the careful analysis of the French restlessness among its immigrant population.

Having voted against the EU Constitution earlier this year, French citizens, both native and immigrant, largely rejected the trends of increased globalization and marginalization of its workers. This was also hailed as a cultural victory for French nationalization over European assimilation and a damning referendum on President Jacques Chirac's economic and social policies. This explains the general unrest in France, but not in its immigrant population. The immigration problem hinges on the tenets of French egalitarianism.

As Robert Levin once put it:

France is fairly egalitarian - for Frenchmen. You have to be a Frenchman, or become one.

Mass immigration did not occur in France until after World War II, when huge numbers of North Africans began to flee there. Muslims make up 5-10% of France's 60.7 million people.

France expects immigrants to assimilate. In schools, standard history curriculum begins with "our ancestors, the Gauls," no matter where the students came from. Affirmative action is so controversial because it undermines the ideal of a "nation of legally indistinguishable individuals."

French economic policies are fixed around protecting and preserving its culture. This includes limited working hours, large social welfare benefits, sheltered industries (especially farming), and restrictions onentrepreneurss and free competition. These policies have helped contribute to the 40% jobless rate in many immigrant neighborhoods.

As Mark LeVine describes it, the current riots have a historical precedence and hypocrisy behind them:

While unusual in their scope, the riots are in not unprecedented. A similar "intifada of the cities" broke out 15 years ago in response to the same conditions in the banlieues, or suburban ghettos, where a lack of educational and employment opportunities and dismal housing conditions created, in the words of then-Paris Mayor Jacques Chirac, a "reign of soft terror" that left young people with little choice but "to revolt."

The state could maintain its policy of trying to keep the order while band-aiding the endemic problems, but for how long?

We now know the answer. Days after Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy announced a "war without mercy" against crime in France's ghettos, two young Muslim teenagers were electrocuted while hiding in a power substation from police, sparking the violence of the last two weeks. They hid in such a dangerous place precisely to escape a police force - and a state - that has long viewed most poor Africans and Muslims as the kind of "criminals and other troublemakers" upon whom Sarkozy had declared war.

Now that he's president, Chirac can no longer speak of the terror caused by government policies and societal neglect. Instead he argues that "the Republic is completely determined to be stronger than those who want to sow violence or fear." Similarly, Prime Minister de Villepin argues that "order and justice will be the final word in our country."

What both men cannot acknowledge is that in the banlieues , the "Republic" can be the very source of the violence and fear its leaders are now trying to overcome. As Chirac once understood, the young rioters cannot be blamed for concluding that when "justice" and "order" are incompatible, the only way to achieve the former is to bring disorder to the Republic as a whole. Indeed, after a week and a half of violence, the government decided to "restore" and even increase funds for much-needed reconstruction, education and similar projects.

Perhaps this will begin the dialogue in ending this cultural clash before it takes hold in other European nations. The violence of the rioters is indefensible, but their frustration is not. The immediate need to restore order will only solve the current crisis, but not the long-term quandary that France and ultimately, the rest of the world, faces.

What Is Happening In France?

2005-11-08T11:36:00.000-05:00

I must admit, no matter how much I try, I feel poorly equiped at deciphering the recent riots in Paris and surrounding areas. I know that that this is in some small part a reaction to French police going into an "occupied zone." Most American media seems to want to characterize it as a Muslim reaction against Christians, solely reducing it to a religious showdown.

So rather than offer an uninformed opinion, I rather offer Amir Taheri's article in The NY Post. I hardly agree with his assertions on assimilation, but there is no doubt this situation is a symptom of a cultural clash. Tolerance, not cultural tyranny is the only long-term answer. Solving the current crisis first will take more than that.

Why Paris is Burning

AS THE night falls, the "troubles" start — and the pattern is always the same.

Bands of youths in balaclavas start by setting fire to parked cars, break shop windows with baseball bats, wreck public telephones and ransack cinemas, libraries and schools. When the police arrive on the scene, the rioters attack them with stones, knives and baseball bats.

The police respond by firing tear-gas grenades and, on occasions, blank shots in the air. Sometimes the youths fire back — with real bullets.

These scenes are not from the
West Bank but from 20 French cities, mostly close to Paris, that have been plunged into a European version of the intifada that at the time of writing appears beyond control.

The troubles first began in Clichy-sous-Bois, an underprivileged suburb east of Paris, a week ago. France's bombastic interior minister, Nicholas Sarkozy, responded by sending over 400 heavily armed policemen to "impose the laws of the republic," and promised to crush "the louts and hooligans" within the day. Within a few days, however, it had dawned on anyone who wanted to know that this was no "outburst by criminal elements" that could be handled with a mixture of braggadocio and batons.

By Monday, everyone in Paris was speaking of "an unprecedented crisis." Both Sarkozy and his boss, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, had to cancel foreign trips to deal with the riots.

How did it all start? The accepted account is that sometime last week, a group of young boys in Clichy engaged in one of their favorite sports: stealing parts of parked cars.

Normally, nothing dramatic would have happened, as the police have not been present in that suburb for years.

The problem came when one of the inhabitants, a female busybody, telephoned the police and reported the thieving spree taking place just opposite her building. The police were thus obliged to do something — which meant entering a city that, as noted, had been a no-go area for them.

Once the police arrived on the scene, the youths — who had been reigning over Clichy pretty unmolested for years — got really angry. A brief chase took place in the street, and two of the youths, who were not actually chased by the police, sought refuge in a cordoned-off area housing a power pylon. Both were electrocuted.

Once news of their deaths was out, Clichy was all up in arms.

With cries of "God is great," bands of youths armed with whatever they could get hold of went on a rampage and forced the police to flee.

The French authorities could not allow a band of youths to expel the police from French territory. So they hit back — sending in Special Forces, known as the CRS, with armored cars and tough rules of engagement.

Within hours, the original cause of the incidents was forgotten and the issue jelled around a demand by the representatives of the rioters that the French police leave the "occupied territories." By midweek, the riots had spread to three of the provinces neighboring Paris, with a population of 5.5 million.

But who lives in the affected areas? In Clichy itself, more than 80 percent of the inhabitants are Muslim immigrants or their children, mostly from Arab and black Africa. In other affected towns, the Muslim immigrant community accounts for 30 percent to 60 percent of the population. But these are not the only figures that matter. Average unemployment in the affected areas is estimated at around 30 percent and, when it comes to young would-be workers, reaches 60 percent.

In these suburban towns, built in the 1950s in imitation of the Soviet social housing of the Stalinist era, people live in crammed conditions, sometimes several generations in a tiny apartment, and see "real French life" only on television.

The French used to flatter themselves for the success of their policy of assimilation, which was supposed to turn immigrants from any background into "proper Frenchmen" within a generation at most.

That policy worked as long as immigrants came to France in drips and drops and thus could merge into a much larger mainstream. Assimilation, however, cannot work when in most schools in the affected areas, fewer than 20 percent of the pupils are native French speakers.

France has also lost another powerful mechanism for assimilation: the obligatory military service abolished in the 1990s.

As the number of immigrants and their descendants increases in a particular locality, more and more of its native French inhabitants leave for "calmer places," thus making assimilation still more difficult.

In some areas, it is possible for an immigrant or his descendants to spend a whole life without ever encountering the need to speak French, let alone familiarize himself with any aspect of the famous French culture.

The result is often alienation. And that, in turn, gives radical Islamists an opportunity to propagate their message of religious and cultural apartheid.

Some are even calling for the areas where Muslims form a majority of the population to be reorganized on the basis of the "millet" system of the Ottoman Empire: Each religious community (millet) would enjoy the right to organize its social, cultural and educational life in accordance with its religious beliefs.

In parts of France, a de facto millet system is already in place. In these areas, all women are obliged to wear the standardized Islamist "hijab" while most men grow their beards to the length prescribed by the sheiks.

The radicals have managed to chase away French shopkeepers selling alcohol and pork products, forced "places of sin," such as dancing halls, cinemas and theaters, to close down, and seized control of much of the local administration.

A reporter who spent last weekend in Clichy and its neighboring towns of Bondy, Aulnay-sous-Bois and Bobigny heard a single overarching message: The French authorities should keep out.

"All we demand is to be left alone," said Mouloud Dahmani, one of the local "emirs" engaged in negotiations to persuade the French to withdraw the police and allow a committee of sheiks, mostly from the Muslim Brotherhood, to negotiate an end to the hostilities.

President Jacques Chirac and Premier de Villepin are especially sore because they had believed that their opposition to the toppling of
Saddam Hussein in 2003 would give France a heroic image in the Muslim community.

That illusion has now been shattered — and the Chirac administration, already passing through a deepening political crisis, appears to be clueless about how to cope with what the Parisian daily France Soir has called a "ticking time bomb."

It is now clear that a good portion of France's Muslims not only refuse to assimilate into "the superior French culture," but firmly believe that Islam offers the highest forms of life to which all mankind should aspire.

So what is the solution? One solution, offered by Gilles Kepel, an adviser to Chirac on Islamic affairs, is the creation of "a new Andalusia" in which Christians and Muslims would live side by side and cooperate to create a new cultural synthesis.

The problem with Kepel's vision, however, is that it does not address the important issue of political power. Who will rule this new Andalusia: Muslims or the largely secularist Frenchmen?

Suddenly, French politics has become worth watching again, even though for the wrong reasons.

Amir Taheri, editor of the French quarterly "Politique internationale," is a member of Benador Associates.

Darwin Is No Heathen

2005-11-08T10:33:00.000-05:00

The Australian broke an interesting story yesterday:

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better". His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

Amen. I don't agree with the Catholic Church's politics and many of its procedural policies, but when it comes to theology, they are more intellectual than most. It is ridiculous to assume a fragmented creation story could take the place of science, even among the religious. Religion is a way of life, requiring generous reason and rational peppered with faith. Taking things literally is too easy to be called a religion. Even chimps can be trained to read and follow instructions. It is the thinking part that cannot be forgotten.

I am glad for this announcement, but the Church will still need to atone for Galileo and other scientists it has persecuted in the past.

Flesh for peace...

2005-11-07T19:23:00.000-05:00

Palestinian boy's organs go to Israelis

Donations seen as an act of peace

By Joel Greenberg
CHICAGO TRIBUNE

November 7, 2005

JENIN, West Bank – Ismail Khatib watched his slain 12-year-old son lowered into a grave in this West Bank city yesterday, knowing that organs transplanted from his body would save lives in Israel.

The boy, Ahmed Ismail Khatib, was shot by Israeli soldiers Thursday as he played in a street with a toy rifle at the entrance to the Jenin refugee camp.

The army said soldiers on a raid to arrest militants had come under fire and shot back from their vehicle when they spotted the boy from more than 100 yards away, mistaking him for a gunman.

Ahmed was critically wounded in the head and taken to a hospital in the Israeli city of Haifa. When doctors told his parents there was no hope for his survival, they agreed to donate his organs. Yesterday, the organs were transplanted into six Israelis.

It was a rare moment of humanity in the blood-soaked Palestinian-Israeli conflict, highlighted on Israeli news broadcasts as an act of peace.

Ismail Khatib said he had lost a brother who died of kidney failure and understood the desperate need for organ donations.

"When the doctor told me that there was no hope that my son would live, my brother came to mind, and I thought that I could help," he said. "The recipients were unknown, and it didn't matter to me whether they were Jewish, Muslim or Christian. It was a humanitarian matter, so that someone else could live."

Yesterday, Ahmed's heart was beating in the chest of Samah Gadban, a 12-year-old girl from Pekiin, a village of the Druze sect in northern Israel. She had waited five years for a transplant.

Her mother, Yusra Gadban, wept tears of gratitude as her daughter lay in intensive care in a hospital near Tel Aviv. She said she wanted to call Ahmed's mother. "I will ask her to receive us for a visit at her house, so I can hug her and kiss her and thank her for saving the life of my daughter," she said.

The boy's lungs were transplanted to a 14-year-old girl suffering from cystic fibrosis, his kidneys to a 4-year-old girl and 5-year-old boy, and sections of his liver to a 7-month-old girl and 58-year-old woman.

"Part of our son is still alive," said Abla Khatib, Ahmed's mother, weak with grief after her son's body was brought home to her before burial. "We gave life to someone else. We proved that we want peace."

Near his son's fresh grave, Ismail Khatib said he believed the organ donation had sent an important message to Israelis.

"Israel sees the Jenin refugee camp as a factory for terrorists," he said. "This proves to Israel that there are people here who understand the meaning of humanity. . . . The occupation is barbaric. Maybe a child who received an organ from my son will grow up to be a leader and put an end to this aggression."

source

This story leaves me speachless.

Bush Defends And Denies Torture

2005-11-07T11:10:00.000-05:00

While US Vice President Dick Cheney is trying to get a CIA exemption from the Senate's anti-torture legislation and the disclosure of clandestine bases across Eastern Europe, President Bush had this to say to reporters:

We do not torture.

Good. No torture.

There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again. So you bet we will aggressively pursue them but we will do so under the law.

Huh? So we do torture people?

How does one answer this? This is doublespeak, plain and simple. "Yes, we want to use torture and have secret bases in other countries to do it, but no, we don't torture."

What he also fails to mention is that his administration routinely enforces and ignores laws based on executive whim. What is illegal here is not considered illegal somewhere else, so they are "under the law." What is considered legal has also been made ambiguous through the constant revising of what a detainee is and what rights they have (see Redefining Liberty and Justice).

Quite a double standard. Hardly surprising from a president aspiring to be dictator:

If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.

More true and fateful words were ever spoken by George W. Bush. And America is starting to realize it.

Sony Creates Security Hole In Windows

2005-11-04T09:23:00.000-05:00

Usually I attempt to forego my "tech talk" in this blog, trying to focus my attention on news, politics and world affairs. But some of the newer anti-piracy software out there has been encroaching too much into our personal freedoms for me to ignore. Sony, considered the creator of the CD format, has now found a way to kill privacy and security in one fell swoop.

I have argued before that copyright was never meant to restrict "fair use," and that electronic copies of music should be controlled by listeners and artists, not record companies (Supremes In A Digital Age). I have also agreed with those who claim the "virtual world" has the potentional to become more restrictive than the "real world," throttling creativity and innovation. So, the freedoms once empitomized by the internet are now being replaced with tyranny and privacy invasion.

But now we have proof positive of what was long held as a "wild conspiracy theory": large companies are hacking into our personal lives, claiming to reduce piracy. Sony, in an age where CD sales are plummeting, decides to reduce them even further by forcing hacking software onto their customers' machines. Digital Rights Management (DRM) is the software that Sony and other CD manufacturers are installing on their CDs to restrict piracy. The concept is to allow only a set number of electronic copies from users. It only works with Windows systems, only attaches itself from legally-purchased CDs.

Though I already have problems with that, Mark Russinovich of Sysinternals found something even more sinister in Sony's DRM: a rootkit. Rootkits are typically used by hackers to hide certain files or directories from the OS, most often to viruses and worms. This was obviously an attempt for Sony to conceal their anti-privacy files from prying eyes. This is mentioned only in broad terms in their End User License Agreement (EULA) and on an ambiguous CD label ("DRM Software Inside!").

Sony's official word is laughable. At most, a typical user can user can download a "fix" that does nothing more than unhide the offending files. Charlie Demerjian of The Inquirer describes the procedure from there:

The funniest part is that you don't actually remove the software with this tool, only make it visible, and you are still infected up and down with DRM. Should you be lucid enough to realise that you don't want this crap within a few miles of your system, you have to go through the grilling process above. Want to make it seem even more surreal? If you remove the malware and DRM infection, you can't play the CD anymore. Nope, the money you spent on Sony products is gone. Mal-way or the highway.

If you try to remove it yourself, you risk breaking your optical discs, or it kills them for you. Mark from Sysinternals is more than smart enough to figure out how to fix this, but are you? Off the top of your head, how do you do that again, no looking it up? To make matters worse, it installs itself so it runs in safe mode, and if it conflicts with something, you are really hosed. Sony's response? "This component is not malicious and does not compromise security.".

There already are exploits out there that take advantage of this.

Sony and other record companies should be sued for these kinds of actions. If this is allowed to stand, I have no doubt more companies will follow Sony's example. We need federal legislation to stop this.

Interesting Point On Abortion Debate

2005-11-01T11:57:00.000-05:00

Ok, in reading LJ's group conservatism, I found an interesting side to the age-old abortion issue:

Both the mother and fetus have rights, including the right to choose...I'm assuming that you believe that since the child cannot advocate a position, that the choice is automatically "life" and that supersedes the mother's choice...

Now, with that precedent set, shouldn't it follow that parental consent essentially should be meaningless?

It is interesting for me because I have never considered that life magically begins at conception. But, even in assuming that a zygote is a life worth protecting, the pro-life and pro-choice positions reach a paradox. Whose life is more important? The mother's or child's?

If it is the mother, then she has every right to do with her body as she wishes. If it is the child, then we assume its choice is to live. So, that in taking up the "rights of a fetus" the role and importance of the mother is marginalized. Not to mention, the decision of the fetus is assumed, not verified.

At what point, does a mother have parental consent over her child? After birth? Does this mean that before a birth, the child is emancipated, and becomes subservient after birth? This produces some serious legal and moral quandaries.

Alito Will NOT Overturn Roe v. Wade

2005-11-01T10:18:00.000-05:00

Conservative federal appeals judge Samuel Alito, the new Supreme Court nomination announced yesterday to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, is not as conservative as diehard Republicans and Democrats would have people believe. Touting a 15-year career on the Philadelphia-based US Courts of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, Alito seems decidely more qualified than Bush's failed Mier's nomination. His many decisions on the 3rd Circuit suggest he is more prone to follow precedent and court convention than rightwing radicalism.

Here are some concrete examples of his opinions:

1991 - Voted to uphold a Pennsylvania law requiring women seeking abortions to notify their husbands. This law had many exceptions including spousal abuse and medical emergency. Using the Roe v. Wade standard, he disagreed that the law caused "undue burden" on the state and, though Alito considered it a poor public policy, believed it was "reasonable" under the Pennsylvania.

1995 - Voted to invalidate Pennsylvania restrictions on publicly funded abortions for women who are victims of rape or incest. Alito and another judge came to this decision based upon federal policy trumping the state measures.

2000 - Ruled that a New Jersey law banning late-term abortions was unconstitutional. Again, this was based on precedent, not his own personal views on abortion.

1999 - Ruled that Muslim police officers in Newark could keep their beards for religious reasons.

1993 -Voted for the right of an Iranian woman to seek asylum on grounds of fear of persecution for her gender and feminist ideas.

2004 - Voted for the right of student newspapers to carry alcohol adverts as a matter of free speech.

1998 - Ruled that a public display of a creche and menorah did not violate prohibitions on government endorsement of religion because it also included non-religious symbols including Frosty the Snowman.

Though I am sure more will come out, the startling revelation is that Alito is not what the radical conservative base wants nor is it as bad as the Democrats might want it to be. Regardless, it is very likely that the US Senate will have filibuster on its hands with this nomination, no matter how well-qualified and reasonably balanced. I predict Alito, like Roberts, will become more liberal on the Supreme Court, especially considering his heavy dependence on precedents.

Sources - AP, BBCNews

Trick-Or-Treaters Subject To Searches

2005-10-31T13:54:00.000-05:00

It seems the US Department of Homeland Security is on alert for potential mishief from Halloween terrorists.

According to The Onion:

WASHINGTON, DC—Responding to "a possible threat of terror and fright," Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced Monday that trick-or-treaters will be subject to random bag searches this Halloween season.

"Individuals concealing their identities through clever disguise, and under cover of night, may attempt to use the unspecified threat of 'tricks' to extort 'treats' from unsuspecting victims," Chertoff said. "Such scare tactics may have been tolerated in the past, but they will not be allowed to continue this Halloween."

While he would not elaborate on the specific threat, Chertoff said his office had "heard a couple spooky tales," and indicated that there was good reason to believe that Americans face "a very ghoulish scenario" this October.

"We have done and will continue to do everything we can to protect citizens from those who would play on our fears," a haunted Chertoff said. "Nevertheless, Americans are advised to be in a state of readiness."

National Guard troops and local police are being stationed at checkpoints in residential neighborhoods to seize the contents of any paper bags, pillowcases, plastic pumpkins, or other receptacles. Additionally, candy-sniffing dogs will be posted at regular intervals to locate and devour suspicious items.

Local, county, and state officials have been placed on orange alert, with strict orders to confiscate and investigate bags containing Bit-O-Honey, Snickers, Baby Ruth, Twix, Butterfingers, Mr. Goodbar, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, gum, and any and all forms of taffy.

Happy Halloween!

Rosa Parks Memorial Service Today

2005-10-31T10:52:00.000-05:00

Rosa Parks died October 24th at 92 in Michigan. Only days later, Congress approved of her body to lie in state at the Capitol Rotunda, the first woman ever honored this way. The viewing ended this morning at 10am, with a Memorial Service to be held at 1pm at Metropolitan AME Church in District.

There Goes Middle East Peace... (Again)

2005-10-28T11:23:00.000-05:00

Though relatively quiet on the Palestinian front before Wednesday's suicide bombing, Israel's anticipated retaliation is looming over the drawn-out reconciliation process. Is there any chance that national sovereignty and future peace will overwhelm the heated actions and rhetoric of these countries?

According to The Globe and Mail, Israeli soldiers are massing outside the Gaza Strip, preparing for a ground invasion to root out Palestinian militants. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, after being lauded for dismantling thousands of Israeli settlements, has ordered a "wide-ranging and continuous" operation in response to Wednesday's bombing. In a statement from his office, Mr. Sharon warned he would not meet with PA President Mahmoud Abbas if such attacks continued:

Unfortunately, the Palestinian Authority is not taking any serious steps in -- and is not serious about -- the struggle against terrorism. Therefore, we decided and agreed that we will conduct the struggle against terrorism in all its aspects.

In such a situation, I will not meet with Abu Mazen, and the Palestinians are losing all of their national dreams due to this situation.

Terrorists must be elated. Their dreams of jihad are coming closer to fruition the longer Israel matches atrocity with atrocity. Surely, this undermines any thread of control Mahmoud Abbas has over radical Palestinian groups in his country's midst.

This is a sick Greek tragedy, where the end is already pre-ordained and all are doomed to follow into oblivion. If both sides cannot respect the other, this part of the world will go up in nuclear flames.

I only hope the world community will stop it before it gets that far. But even by then, the centuries of hatred and fear will have shaped things for centuries more to come. The cycle of vengeance must be broken, and ultimately only by those in Israel and Palestine.

Prevailing Wage Reinstated

2005-10-28T08:57:00.000-05:00

It is so rare that I can report good news from the current US administration, but yesterday is one of the exceptions. A few weeks ago, FEMA reopened $100 million worth of Katrina rebuilding contracts and allow local and open bidding. And now, the feds have reinstated the wage provision of the Davis-Bacon Act, guaranteeing that construction workers will be paid the prevailing local wage. George Bush had waived the provision days after the Katrina hit the Gulf States.

Both of this decisions come while the WhiteHouse is under tighter scrutiny with the Plame Affair and the Miers Blunder. Not surpisingly, the only way a government works is if it is held to account for its actions. Accountability, both grassroots and at the polling box, are key to keeping this government "for the people." Obviously, progressives and moderates are not screaming into the wind.

This is just the beginning in taking back our government.

Reactions To Suicide Bombing In Israel

2005-10-27T10:33:00.000-05:00

Wednesday's suicide bombing in the Israeli town of Hadera provides another stark contrast between media sources in Israel and Palestine. The complete synopsis is at BBC News.

Editorial in Israel's Hatzofe

Whoever thought that a period of calm would follow the destruction of Gush Katif [Gaza Jewish settlement] and the surrender to Palestinian terrorism was wrong. The terrorist attack in Hadera and the Qassam rockets in Sderot and taught us that what happened in the past will happen again and in the end, the price will be paid by the Jews. [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon is hero enough to send the police special unit to act against pioneering Jewish citizens but he stands helpless before Palestinian terrorism.

Commentary in Israel's Maariv

Does the barrel of terrorism have a bottom? Is it possible to dry out the swamp of terrorism? It is difficult to tell. The next few months will not be simple and also not calm. The weight now shifts to Judea and Samaria [the West Bank]. The [Palestinian militant] organizations will try to create a balance of terror opposite Israel. The best that can be expected in this situation is to ensure that terrorist attacks occur one every few months rather than several a month, and the understanding that this will not be simple, will not be short and will not always be pleasant.

Commentary in Palestinian al-Hayat al-Jadidah

It is true that there are those of us - individuals and factions - who are working to make things worse through their free and easy retaliation against Israel. However, this does not decrease in any way Israel's responsibility, as it has the keys to the doors and windows that it closes on us, thus leaving us ready to explode.

Columnist in Palestinian al-Ayyam

Israel has never desisted from carrying out incursions, harassment and assassinations in the West Bank, knowing full well that the Palestinians' patience will come to an end. It was waiting for this minute. The Israeli retaliation will be comprehensive and violent.

In retaliation, around 40 Israeli jeeps and tanks moved into the West Bank city of Jenin today. They surrounded Palestinian houses as shots rang out. Violence begets more violence.

I only hope the moderates in this situation will see their way out of this chaos. The longer the tension lasts, the more the wound will fester and gush forth the bile of mutual hatred. Peace must prevail.

GOP And DNC Struggle Within

2005-10-26T11:53:00.000-05:00

The inner turmoil of the Republican Party has been on the horizon well before Bush's presidential nomination in 2000. But it has been a trademark of Karl Rove and company to snuff out resistance in even the most unbelievable of circumstances. The recent Valerie Plame investigation notwithstanding, most fiascos have escaped public scrutiny. Until now.

Perhaps it is because Rove is so involved with the grand jury investigations into the Valerie Plame scandal, he is detained from giving the Mier's Nomination his usual "bludgeoning of independent thought" approach. Whether conservatives in the Republican Party are right or not, they are clearly fed-up with empty promises. A new conservative group called Americans For Better Justice bought $250,000 of TV/radio time yesterday to broadcast a nationwide ad against Harriet Miers. They are asking for Bush to withdraw her from the nomination. David Frum, former Bush speechwriter and spokesman for the group sees Miers as unqualified and non-conservative:

Conservatives have worked too hard for too long to settle for anything less than our very best on the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, liberals are sparing with moderates in the Democratic Party. Cindy Sheehan, national frontperson against the Iraq War, has now taken aim at presidential front-runner NY Senator Hillary Clinton. She had this to say about Clinton's position on the Iraq War:

I believe that any candidate who supports the war should not receive our support. It doesn't matter if they're Senator Clinton or whoever.

With her position as a senator, she's become more: "Let's see which way the wind blows, and what's going to get me re-elected or elected, or how am I going to benefit from this" instead of truly voting from her integrity.

Sheehan is clearly attacking Hillary's stance the same way Frum is attacking Bush's nomination. This is a microcosm of the rift that split US voters in the 2004 election cycle. Unlikely alliances within both parties are falling apart as grass-roots organizations that once worked together now split in favor of political ideology and, more importantly, identity. The once rock-solid foundations of the two-party system is now shaking into their extreme fragments.

Is this the end of the march to the moderate center? Are voters now more concerned about issues and less about the elephant and donkey? Will a viable third-party emerge from the fray in the meantime?

As much as I may hope, I doubt it. But what has been changing drastically over the last 10-15 years is the degree by which politics has infiltrated everyday life in the US. For every blind vote, there are now just as many voters concerned about the issues and not party loyalty.

Surely, voters are waking up to the inherent corruption of a two-party system...?

UPDATE 10/27/2005: Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination today, claiming to be protecting the White House right to privacy.

UK comprehensives to become independent....

2005-10-25T14:04:00.000-05:00

Leave them alone!

Seriousy though, this is SUCH a bad idea. I don't know why New Labour thinks that destroying the brilliant comprehensive system is a good idea. Yes, it certainly isn't perfect, but the whole point is its open for all. The point is that if your parents are busy, and don't take the time to get you into the perfect school, that it doesn't matter, because you can succeed in any school. And yes, that is not happening, but a "market" of schools is CERTAINLY not the way to improve. There are SO many worrying things about this idea

"The trusts are based on those that control academies, but in a marked departure from the academy scheme, the government appears keen to encourage charities, private schools, universities and groups of parents to run schools as opposed to attracting sponsorship from wealthy individuals.

Parents will also be given new channels to complain to the schools inspectorate, Ofsted, and to demand that a new school be formed or that a headteacher of an existing school be sacked if they think they are not up to scratch. Local parent advisers will also be employed to give parents advice on choosing their children's schools to ensure that middle class parents are not advantaged in "playing the system".

Parental choice will be backed by a new "market" in schools. Ms Kelly has previously indicated that failing schools will be closed if they do not improve after a year. A new provider will be found to run the school through a trust if no changes are made."

shudder parent power is SO overrated. Its petty politics at work, the worst kind, I have always found the idea of these idyllic communities of the past that som long for creepy- I prefer not to know my neighbours- why should I be friends who the only thing I have in common with is that they live on the same street?

"Trust schools will be able to set their own admissions, curriculum and teachers' pay and conditions, and will, controversially, be able to set these outside of national guidelines where they can prove that the measures will improve standards"

NO. Just no. Yes, the national curriculum IS flawed, but allowing individual schools to decide which bits they want is NOT the solution at all....

Sigh... and our alternative is David Cameroon.

Federal Anti-Terrorism Is To Push More Paper?

2005-10-12T07:41:00.000-05:00

After the launch of a large-scale security lockdown in the New York subway last week, U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials now claim the terrorist threat may have been a hoax. A voluntary source in Baghdad described a terrorist conspiracy where 20 bombers would set off 19 bombs during last weekend in the New York subway system using bomb-laden suitcases, baby strollers and other items to escape detection. New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg described this information as the "most specific threat" ever received against the city's transit system. But this never came to pass. Despite the heightened security on the subway with special police units and National Guard, nothing was found, and in Baghdad, US authorities had "lost" the original informant.

In common government fashion since Katrina, the federal authorities blame the local authorities for the situation. Department of Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke, who called the threat "noncredible" last week, had this cryptic message:

The intelligence community has not found any evidence to substantiate the threat information.

The president Bush's response was equally avoiding:

Our job is to gather intelligence and pass it on to local authorities. And they make the judgments necessary to respond. . .The American people have got to know that, one, we're collecting information and sharing it with local authorities on a timely basis. And that's important.

Needless to say, this prompted some well-found frustration from Micheal Goodwin, who had this to write:

There you have it - the gazillions we spend on security only pay for bureaucrats to push paper. Whatever happens after that, it's not their problem.

This is nuts. And it adds to cynicism about efforts to fight the real problem of terrorism.

Bloomberg and top cop Ray Kelly did right in taking the threat seriously, but their performance had holes, too. They provided few details at their Thursday announcement, yet within minutes, press reports quoting anonymous sources cited potential bombs in baby carriages and the number of alleged plotters. If Bloomberg and Kelly wanted such details out, they should have announced them so all New Yorkers could be informed. As it was, the inconsistent articles and broadcasts added to the confusion and fear.

I have explored this issue many times, believing that the whole "national security" ploy is really just a political platform to run on and beat your opponents with it.

I do not have a lot of answers, but creating more government bureaucracy shouldn't even be on the table. If anything, the government needs to break down the walls between the federal and local authorities and streamline communications by reducing red-tape. The first step is installing standardization and interoperability requirements, agreeing on shared information policies and allowing the agencies themselves work out the details. No government bureaucrat is going tell the FBI, CIA or other intelligence agency how to run. They must undertake this task by themselves. There must be a sound third-party that does verify the changes are occurring, of course. But no Intelligence Czar is going to accomplish all of this.

Beyond that, I am not sure what would be next. But if we should be so lucky to get beyond that simple sticking point: reliable and interoperable communication.

Miers is Good (Trust Us)

2005-10-10T09:29:00.000-05:00

Before the diehard conservatives and radical liberals mobilize, let me put this down for the record: I do not have a strong opinion on Bush's nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, I think this is one of the few political events where I am uninterested.

But as is commonly the case in Washington, the reactions are unbelievable. Both conservatives and liberals are frustrated with the lack of judicial records to figure out her political and ideological leanings. She is even more cryptic about her viewpoints than new Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. There is a threat of independent opinions in the Republican Party. What ever shall we do?

Enter Michael J. Gaynor of The Conservative Voice. As is common among the blindly faithful, he claims the reason for conservatives to vote for the Miers nomination is because Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich says to. And why does trusty, partisan, retired Newt say to? Because Bush says to:

Newt knows, and dares to publicly state, what some conservative critics of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers who have never run for public office (unlike Ms. Miers), either do not know or do not admit:

"Conservatives should feel confident with the selection of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court for a simple reason: George W. Bush selected her."

Newt recognizes the disappointment of many conservatives with the Miers nomination, how that disappointment has played into the hands of the leftist media, and that, in the case of the Miers nomination, that disappointment reflects disagreement as to personnel instead of fundamental principles:

"Much has been made in the press about conservative unhappiness with the White House on issues such as spending and immigration and most recently with the selection of Ms. Miers. However, while these tensions are not insignificant, the president has stayed remarkably true to conservative principles on every major decision he has made since winning the Republican primary."

Besides the fact that Bush has and will continue to disregard core conservative principles, Gingrich and by proxy, Gaynor both represent the largest strength and ultimate failing of the Republican Party: blind faith in human frailty. It seems by re-routing the strong religious faith and righteous anger of its evangelical base into government leadership, the GOP has created its own version of a holy empire. "Divine Rule."

Regardless of decision-making principles, the principle of "follow the leader" rules supreme. So, as suddenly pangs of individual thought arise from the Religious Right, they are crushed by the "bow down before the one you serve", God-complex of this administration. As long as the Republican Party offers little progress on evangelical issues, it can continue to win elections on these issues. What Republican wants to outlaw abortion, when it could be a key issue in an election if it's still legal?

I may not agree with the issues of the self-proclaimed "Religious Right," but I surely hope they will see through the smokescreen of the Republican Party. In the 20 years of the Republican takeover, more corruption has been introduced than the Democratic Party had in its 80 year rule. Wake up, people!

Replace The Politics Of Fear With Hope

2005-10-05T13:14:00.000-05:00

Ira Chernus, professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado, wrote an excellent article at TomPaine about fear and loathing against President Bush. As he correctly asserts, this kind of tactic advances the progressive cause greatly, but only so far. This small excerpt hardly does it justice, but certainly conveys his argument:

Who can deny it? It's an almost physical pleasure to watch George W. Bush's fall from grace. And it's so easy. All you have to do is say, "Bush has botched the war on terrorism. Bush is not keeping us safe from terrorists - or from the terrors of nature." You've already got over half the country with you, and more are jumping on board the anti-Bush train every day. But before we settle in to ride that train to political glory, we ought to consider whether it can really take us to a better future.
. . .

Fear does move public opinion. That's a lesson the anti-Bush forces have learned well. Their nemesis in the White House has turned out, in this way, to be their master teacher. They are using fear most effectively to bring down a presidency built on fear. It's a delicious irony.

It's also a blessing, at least in the short run. A weakened presidency suffers on every front. The privatization of social security is moribund and will soon be pronounced dead on Capitol Hill. Chief Justice Roberts will be bad, but he may not be the Scalia clone that Bush promised his right-wing base. And when was the last time you heard the words "compassionate conservatism"? Though there is plenty to worry about under a weak Bush, it would have been far worse under a strong Bush.

But what price will we pay for this blessing in the long run, if we purchase it with the currency of mounting public fear?

The urge to be safe, to keep fear at bay, is certainly natural and understandable. But after more than half a century in a state of heightened national insecurity, Americans have largely forgotten the other side of the human coin: the urge to be daring, to take chances that can lead to positive change. Insecurity is now in the national bloodstream. That's why anti-Bush campaigns that evoke fear can be so successful. To be successful in the longer term, though, we have to constrict that sense of insecurity, to return it to the more modest place where it belongs, until actual security comes into sight.
. . .

Many demand that our tax dollars be used to fund services and repair damage all over the world. After all, that's actually the best way to begin to protect ourselves from danger. But even that won't work if we do it simply because we are scared. We'll never be safe if we make safety our ultimate goal. We'll be safe only if we let safety be a by-product of a society working together to improve life for everyone.

The best way to be secure is to imagine a genuine politics of hope. Imagine. Unfortunately, when John Lennon said, "It's easy if you try," he was quite wrong. After six decades of our national insecurity state, it's incredibly hard. But it's an effort that anti-Bush forces ought to make. The alternative is, however inadvertently, to reinforce the politics of fear that Bush and his kind thrive on. The belief that danger is everywhere - that we must have leaders whose great task is to keep us safe -is the one great danger we really do need to protect ourselves against.

Fear, though effective in short-term motivation, can create a demobilizing cycle of phobia and anger. This will not change things, but only keep them as they are. Democrat or Republican alike should appreciate a political philosophy based on hope and change will engender more support than the divisive tactics so far. Hope alone can save us all from the precipice of tyranny.

I only hope America wakes up from this nightmare soon enough to realize that.

Beware, Florida Tourists!

2005-10-04T14:31:00.000-05:00

Florida's new "stand your ground" law went into effect Saturday, loosening self-defense restrictions to include the public arena. A person no longer needs to retreat or actively defuse a threatening situation before using deadly violence. What once applied only to the defense of the home now applies anywhere, providing that person is in a place "he or she has a right to be."

The Brady Campaign decided to inundate Miami airports with flyers that read as follows:

Thinking about a Florida Vacation?

Please ensure your family is safe. A new law in the Sunshine State authorizes nervous or frightened rsidents to use deadly force. In Florida, avoid disputes. Use special caution in arguing with motorists on Florida roads.

Police and prosecutors are concerned about the potential for unnecessary violence.

I am certainly not a big proponent for gun control. But this law seems ludicrious. Especially in the public arena, there must be some level of civility and control. The ability to carry concealed weapons is broad enough to bring guns into many public situations, but legally condoning unconditional use of that gun is insanity.

I may not always agree with the Brady Campaign, but I salute their tactics here. I wonder if it will really impact tourism as much as hoped.

Response to Bush's UN Address

2005-09-23T12:46:00.000-05:00

Better late than never, MADRE recently deciphered the UN speech Bush made on September 14th. It is a much needed reality check on how the president has lived up to his words, point by point.

"Either hope will spread, or violence will spread—and we must take the side of hope."

As the world's biggest arms exporter, the US has clearly taken the side of violence. On Bush's watch, US arms sales have outpaced the second-largest arms dealer (Russia) two-to-one. More than half of these weapons went to governments known for human rights abuses against civilians, such as Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Colombia. ¹

"The terrorists must know that wherever they go, they cannot escape justice."

Oh no? While the Bush Administration has been busy killing civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda has regrouped to become a more diffuse network of local units able to strike with greater frequency in multiple countries. Osama bin Laden, meanwhile, cannot be found because—as Bush famously explained—"he is hiding."²

"The Security Council has an opportunity to put the terrorists on notice when it votes on a resolution that condemns the incitement of terrorist acts."

The resolution, which was passed after Bush's speech, bans incitement without defining the term. It thereby gives governments a powerful instrument to silence political opponents, shut down organizations critical of their policies, and quash peaceful dissent.

"We must send a clear message to the rulers of outlaw regimes that sponsor terror and pursue weapons of mass murder: you will not be allowed to threaten the peace and stability of the world."

Apparently that prerogative is reserved for the Pentagon, which just last week updated plans for using nuclear weapons preemptively.³ In a move that the UN Secretary General labeled "a disgrace," Bush's UN Ambassador, John Bolton, blocked a call for nuclear disarmament from the Summit's outcome document.

"Confronting our enemies is essential, and so civilized nations will continue to take the fight to the terrorists."

More bad news for the people who happen to live in the battle zone. While Bush was making this callous remark, 150 Iraqi civilians were killed in the worst single day of attacks since the 2003 US invasion.

"We are committed to the Millennium Development Goals."

This must have been news to Bolton, who tried to delete every mention of the goals from the Summit's outcome document.

"I call on all the world's nations to implement the Monterrey Consensus."

The Monterrey Consensus (named for a 2002 economic summit in Mexico) includes a commitment by rich countries to spend 0.7 percent of their national income (less than three-quarters of a percent) on development—something that the US has fought tooth and nail against and still refuses to do. In fact, the US—the word's richest country—spends less than a quarter of one percent on development (0.18 percent). Bush is much more enthusiastic about the other provisions of the Monterrey Consensus: poor countries implementing political and economic reforms demanded by wealthy countries in exchange for aid and debt relief.

"Tying aid to reform is essential to eliminating poverty."

Actually, untying aid from "reforms" imposed by donor countries would go a lot farther. These "reforms" center on policies such as privatization, trade liberalization, and debt servicing, which have worsened poverty in poor countries, and resulted in a net flow of about $200 billion a year from poor to rich countries (compared to about $50 billion a year that poor countries receive in aid).⁴ And while ending government corruption (to which Bush was ostensibly referring) is crucial, it is the citizens of poor countries, not rich foreign governments, who should have the power to demand accountability from their leaders.

"At the G8 Summit at Gleneagles, Scotland, we set a clear goal: an AIDS-free generation in Africa. And I challenge every member of the United Nations to take concrete steps to achieve that goal."

Some of Bush's "concrete steps":

Bush demanded that African governments spend US funding exclusively on drugs patented by US companies, instead of generics (the patented drugs cost about $15,000 a year per patient compared to $350 a year for generics).⁵
Bush's UN Ambassador refused to allow the World Summit to "encourage pharmaceutical companies to make anti-retroviral drugs affordable and accessible in Africa."
Bush insists on prevention programs that promote abstinence over proven "safer sex" approaches, put stringent restrictions on condom use, and demand that groups receiving funds formally oppose abortion and prostitution.
Bush promised in 2003 to spend $15 billion to fight AIDS, but took most of this money from existing programs, including child vaccination initiatives—a move that The New York Times described as "forcing the babies of Africa to pay for their parents' AIDS drugs."⁶

"We've pledged to increase our funding for malaria treatment and prevention by more than $1.2 billion over the next five years."

Another lie. Only about nine percent of this is new money; the rest was slated to be spent anyway.⁷ Malaria is the number one killer of African children, yet Bush is undermining international cooperation in the fight against malaria (and AIDS) by refusing to adequately fund the UN Global Fund to Fight AIIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

"We agreed to cancel 100 percent of the debt for the world's most heavily indebted nations."

This is a frequently repeated distortion of the agreement reached by the G8 countries (the world's richest countries) in July 2005. Debt cancellation was offered to only a limited number of countries (18 of the 62 that need it in order to achieve the minimum standards of the MDGs).⁸ In dollar terms, the deal is worth only about $1.5 billion a year (or about 6 percent) of the $25 billion that Africa needs to achieve the MDGs.⁹ And it comes with a catch: to qualify, countries must "boost private sector development" and eliminate "impediments to private investment, both domestic and foreign." These conditions are designed to bring the G8 countries more money than they write off.

"And when Iraqis complete their journey, their success will inspire others to claim their freedom, the Middle East will grow in peace and hope and liberty, and all of us will live in a safer world."

This delusion has already cost the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis and nearly 2,000 US soldiers and pushed Iraq to the brink of becoming an Islamic state. In fact, the example of Iraq's "journey" has undermined democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond by instilling fear that "regime change" could result in foreign military occupation, mass killings, and civil war.

Nightmare Exodus From Rita

2005-09-23T07:22:00.000-05:00

As yet another example of government ineptitude, nearly 2 million people were urged to evacuate from the coast of Texas and Louisiana at once. Hasn't anyone over there heard of a staggered evacuation? Clearly, even after hurricane Katrina, there has been little attempt at planning this evacuation, much less local and state coordination. The result is entirely predictable and a miserable failure:

Highways leading inland out of Houston, a metropolitan area of 4 million people about an hour's drive from the shore, were clogged for up to 100 miles north of the city.

Drivers ran out of gas in 14-hour traffic jams or looked in vain for a place to stay as hotels filled up all the way to the Oklahoma and Arkansas line. Others got tired of waiting in traffic and turned around and went home.

Service stations reported running out of gasoline, and police officers along the highways carried gas to motorists whose tanks were empty. Texas authorities asked the Pentagon for help in getting gasoline to drivers stuck in traffic.

The traffic jam extended well into Louisiana, with I-10 jammed from Lake Charles through Baton Rouge. State police said the biggest backups were at exits, where cars stacked up in long lines of motorists trying to get gasoline.

The response to this situation has been swift by our elected officials. Well, at least the finger-pointing has swiftly begun:

"If the hurricane comes in at a certain angle," said Houston Mayor Bill White, "being on the highway is a death trap."

Brazoria County Judge John Willy complained that Houston and Harris County jumped the gun, encouraging evacuation before people on the coast could get past the big city.

"Everybody did a fabulous job down here until Houston-Harris County forgot that there was a plan, and they clogged up the freeways and byways where there's still traffic sitting and waiting," Willy said.

But both White and Harris County Judge Robert Eckels said late Thursday that they never called for a complete evacuation of Houston or Harris County.

It seems painfully clear that local, state and the federal government are - exposed by Katrina and now Rita - completely inadequate, unprepared, and wholly oblivious to their constituents. This should prove that both Democrats and Republican leadership have failed, governors have forgotten how to govern, government agencies and branches are ineffectual and uncoordinated, and resources needed by authorities are drastically under-funded.

Something needs to change. Voters should stop voting for "values" and begin voting for progress and ultimately reform. The citizens of this country need to wake up and take control of their government rather than continue the status quo of complacent consumerism and indifference.

If any good comes out of these disasters, perhaps it will come in the form of greater participation and voters. The way this country does business must change or it is doomed to repeat these failures. And as constituents continue indiscriminately feeding the corporate politics, the government will only increase in isolation from its citizens.

Bolton's UN Blunder

2005-09-21T09:21:00.000-05:00

The recent United Nations World Summit last week in New York went largely unreported in the wake of Katrina and the John Roberts hearings. The Bush Administration's agenda to reform and update UN institutions, and come to a world-accepted definition of "terrorism" were certainly laudable goals that had largely been ironed out before the summit. Egypt and Pakistan were even buckling under world pressure to yield to key US priorities.

Then, enter John Bolton, a "kiss up and kick down" UN Ambassador:

Within weeks of his appointment and less than a month before the Summit, Ambassador Bolton proposed hundreds of amendments to the draft document, throwing negotiations into turmoil. He outraged developing nations by attempting to remove any mention of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and by conducting an all-out assault on a provision reaffirming rich countries'commitment to allocate 0.7 percent of their national incomes to help poor countries lift themselves out of poverty. In the past, the administration had supported both provisions - on numerous occasions, in fact.

In the larger scheme of things, the MDGs and 0.7 percent of GDP issues were neither inimical to U.S. interests nor contrary to existing policy. By fighting relatively harmless - and largely aspirational - provisions that the administration had previously endorsed, Bolton helped bring to a screeching halt growing momentum for real changes at the United Nations.

This is exactly why many in Washington feared a Bolton ambassadorship: his overly simplistic approach to diplomacy does not produce results. In splitting hairs over development, among other things, Bolton took his eye off the ball - and the United States lost on the issues that mattered most.

Thank you, Bolton! It seems UN reform in Bush terminology refers more to a method of US supremacy rather than results. The only reforms this idiot cfacilitateitate are by his own resignation. Perhaps the recent FEMA-Mike Brown fiasco will lead the Administration to reconsider seriously Bush's other appointments.

Loyalty after all is not the only prerequisite to a government post. Or at least, outside of Bush Country it isn't.

Sheehan Anti-War Rally Cut Short

2005-09-20T09:28:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, New York City officers ended Cindy Sheehan's speech in Union Square, arresting the rally organizer and infuriating supporters:

The claps and cheers that had greeted Ms. Sheehan's arrival at the rally in Union Square quickly turned to furious chants of "Let her speak!" as officers ushered away the organizer, Paul Zulkowitz, who the police said lacked audio permits for the event.

Angry activists followed officers as they led Mr. Zulkowitz away, waving their fists and shouting, "Shame, shame, shame." Ms. Sheehan, who was visiting New York on the last leg of a bus tour across the country, was nearing the end of her speech when the police officers arrested Mr. Zulkowitz. She was whisked to a car by two supporters just before the police officers seized the microphone. Mr. Zulkowitz was arrested because he did not have a permit, said the commanding officer of the 13th Precinct, Inspector Michael J. McEnroy.

Detective Kevin Czartoryski said Mr. Zulkowitz was charged with unauthorized use of a sound device and disorderly conduct, and was released after being given a court summons.Detective Czartoryski said the police had taken the "appropriate action" in response to a lawbreaker.

This just does not make sense. If war advocates really want to bolster their cause, then letting Sheehan speak could do less damage than silencing her. I think the momentun is already there, but direct confrontation will only accelerate the anti-war movement.

North Korean Nuclear Agreement

2005-09-19T11:58:00.000-05:00

Alright, it's only an agreement, but this historic joint statement deserves some jubilation:

The DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning at an early date to the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and to IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards.

The United States affirmed that it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no intention to attack or invade the DPRK with nuclear or conventional weapons.

There is little doubt that this agreement is what DPRK Dictator Kim Jong Il wanted from the very beginning. Perhaps, even the Bush Administration will be happy about this as well. Their conquest interests lie more towards the Middle East with Iran. Neither China nor the US could desire any stand-off in their own respective backyards.

Many issues are unresolved however, making this peace process hardly complete. The nuclear facility at Yongbyon is still in operation. North Korea's demand for a civilian light-water nuclear reactor is still being blocked by the US. The question of verifying the scope and scale of North Korea's weapons programs still plague this process.

But it is a start. Hopefully, towards a final agreement.

spot on

2005-09-19T07:44:00.000-05:00

this commentary expresses pretty much exactly how I feel about the UK governments new plans.

But one item may prove impossible to shift: a new crime of “glorifying” terrorism. It won’t have been Mr Clarke’s idea to put people in prison for praising an idea. Home Office lawyers will have told him that it cannot be done and (one hopes) his instincts will anyway have been against the attempt.

No, there is only one possible source of this folly. The notion that you can make the world a better place by making it illegal to say nasty and dangerous things has the intellectual sloppiness, the headline-seeking shallowness, the philosophical carelessness and the creepy mix of the sinister with the sanctimonious, that marks it out as absolutely characteristic of our Prime Minister’s mind.

When I was about 7, urged to say my prayers before bed, I came up with what seemed a succinct and catch-all formula. “Please God,” I would whisper, “make everybody be as they ought to be and do as they ought to do.” By the age of 10 it had occurred to me that my prayer did not do justice to the complexities of life, and I moved on. I rather think that Tony Blair is still stuck at this stage.

Double Jeopardy

2005-09-16T10:15:00.000-05:00

Via blood and Treasure. This is proof, if any was needed, that the British government cannot be trusted with the sweeping powers it demands.

Seven Algerians, including four who were cleared at the Old Bailey in April of involvement in the alleged ricin plot, were detained yesterday pending their deportation on the grounds that they are a "threat to national security".

Human rights groups raised concerns last night that the seven face deportation to Algeria. A spokesman for Liberty said: "We are very concerned that as the majority appear to be Algerian, they are likely to be deported there. Observers and the UN have repeatedly pointed out violations of human rights by Algeria."

Jurors who acquitted four Algerians involved in the ricin plot trial told the Guardian they were angry their verdicts were ignored and were concerned the men would face torture or death if deported. "If anyone has grounds for asylum in this country, it is these men," one said.

Bush Takes Responsibility?

2005-09-13T13:54:00.000-05:00

At a press conference today, US President Bush finally admits some mistakes:

Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government. And to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility. I want to know what went right and what went wrong.

I want to know how to better cooperate with state and local government, to be able to answer that very question that you asked: Are we capable of dealing with a severe attack or another severe storm. And that's a very important question. And it's in our national interest that we find out exactly what went on and -- so that we can better respond.

This said, despite how much Bush touted his Department of Homeland Security and their work in knitting the quilt between local and federal authorities earlier this year:

We've taken important steps to protect our nation's critical infrastructure -- our bridges and tunnels and nuclear power plants and water treatment facilities and the cyber networks that keep our government and our economy running.

This department has also taken action to strengthen the hand of our partners in state and local law enforcement. Local police and other authorities are those most likely to encounter terrorists. And we're giving them the tools and information they need to do their jobs. We've established secure connections to emergency operations centers in every state and every governor's office to ensure that they get threat information on a real-time basis. We've helped states establish mutual aid agreements and reasonable response plans, so that when first responders need help from their neighbors they can be sure the right assistance will get to the right people at the right time.

We've provided more than $14 billion over the last four years to train and equip state and local first responders across America. Since 2001, we've trained more than 600,000 first responders, and more than tripled spending on homeland security.

So, despite Bush's willingness to pay penance after the fact, it is very clear the Department of Homeland Security has done nothing but bloat our existing emergency system. This is a clear case of government bureaucracy dragging immediate response down.

This was just a test of the Department of Homeland Security; if it had been an actual terrorist attack involving a dirty bomb or even worse, there is little doubt they would have failed in the same way.

Bush and his Republican cronies have been telling the US public that the federal government is ineffectual, but yet they are surprised at its snail's crawl in an emergency? Face it. This administration is not making you safer. Those billions of dollars and years of empty promises are just smokescreen, a placebo for your anxiety. The harsh reality is a terrorist attack could do much worse, much easier.

Fourth Observance of 9/11

2005-09-09T14:49:00.000-05:00

Bill Moyers wrote a truly inspired piece at www.tompaine.com, documenting and lamenting the fundamentalism that caused 9/11 and still motivates us four years since. I fully recommend you read it in its entirety, but here is a brief synopsis:

My spiritual forbears did not take kindly to living under theocrats who embraced religious liberty for themselves but denied it to others. "Forced worship stinks in God's nostrils," thundered the dissenter Roger Williams as he was banished from Massachusetts for denying Puritan authority over his conscience. Baptists there were a "pitiful negligible minority" but they were agitators for freedom and therefore denounced as "incendiaries of the commonwealth" for holding to their belief in that great democracy of faith - the priesthood of all believers. For refusing to pay tribute to the state religion they were fined, flogged, and exiled.

Such revolutionary ideas made the new nation with its Constitution and Bill of Rights "a haven for the cause of conscience." No longer could magistrates order citizens to support churches they did not attend and recite creeds that they did not believe. No longer would "the loathsome combination of church and state" - as Thomas Jefferson described it - be the settled order. Unlike the Old World that had been wracked with religious wars and persecution, the government of America would take no sides in the religious free-for-all that liberty would make possible and politics would make inevitable. The First Amendment neither inculcates religion nor inoculates against it. Americans could be loyal to the Constitution without being hostile to God, or they could pay no heed to God without fear of being mugged by an official God Squad. It has been a remarkable arrangement that guaranteed "soul freedom."

It is at risk now, and the fourth observance of the terrorist attacks of 9/ll is an appropriate time to think about it.

They came in the name of God. They came bent on murder and martyrdom. It was as if they rode to earth on the fierce breath of Allah himself, for the sacred scriptures that had nurtured these murderous young men are steeped in images of a violent and vengeful God who wills life for the faithful and horrific torment for unbelievers.

Yes, the Koran speaks of mercy and compassion and calls for ethical living. But such passages are no match for the ferocity of instruction found there for waging war for God's sake.
. . .

Terrorists plant time bombs in our heads, hoping to turn each and every imagination into a private hell governed by our fear of them.

They win only if we let them, only if we become like them: vengeful, imperious, intolerant, paranoid. Having lost faith in all else, zealots have nothing left but a holy cause to please a warrior God. They win if we become holy warriors, too; if we kill the innocent as they do; strike first at those who had not struck us; allow our leaders to use the fear of terrorism to make us afraid of the truth; cease to think and reason together, allowing others to tell what's in God's mind. Yes, we are vulnerable to terrorists, but only a shaken faith in ourselves can do us in.

So over the past four years I have kept reminding myself of not only the horror but the humanity that was revealed that day four years ago, when through the smoke and fire we glimpsed the heroism, compassion, and sacrifice of people who did the best of things in the worst of times. I keep telling myself that this beauty in us is real, that it makes life worthwhile and democracy work and that no terrorist can take it from us.
. . .

As I look back on the conflicts and clamor of our boisterous past, one lesson about democracy stands above all others: Bullies - political bullies, economic bullies and religious bullies - cannot be appeased; they have to be opposed with a stubbornness to match their own. This is never easy; these guys don't fight fair; "Robert's Rules of Order" is not one of their holy texts. But freedom on any front - and especially freedom of conscience - never comes to those who rock and wait, hoping someone else will do the heavy lifting. Christian realism requires us to see the world as it is, without illusions, and then take it on. Christian realism also requires love. But not a sentimental, dreamy love. Reinhold Niebuhr, who taught at Union Theological Seminary and wrestled constantly with applying Christian ethics to political life, put it this way: "When we talk about love we have to become mature or we will become sentimental. Basically love means ... being responsible, responsibility to our family, toward our civilization, and now by the pressures of history, toward the universe of humankind."

Christian realists aren't afraid to love. But just as the Irishman who came upon a brawl in the street and asked, "Is this a private fight or can anyone get in it?" we have to take that love where the action is. Or the world will remain a theatre of war between fundamentalists.

Amen.

No Exceptions To Equality

2005-09-09T07:14:00.000-05:00

Liz Figueroa, California state senator, wrote a good opinion piece in the Advocate yesterday. She argues the gay marriage issue from an equality standpoint rather than the "re-definition" limelight in which the radical conservatives prefer to frame the debate. This excerpt really drives home the foundation of the same-sex marriage movement:

The question we should be asking is whether we are redefining another word, a far more fundamental one: equality. That’s what all this is really about. Every court that has weighed in on the question of same-sex marriage has been interpreting a constitutional provision that says all citizens are entitled to equal treatment under the law. And whatever can be said about the definition of marriage throughout history, the definition of equality hasn’t changed very much. It means exactly what it has always meant, and just what it says—unless you subscribe to some rather extreme doctrines.

Before the discussion about marriage became so prominent, lesbians and gay men were frequently accused of asking for “special rights” when they fought for antidiscrimination laws that would protect them from being fired from their jobs or denied housing. But you don’t hear much about “special rights” anymore.

That’s because if ever there was a set of special rights, it’s the set that comes with marriage. Right now those special rights are reserved by heterosexuals only for themselves.
There’s nothing even remotely fair about that, or equal. This is exactly why we have raised equality to a constitutional position. A constitution enshrines principles that are the most important to us, and says that, no matter what, they cannot be violated, even by a majority vote. Especially by a majority vote.

Some of my colleagues in the California legislature have argued that gays and lesbians have the same right to marry as heterosexuals do; they say that everyone in California, gay or straight, has the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. With all due respect, I have no idea how anyone can think that argument makes any sense at all. Why would a lesbian or gay man want to marry someone of the opposite sex? What sort of a right is that, and what does it say about the person making such an argument?

And particularly for those of us who are heterosexual, why would we want to subject ourselves—or our children—to such a bizarre prospect? “Don’t ask, don’t tell” works badly enough in the military; it’s an even worse idea in a relationship as intimate and personal as marriage.

Lesbians and gay men need the same right that heterosexuals take for granted: to have the state recognize their relationships with someone they love. And the only way that equality will happen is if their relationships can be legally recognized by the state as marriages, with all the attendant rights and responsibilities that the rest of us have. The law should not discourage them from forming loving, complicated, and wonderful families.

That is the crux of the issue, isn't it? Many conservatives would prefer homosexuality remain in sin and corruption, rather than assert itself prominently in the family domain. It is one thing to claim that all homosexuals are promiscuous and immoral, and quite another to allow them to embrace life-long partnerships. The hypocrisy is rich.

Justification of the homosexual sin has never been enough on its own merits; the environmental factors must be applied. Once the environmental factors are removed and gay partners are allowed to form a family, the cornerstone of society according to conservatives, homosexuality is seen as another facet of normalcy and stability. The importance of the family unit to the conservative mind overrides the difference in sexual orientation. The snake swallows its own tail.

Hopefully, with state senators like this one, the recent gay marriage legislation won't be the last time Californians push the governor between a rock and a hard place.

Unbelievable

2005-09-08T20:07:00.000-05:00

From an article in National Geographic about a year back.

Nearly 80 percent of New Orleans lies below sea level—more than eight feet below in places—so the water poured in. A liquid brown wall washed over the brick ranch homes of Gentilly, over the clapboard houses of the Ninth Ward, over the white-columned porches of the Garden District, until it raced through the bars and strip joints on Bourbon Street like the pale rider of the Apocalypse. As it reached 25 feet (eight meters) over parts of the city, people climbed onto roofs to escape it.

Thousands drowned in the murky brew that was soon contaminated by sewage and industrial waste. Thousands more who survived the flood later perished from dehydration and disease as they waited to be rescued. It took two months to pump the city dry, and by then the Big Easy was buried under a blanket of putrid sediment, a million people were homeless, and 50,000 were dead. It was the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States.

When did this calamity happen? It hasn't—yet. But the doomsday scenario is not far-fetched. The Federal Emergency Management Agency lists a hurricane strike on New Orleans as one of the most dire threats to the nation, up there with a large earthquake in California or a terrorist attack on New York City. Even the Red Cross no longer opens hurricane shelters in the city, claiming the risk to its workers is too great.

Later on...

Such high stakes compelled a host of unlikely bedfellows—scientists, environmental groups, business leaders, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—to forge a radical plan to protect what's left. Drafted by the Corps a year ago, the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) project was initially estimated to cost up to 14 billion dollars over 30 years, almost twice as much as current efforts to save the Everglades. But the Bush Administration balked at the price tag, supporting instead a plan to spend up to two billion dollars over the next ten years to fund the most promising projects. Either way, Congress must authorize the money before work can begin.

California Assembly Approves Gay Marriage

2005-09-07T07:40:00.000-05:00

In a slim majority 41-35 vote from the California State Assembly on Tuesday night, California has now become the first US state to approve same-sex marriage legislation. The bill changes California's definition of marriage as between "two persons,'' instead of "a man and a woman.'' This moves the bill into Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's side of the court, slated as the first governor to make an executive decision on gay marriage in the US. This, on the eve of a November special election will prove especially contentious:

Schwarzenegger has 30 days to sign or veto the bill. If he takes no action, the bill would also become law, and California would become the second state behind Massachusetts to legally sanction same-sex marriage and the first to do so through legislation, not a court order.

The legal ramifications of this proposed law are somewhat unclear. Under Proposition 22 passed by 60% of the populace in 2000, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." As Kevin Drum observes, this is "murkier" than it seems:

First, at the time it passed, California already defined marriage as a civil contract between a man and a woman. The point of Prop 22, then, wasn't to define marriage in California, it was to make sure that California didn't recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The ballot argument made this point, and so did the attorney general, who renamed the initiative from "Definition of Marriage" to "Limit on Marriages," a change that was upheld by a state court. Needless to say, though, this interpretation of Prop 22's text remains controversial.

Second, Prop 22 was passed as a statutory initiative, not a constitutional initiative. This means that it might be found to violate the state constitution's equal protection and privacy clauses, something that would obviously be impossible if it were itself a constitutional amendment. (The state Supreme Court had a chance to rule on this a couple of months ago in a case related to California's domestic partnership law, but it punted and ruled on different grounds.)

Ultimately, it seems the courts will decide the issue even if Governor Schwarzenegger does sign the bill into law. But one can hope this is another step in social progress, slow as it might be.

UPDATE 9/8: Governor Schwarzenegger's office says he will veto the same-sex marriage bill "out of respect for the will of the people." (The Daily Review) The question of whether a similar measure to Proposition 22 will pass as easily as it did in 2000 is another issue altogether. The "will of the people" does change over time, after all.

Grandma Bush Mocks Poor

2005-09-06T13:54:00.000-05:00

Former US First Lady Barbara Bush made a very snobbish and insensitive comment last night on NPR's show Marketplace:

What I’m hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them.

After the devastating disaster of Hurrican Katrina on the New Orleans area, I would have thought some degree of humility and compassion would accompany her visit to Houston's Astrodome. The few important things that an impoverished person lost in this disaster are just an important as that lost by the rich. Perhaps more so, since its value is higher for those with little and harder to replace than for those well-off. Surely, empathy for those who have lost everything, especially those who had so little, would overwhelm any petty class or racial prejudices.

Obviously not.

Forced marriage to be made illegal

2005-09-05T11:02:00.000-05:00

There is a movement towards making forced marriage illegal in Britain. It already IS, of course, but is not a specific charge, instead more obscure charges like kidnapping are used.

Forced marriaged are a simply unnaceptable abuse of human rights; while we should respect cultural differences, there are some points we cannot permit- generally, any practice which severely infringes the rights of others. This, I think, is one of them. This is a very positive mood, and one I hope will be met with appreciation by most of the UK.

New Orleans - Too Little, Too Late

2005-09-02T07:00:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, police were reduced to looting ammunition out of stores themselves to stem the supply from snipers and armed thugs walking the streets. Over 20% of police forces did not show up to work in many precincts, either dead or choosing to stay with their families. The only real federal presence in New Orleans has been in the vicinity of the Superdome as survivors were evacuated to Texas. Residents in surrounding areas are putting up blockades and shooting anyone who attempts to leave New Orleans, fearing for their own safety.

According to Knight Ridder, the situation in New Orleans in sinking deeper in lawless chaos, thwarting relief efforts and police:

An explosion jolted residents awake early this morning, illuminating the pre-dawn sky with red and orange flames over the city where corpses rotted along flooded sidewalks and bands of armed thugs thwarted fitful rescue efforts.

At 4:35 a.m., an explosion rocked a chemical storage facility near the Mississippi River east of the French Quarter, said Lt. Michael Francis of the Harbor Police. A series of smaller blasts followed and then acrid, black smoke that could be seen even in the dark. The vibrations were felt all the way downtown.

Francis did not have any other information about the explosions and did not know if there were any casualties. At least two police boats could be seen at the scene.

Meanwhile, Mayor Ray Nagin lamented the federal response Thursday night on WWL-AM (more Nagin quotes):

I need reinforcements. I need troops, man. I need 500 buses, man. This is a national disaster. This is a major, major, major deal. And I can't emphasize it enough. It's awful down here, man.

I don't know whether it's the governor's problem, or it's the president's problem, but somebody needs to get ... on a plane and sit down, the two of them, and figure this out right now.

We have an incredible crisis here and his flying over in Air Force One does not do it justice. Excuse my French - everybody in America - but I am pissed!

They thinking small, man, and this is a major, major deal. Get off your asses and let's do something.

New Orleans' emergency operations chief Terry Ebbert had some choice words to add as well:

This is a national disgrace. We can send massive amounts of aid to tsunami victims, but we can't bail out the city of New Orleans.

Contact your senators, your house representative, and our president. Let them know that we expect more out of our federal government than press conferences and photo ops. We expect action.

Mayor Ray Nagin called for a "moratorium on press conferences" yesterday until order is restored. Make our federal representatives put their money and actions where their mouths are!

UPDATE: Supplies are finally coming in to those starving at the New Orleans Convention Center. Check out more at the interdictor's journal here.

Pump Phobia Grips Georgia

2005-09-01T07:10:00.000-05:00

Normally, I try to keep my personal life out of this blog unless it is newsworthy or makes a point. The events that transpired yesterday as I left work could certainly qualify.

In the midst of the growing relief effort for the victims and survivors of Hurricane Katrina, residents of Georgia, especially in Atlanta, decided to create a gas shortage yesterday out of a rumor. Meanwhile, governor Sonny Purdue declared Georgia to be in a state of emergency due to gas prices rising to $6 a gallon in some areas.

I do not know how this began, but as I was driving home yesterday around 5:00pm, I noticed long lines of cars at pumps along my normal route, Lawrenceville Highway. The lines were so long that they spilled over from many of the gas stations into the street, making the usual rush-hour traffic much worse. As I passed those long lines about at the fourth gas station or so, I began to wonder what was going on.

Once I got home, my first impulse was to call someone who might be keeping track of news closer that day that I was. So I called my girlfriend at work, asked her if she had heard about anything. She said that she didn't know what was going, but that her mother, a teacher in Athens, was told not to come in the next day for school. The school was closing down for the rest of week. Her mother said something about rising gas prices to blame. Now, we both knew that the devastation by Katrina was going to raise the price of gas to some extent, but neither of us knew why there was a rush to the pump that day.

No news was coming in about this, and I couldn't find out anything online. Then, minutes before 5:30pm, my girlfriend called back and told me that one of her colleagues came in late for her shift with some news. She said that all gas stations in Atlanta were going to shut off their pumps at 5:30pm and then turn them back on at $5 a gallon. I admit it; I panicked. My car was at less that a fourth a tank and would need to be filled soon. I ran out the door, grabbing my keys, set on looking for a gas station before they raised the pump to $5.

Traffic was noticeably worse as rush-hour continued. The lines at the pumps were longer, and it took me waiting at five different gas stations before I went back home. I saw people screaming and honking at other cars in line for a pump, a collision between two angry drivers trying to pull into the same pump, and many people topping-off huge SUVs and trucks, leaving gas to spill all over the ground. There were at least 2 out of every 5 filling 2-3 1-gallon drums in their trunk. This was worse than a price hike. Atlanta residents were creating a gas shortage where there was none.

I couldn't believe what I was doing at any of those gas stations. I was just another cog in this destructive panic machine, spinning wildly out of control. I decided I wouldn't contribute more to the pump phobia and would go home, without gas. I calmed down and realized how stupid my actions were. How could so many people become so self-centered and horde what might become scarce for a while. Shouldn't conservation be the natural approach?

Later, I heard on NPR that 2 of the 3 main pipelines into Atlanta were shut down for repairs, but many people were convinced that no gas was coming into Atlanta at all. According to the AJC, Sonny Purdue assured the press that this was a temporary problem, resolved before the end of the Labor Day weekend if people didn't panic:

"Forgoing our trips over the Labor Day weekend and staying home and enjoying our families ... is one of the better things we can do," Perdue said during a press conference at the American Red Cross headquarters in Atlanta.

"Just hang out with your families and enjoy their company. Any discretionary driving you planned, why don't you just relax and spend the time with your children, with your parents, and with your families at home."

Perdue said there is no reason to panic about gas shortages and rising prices. He told reporters that fuel shipments are continuing to arrive at Georgia Ports, and that Colonial Pipeline, the largest pipeline distributing fuel into Georgia, expects to be largely operational by the Labor Day weekend.

"There does appear to be some spot shortages in unbranded, spot-purchasing service stations," he said. "We expect that to be a temporary problem."

"There is no reason to panic. There is plenty of gas on the way. The only way we would have problems is if people rush out and try to horde and try to accumulate gasoline they won't need for a while."

Too late. After seeing all of the closed gas stations last night and hearing the horror stories of unbelievable price-gauging, Georgia has already created the problem. How we handle this fear in the coming days now must be the test.

If you live in Georgia, conserve what you have. Don't horde!

Iraq Shiites Killed By Fear, Not Actual Terrorists

2005-08-31T14:50:00.000-05:00

As reported by Bloomberg, this horrific incident happened in Baghdad today:

At least 640 Shiite Muslim pilgrims were killed in a stampede on a bridge spanning the Tigris River in north Baghdad today prompted by an attack by insurgents on a nearby mosque, Iraqi National Assembly adviser George Sada said.

"When people heard that the mosque had been attacked, they panicked and rushed toward the bridge to get out of the area,'' Sada said by telephone from the capital. "There were so many people on the bridge that many fell over its sides and drowned in the Tigris, others were crushed.The force of the crowd broke the bridge's barriers."

Other accounts said people in the crowd reacted to rumors of a suicide bomber among them. The victims were among 3 million pilgrims who massed in the Khadimiya neighborhood for an annual ceremony commemorating the death of Musa al-Khadhim, a revered Shiite Imam, Defense Minister Saadun al-Dulaimi said during a televised news conference from Baghdad at about 6 p.m. local time.

This brings into painful focus the awful reality that human animals, when striken by fear, are nothing more than mere cattle. The capacity for reasonable thought is far too often clouded by the red ink of mob mania, where each individual thought becomes group-think and every phobia is magnified a thousand-fold.

If a terrorist bomb doesn't destroy this world, I fear it is the hysteria and ensuing blind hatred that will.

Katrina Devastates Southern US

2005-08-31T12:31:00.000-05:00

As I held my breath over the last 2 days, Katrina has only proven more devastating by the hour than previously considered. I am grateful that my family decided to evacuate New Orleans when they did. They could have been among the floating dead or the desperate survivors, finding against violent looters.

The LA Times detailed the situation on the ground:

The landscape between New Orleans and Alabama was transformed by wind and surf into stretches of churning floodplain. In New Orleans, two levees broke, leaving 80% of the city flooded.

Hundreds of stranded survivors atop roofs waved frantically to Coast Guard helicopters for salvation from rising waters. At least 3,000 people were rescued in New Orleans, where low-lying neighborhoods were swamped by threatening currents from Lake Pontchartrain, public safety officials said. An untold number of people were missing.

"We've got desperate people shooting in the air, using flares to identify themselves," said New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin. "It's a surreal situation, almost like a nightmare. I hope we wake up from it."

New Orleans reeled from miseries that mounted by the hour: A forlorn Nagin said police and National Guard patrols reported numerous bodies floating in flooded streets. Storm-whipped currents toppled the twin-span bridges over Lake Pontchartrain. An oil tanker ran aground near the city docks.The city's horizon darkened with black smoke from dozens of fires sparked by downed wires and erupting gas lines. Geysers of gas-fed flame burst out of the water. Houses burned but firefighters were unable to get through blocked roads and freeways.

Crowds broke into stores at will, even making raids on shops in the French Quarter, wheeling off stolen goods in shopping carts while overwhelmed police officials pleaded for public compliance with mandatory curfews. At least 50 people were arrested for looting.

Weakened to a tropical depression and tossing off tornadoes as it unraveled through Tennessee, Katrina left more than 4 million people without electricity, utility officials reported.

Analysts estimated storm damage could cost insurers more than $25 billion, the most catastrophic natural disaster in U.S. history. Uninsured losses could add $4 billion to $10 billion more, they said.

"At first light, the devastation is greater than our worst fears. It's just totally overwhelming," Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco said at a news conference. "We know many lives have been lost," she said, although she had no numbers of confirmed fatalities.

There was no need to guess about deaths in the Mississippi coastal towns of Biloxi and Gulfport and surrounding Harrison County. Katrina leveled a direct hit. Harrison County emergency officials confirmed that 100 people had died, at least 30 in the collapse of a Biloxi apartment house during the height of the storm.

The magnitude of this catastrophe has even forced Bush out of vacation day early. Though the government might provide its task forces and needed infrastructure, it is through generous citizens of this country that really provides monetary and relief aid.

There are many legitimate sites to make your online donation, but I highly recommend the UCC Disaster Response website for their excellent organization skills and quick response time. Regardless, whether you volunteer your time, suppliers or money, I hope we can all pull together as a nation even when their is no identifiable foe to rally against.

I also hope we as a country become more sensitive to other natural disasters elsewhere in the world with a renewed sense of empathy. Beyond the obvious long-term effects, I hope Hurricane Katrina's damage will provide an awakening of America's generosity and much-needed improvements of its core infrastructure.

Burma Gets A Taste Of Free Press

2005-08-26T14:06:00.000-05:00

Burma, whose government ruthlessly censors its media and maintains over 1350 political prisoners, got a taste of free press on Monday. Now, millions of Burmese can tune into an independent television news station (Democratic Voice of Burma) run by Burmese exiles in far-way Norway. By broadcasting such a distance from Burma, Khin Maung Win and his team avoids the central government's harsh censorship. While the editorial team supervises in Oslo, television journalists risk arrest filming footage and smuggling their tapes out of Burma.

Khin Maung Win is hopeful that their efforts will bring the oppressed populace what they need:

We are focused on information and education, such as the plight of Burmese migrant workers abroad, the HIV/Aids situation, the environment situation. This is all information all the people in Burma need. The government chooses the programmes that seem to be beneficial to them, but we will choose the programmes that are beneficial for the viewer and the people.

Khin Maung Win is unconcerned with the military attempting to disrupt the weekly 2-hour TV broadcast. He claims the generals will tune in, as they did to his previous radio station:

At the beginning they jammed our radio, but later on they became our regular audience, because they wanted to get real information, even about their own country.
They cannot rely on reports from their subordinates. So they have to listen to our radio to get real information, or to measure the feeling of the grassroot people. We believe that will happen with television also.

According to Reporters Without Borders, Burma ranks third worst on media freedom, behind North Korea and Cuba, respectively.

Hopefully, this effort will not only educate the masses, but wake them out of decades of lethargy and brutal oppression. Perhaps, this taste of free press will only whet the Burmese appetite for liberation.

US-Iraq War Debate Rages

2005-08-26T10:14:00.000-05:00

Pro-war demonstrators rallied in Serra Mesa Wednesday to counter Cindy Sheehan's Camp Casey anti-war protest in Crawford. They are expected to wind their way down to Texas and confront the thousands-strong Sheehan anti-war movement. Already, the sparks are flying.

Cindy Sheehan, returning from her California hiatus back to Camp Casey, had this to say about the enormous growth of the movement since leaving:

And one good thing about Camp Casey and what we started here is that when I left: it didn’t end. When I left it thrived and it grew, and it’s because I am not alone. I am not the only one that wants the answers to these questions.

There is the people standing behind me here, but there’s thousands of military families, hundreds of Gold Star families who want the same answers to the questions. You know, and I never, ever got up here and said I speak for every single Gold Star family, I speak for every single military family; I’ve never said that. But I know I speak for thousands of them, I know we speak for thousands of them, and we want to know what is the noble cause our children died for, what is the noble cause they’re still fighting for and dying for every day.

In stark contrast, Gary Qualls has swallowed whole the Bush Administration's bait, and faithfully attacks Cindy's character:

This is not an immoral war. This is for what the Americans stand up for. And for what Cindy Sheehan believes in, she’s already said in public statements to the world, that this country’s not worth fighting and dying for. And yet she can’t be more totally wrong. She has totally disrespected all fallen heroes and all the soldiers that are fighting for a good cause. And yeah, she has not been able to decipher the difference between her wants and needs. We know what she wants, but does she truly know what this country needs?

Unbelievably, ABC News presented these statements as valid opposing views on a contentious issue. It is the clear there is no argument in Quall's diatribe. He doesn't justify the "immoral war" or clearly addresses how Sheehan's actions have "disprespected all fallen heroes and all the soldiers," but instead claims that by not supporting the war, one becomes unpatriotic.

His last vain attempt at rhetoric falls flat on its face: "does she truly know what this country needs?"

Does anyone? Certainly not Bush and Company.

Two Speeches, Two Wars, One Justification

2005-08-25T13:09:00.000-05:00

After listening to President Bush's Iraq War speech yesterday in Idaho, I looked back at one of LBJ's Vietnam War speeches in 1967. There was some startling parallels! They clearly illustrate the similarity in how LBJ justified Vietnam and how Bush explains his war in Iraq.

First, excerpts from LBJ's address at Johns Hopkins University, 1965:

Viet-Nam is far away from this quiet campus. We have no territory there, nor do we seek any. The war is dirty and brutal and difficult. And some 400 young men, born into an America that is bursting with opportunity and promise, have ended their lives on Viet-Nam's steaming soil.

Why must we take this painful road? Why must this Nation hazard its ease, and its interest, and its power for the sake of a people so far away?

We fight because we must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny. And only in such a world will our own freedom be finally secure. This kind of world will never be built by bombs or bullets. Yet the infirmities of man are such that force must often precede reason, and the waste of war, the works of peace.

We are also there to strengthen world order. Around the globe, from Berlin to Thailand, are people whose well-being rests, in part, on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Viet-Nam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America's word. The result would be increased unrest and instability, and even wider war.

We are also there because there are great stakes in the balance. Let no one think for a moment that retreat from Viet-Nam would bring an end to conflict. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another. The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next. We must say in southeast Asia--as we did in Europe--in the words of the Bible: "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further."

Now, President Bush's speech at the Idaho Center yesterday (2005):

I made a decision -- America will not wait to be attacked again. Our doctrine is clear: We will confront emerging threats before they full materialize.

The stakes in Iraq could not be higher. The brutal violence in Iraq today is a clear sign of the terrorists' determination to stop democracy from taking root in the Middle East. They know that the success of a free Iraq, who can be a key ally in the war on terror and a symbol of success for others, will be a crushing blow to their strategy to dominate the region, and threaten America and the free world.

The battle lines in Iraq are now clearly drawn for the world to see, and there is no middle ground. Terrorists will emerge from Iraq one of two ways: emboldened or defeated. Every nation -- every free nation -- has a stake in the success of the Iraqi people. If the terrorists were to win in Iraq, the free world would be more vulnerable to attacks on innocent civilians. And that is why, for the sake of our children and our grandchildren, the terrorists will be defeated.

We will stay on the offense. We'll complete our work in Afghanistan and Iraq. An immediate withdrawal of our troops in Iraq, or the broader Middle East, as some have called for, would only embolden the terrorists and create a staging ground to launch more attacks against America and free nations. So long as I'm the President, we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror.

Uncanny, isn't it? Both speak in terms of absolute good and evil, claim war will lead to a greater peace, and both believe withdrawal will pull the world into deeper anarchy and ultimate defeat. Neither addresses real progress or action, both intended to bolster support and exude ideology rather than comfort the rational mind.

Perhaps there are more parallels between the Democratic LBJ and our current Republican president than either would be willing to admit. They both demonstrate flagging approval ratings and find themselves embroiled in a war neither wishes to admit as wrong.

The Nuclear Issue With Iran

2005-08-24T12:28:00.000-05:00

The large Western Powers (the US, Israel and EU specifically) have been debating back and forth methods to gauge and ultimately mitigate Iran's nuclear ambitions. There have been some rumors in the US that the Bush Administration is laying the groundwork for another "pre-emptive" strike and/or invasion, while the EU has been leaning more towards a diplomatic compromise based on political and economic stimuli. There is not only doubt of Iran's nuclear capabilities, but also ultimately of its intentions. Add a healthy amount of US and Iranian jingoism and this becomes a clear recipe for confrontational disaster.

If one is to take the Iranian argument on face value, Iran simply wishes to exercise its right, according Article IV of the the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT), "to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." After all, freeing up the country's petroleum dependency will dramatically increase energy sector revenues. Iran has stated its claim to have 7,000 MW of nuclear power online by 2020, 10% of its total production. That kind of power cannot be achieved by petroleum alone and the EU knows it. Despite the EU's attempts to offer other nuclear technologies and enforce peaceful nuclear activities alone, Iran still insists on enriching uranium.

The US, of course, is not convinced that Iran is even interested in the peaceful application of nuclear energy. The nuclear watchdog group IAEA is slated to release its report, refuting the origin of bomb-grade unranium traces in Iran and claiming they came from contaminated centrifuges imported from Pakistan. Today, Sean McCormack made the claim that despite this new information, Iran still poses a serious nuclear threat:

[That was] one part of this overall set of questions that not just the United States has, but the rest of the world has about Iran's nuclear program.

McCormack went on to say the US has other "unresolved concerns outside of the issue of the contaminated centrifuges," including Iran's dealings with "clandestine nuclear procurement networks." The Bush Administration's lack of credibility aside, there is no clear indication whether Iran plans to develop nuclear weapons or is simply leaving the option open.

What is fairly obvious is the degree to which Iran is willing to protect its nuclear program. Kaveh Afrasiabi's opinion piece in the Asia Times attempts to explain this unhealthy obsession:

Certainly, the Iranian hardliners are aptly playing the nationalist card with the nuclear issue, with the new man in charge of nuclear negotiations with the EU-3, Ali Larijani, comparing it to Iran's struggle to nationalize its oil industry during the 1950s. This is, indeed, a tid-bit removed from Larijani's earlier discourse on theory of the Islamic revolution of 1979, aiming to make Iran into the "motherland" (umm-al ghara) of the abode of Islam, yet there is ample evidence of a "return to authenticity" zeal and crusade on the part of the new politicians in charge, playing up the themes of recognition and exaltation of the original ethos of the Islamic revolution.

The new "ethics of authenticity" in Iran is indisputably a modern phenomenon, directed to the subjectivity of the Iranian Muslim population, yearning for the acceptance of their nuclear rights by the world community. And if there has been hardening of the Iranian position on this issue recently, it is precisely because more and more, or to put it differently, deeper and deeper, the nuclear matter has been bound up with national identity. This is in light of its prestige-enhancing effect in empowering ordinary citizens with a new sense of pride - and the fact that Iran is only one of 10 countries in the world in possession of nuclear fuel technology.

"The world has to accept that Iran has joined the nuclear club," said Iran's Foreign Minister Kemal Kharrazi in New York last May, and other high officials of the Iranian government have similarly prided Iran for having turned into a "nuclear fuel technology holder". Indeed, a matter of pride not just for Iran but also for the whole Muslim World and the Third World, notwithstanding the growing North-South technology gap. It is where the ideology of progress meets nuclear populism.

A sobering thought, indeed! Another "us vs. them" dichotomy that may reduce the world's nations to a smaller subset of diplomatic tools. Does anyone feel safer in a nationalism-driven world?

"The rules of the Game have changed"

2005-08-24T10:55:00.000-05:00

Apparently, according to Charles Clarke, if someone hurts your country, you are allowed to send someone who they might have been encouraged by to be tortured. Hmm.

After the attacks in London, which killed 52 people, "the rules of the game" changed, according to Mr Clarke.

DEPORTATION GROUNDS
Fomenting, justifying or glorifying terrorist violence
Seeking to provoke terrorist acts
Fomenting other serious criminal activity
Fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence

At-a-glance new measures
Deportations could spark legal battles
He ordered an immediate review of his powers to exclude and deport people, saying he wanted to ensure that any non-British citizen suspected of inciting terrorism was deported immediately.

Publishing the results of that review he said the first deportations could happen "very quickly - in the next few days".

"Individuals who seek to create fear, distrust and division in order to stir up terrorist activity will not be tolerated by the government or by our communities," said Mr Clarke

"By publishing the list today I make it absolutely clear that these are unacceptable behaviours and will be the grounds for deporting and excluding such individuals from the UK."

As part of a raft of measures to crack down on "preachers of intolerance and hatred", a new database will be drawn up of foreign-born radicals accused of encouraging acts of terrorism.

The problem with this is, other than that no civillised country should send someone where they may well be tortured, if we have a problem with these people- if we truly think they are encouraging terrorism, and can prove that they do, we should arrest them and try them. That is what a country that believes in the rule of law should DO. Just because some extremists want to ignore this, doesn't mean we should sink to their level.

Peace In Iraq, Not An Exit Strategy

2005-08-23T11:18:00.000-05:00

Normon Solomon wrote an excellent article (Don't Give Bush An Exit Strategy) at TomPaine.com yesterday pointing out the fallacy in the "exit strategy" prong of the peace movement. The danger of attacking the ends of the war (no victory in sight, etc.) rather than the means could lead to an US military escalation. Solomon summarizes the rational with the following:

A big ongoing factor is that George W. Bush and his top aides seem to believe in red-white-and-blue violence with a fervor akin to religiosity. For them, the Pentagon's capacity to destroy is some kind of sacrament. And even if more troops aren't readily available for duty in Iraq, huge supplies of aircraft and missiles are available to step up the killing from the air.

Back in the United States, while the growth of anti-war sentiment is apparent, much of the criticism - especially what's spotlighted in news media - is based on distress that American casualties are continuing without any semblance of victory. In effect, many commentators see the problem as a grievous failure to kill enough of the bad guys in Iraq and sufficiently intimidate the rest.

But some questions are based on assumptions that should be rejected - and "What is it going to take to win?" is one of them. In Iraq, the U.S. occupation force can't "win." More importantly, it has no legitimate right to try.

Amen. The entire reason the Bush administration is hanging by a thread due to its mismanagement of the Iraq War is because of the focus on results, on winning. Even when there are no spoils left to claim. True opposition to the Iraq War needs to challenge not just the reasons for war, but the fundamental tenant that this war should be won.

Rather than bickering on how the US ended up in Iraq and how to make the best of it, there needs to be a plan to leave, not based on winning, but based on losing the very rationale behind this war: to guarantee safety there and abroad. This war cannot and should not be won. Its outcome was determined the moment US forces attacked, and lost the moment after the insurgency began. Let it go.

US Warhawks Continue Sheehan Smear Campaign

2005-08-22T13:00:00.000-05:00

Not surprisingly, the simplicity of a mother demanding government accountability for the death of her son (as represented by Cindy Sheehan) is anathema to the warhawks. This is especially true for the neo-conservatives who doctored Iraqi pre-war intelligence and bungled the ensuing occupation and inevitable insurgency. Even as the Sunnis are left out of the new draft Iraqi Constitution negotiated by the Kurds and radical Shiites, Mark Styn in the Chicago Sun-Times makes the effort to vilify Sheehan and all other like-minded activists for their patriotism:

[I]n the wreckage of Pat and Cindy Sheehan's marriage there is surely a lesson for the Democratic Party. As Cindy says, they're both Democrats, but she's "more liberal" and "more radicalized." There are a lot of less liberal and less radicalized Dems out there: They're soft-left-ish on health care and the environment and education and so forth; many have doubts about the war, but they love their country, they have family in the military, and they don't believe in dishonoring American soldiers to make a political point. The problem for the Democratic Party is that the Cindys are now the loudest voice: Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Moveon.org, and Air America, the flailing liberal radio network distracting attention from its own financial scandals by flying down its afternoon host Randi Rhodes to do her show live from Camp Casey. The last time I heard Miss Rhodes she was urging soldiers called up for Iraq to refuse to go -- i.e., to desert.

On unwatched Sunday talk shows, you can still stumble across the occasional sane, responsible Dem. But, in the absence of any serious intellectual attempt to confront their long-term decline, all the energy on the left is with the fringe. The Democratic Party is a coalition of Pat Sheehans and Cindy Sheehans, and the noisier the Cindys get the more estranged the Pats are likely to feel.

Sorry about that, but, if Mrs. Sheehan can insist her son's corpse be the determining factor in American policy on Iraq, I don't see why her marriage can't be a metaphor for the state of the Democratic Party.

What Mr. Steyn fails to address in his column is the Republican Party's own set of loonies (American Taliban). Of course, it is easier to attack a grieving mother than the policy makers.

Questions Remain After Gaza Withdrawal

2005-08-22T10:28:00.000-05:00

This important step in Middle Eastern peace was no easy task, both politically and socially. The process that was suspected to take months has taken a little less than a week. The incoherent bloodshed that was predicted by Israeli hardliners has failed to take place. The last of the 85,000 residents in the 21 Gaza settlements are leaving Netzarim. Though the 600 residents and unknown sympathizers held up for hours in a Netzarim synagogue under a life-size menorah, the 2,000 Israeli troops were able to evacuate and dismantle the settlement today.

As Israel nears the end of its Gaza Withdrawal plan, the world's attention turns to the West Bank. 2 of the 4 West Bank settlements have already withdrawn, but over 2,000 extremists (mostly non-residents) have set up base in the remaining two: Sanur and Homesh. Some 5,000 troops have been redeployed from Gaza to the West Bank in fear of greater resistance. This was confirmed yesterday when eight masked Jewish extremists attacked an army tractor near the settlement of Kedumim, slashing its tires and setting it on fire while a soldier was still in the vehicle. Just a day earlier, a 100 or more protestors attacked army bulldozers in Sanur as they attempted to level the evacuation staging area.

The mainstream media seems more concerned with the withdrawal process itself than the aftermath. The reason behind these drastic actions involve the future of the Palestinian state, but yet the focus is instead on Israel's unilateral withdrawal. Meanwhile, Palestinian Leader Mahmoud Abbas is still struggling against his own radical group Hamas in planning the future of Gaza. Though currently agreeing to a ceasefire during the evacuation, Hamas leaders have both taken credit for Israel's disengagement and vowed to continue armed resistance to reclaim all of Palestine. A spokesman for Hamas had this to say in Gaza City:

Gaza is not Palestine. As for Jerusalem and the West Bank, we will seek to liberate them by resistance just as the Gaza Strip was liberated.

These security concerns aside, many economic and property issues plague the Palestinian government. As Daoud Kuttab points out in his article at TomPaine.com, Israel, Palestine and other countries like the US and Britain need to move beyond the unilateral actions of Ariel Sharon into a multilateral model of discussion and lasting peace. Despite the political expediency given to both Abbas and Sharon, a single nation alone cannot dictate the peace:

[T]he day after the completion of the Gaza withdrawal, Israelis and Palestinians will be confronted with important unresolved questions. There is no doubt that the evacuation of Jewish settlers in areas that Israelis consider part of their God-given territory represents a huge ideological reversal. But after years of preaching and practicing one of Zionism's main tenets, will the removal of settlements continue in the West Bank, or will this be a one-time exception?

Palestinians, for their part, will be expected to answer questions - in deeds, not just in words - about their ability to build a modern pluralistic state. How will the Palestinian body politic deal with the growing power of the Islamic movements that undoubtedly will expect a significant share of power in post-withdrawal Gaza?

The international community also will have to answer some key questions. According to the Palestinian Economic Council for Reconstruction and Development, annual per capita income in Gaza continues to average roughly $700, while Israelis enjoy incomes averaging a $16,000 per capita. In the absence of relatively well-paying jobs, what will happen to the lines of unemployed Gazans? The potential flight of employment seekers - a formidable force worldwide - is only one problem. More immediately, if Gazan families are not well fed, the recurrence of cross-border violence, if not the eruption of a third intifada, will only be a matter of time.

While the economic situation in Gaza is a critical issue, the future of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will be determined mainly by the next steps in the peace process. Permanent-status issues concerning borders, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and refugees must be dealt with bilaterally. Any serious observer of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will no doubt acknowledge that there can be no unilateral solution to these issues.

I can only hope the US has learned its lesson in Iraq: freedom and democracy cannot be brought by unilateral force and occupation. Only through multilateral negotiation and compromise can any lasting peace exist between Israel and Palestine.

Someone should be fired

2005-08-21T07:44:00.000-05:00

As you may well have heard, an innocent man, Jean Charles de Menzes was shot dead by the police a few weeks back now. Initial reports seem to completely contradict what apparently actually happened. Despite this, despite an innocent man having been shot, and the police seeming to have been lying to us, John Prescott has this to say:

Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott told BBC News Sir Ian had his support.

When asked if the police commissioner had his "full and unqualified confidence", Mr Prescott replied: "Yes".

I hate that. Unqualified support is never a good thing. It may well be that Sir Ian Blair was always being honest with us, and had nothing to do with the blurring of the facts seemingly attempted, but that is for an inquiry to find out. The fact is, something has gone horribly wrong with the police's "shoot to kill" policy, and it must be someones fault. I cannot see the public's confidence, indeed my confidence, restored without a full inquiry, and someone losing their job. Preferably several people. It is the tendency of organisations like the police to, when there is a mistake, shroud themselves in secrecy and pass blame, and it is no wonder that people do not trust them. If the police want us to cooperate with them, they must be open about their mistakes, and someone must bear the blame for them.

Good news! Now the cops will always know what's on your mind!

2005-08-20T18:25:00.000-05:00

Bill would let police monitor your e-mail

Judge's permission would not be needed

Tim Naumetz

CanWest News Service
Friday, August 19, 2005

OTTAWA - The federal cabinet will review new legislation this fall that would give police and security agencies vast powers to begin surveillance of the Internet without court authority.

The new measures would allow law-enforcement agents to intercept personal e-mails, text messages and possibly even password-secure websites used for purchasing and financial transactions.

source

I think - just maybe - we should put a stop to this crap! Don't you?

Mo Mowlam passes away

2005-08-19T20:32:00.000-05:00

Hi, I'm going to be posting here, mostly about UK politics. Thanks a lot to the prisoner for inviting me.

Mo Mowlam, an ex-cabinet minister in Tony Blair's cabinet sadly passed away this morning. She has been fighting health problems for a long time. One of Blair's most independent cabinet members, as is mentioned in the article, she helped contribute to the current improvement of the situation in Northern Ireland (I can only hope that, with the current stale mate, things improve, and don't degrade), she was also a critic of the government's policy on Iraq.

With Robin Cook, this makes two ex-cabinet ministers who strongly opposed the government's war on Iraq who have passed away recently. While I am not about to suggest that this was in any way the government's doing, it is an unpleasent coincidence.

Ecuador Shuts Down Oil Production

2005-08-19T13:04:00.000-05:00

Ecuador has declared a state of emergency after recent protests have dropped oil production by 65% and forced Defence Minister Solon Espinosa to resign. Since last Sunday, the protesters are demanding higher wages, more jobs for locals, and the construction of schools, roads and health clinics. They also want the immediate exit from the country of EnCana and Occidental, and the expulsion of Petrobras of Brazil from the Yasuni National Park.

The military has been called in to restore order and claimed they had secured the eastern provinces of Orellana and Sucumbios, which produce three-quarters of state oil production and about half of private oil production. The constant back-and-forth between the rich Spanish aristocracy and the indigenous population has exploded into the streets, bringing into sharp focus the foreign benefactors of the oil empire in Ecuador and its poverty-stricken local population. Revolution is spreading quickly.

Meanwhile, US crude oil rose $1.63 to $64.90 a barrel due to this news and the recent Jordanian attack today.

Al Queda Attacks US Ship in Jordan

2005-08-19T12:01:00.000-05:00

Ripped straight from the BBCNews site:

Two rockets missed the USS Ashland, an American naval ship docked in the port. A Jordanian soldier died when one of the two missiles hit the dockside. The third missile landed near Eilat airport in neighbouring Israel, causing no injuries.

An internet statement, purportedly from a group which says it has links to al-Qaeda, said it was to blame. The statement, allegedly from the Abdullah al-Azzam Brigades, said the attacks were the group's first attack in Jordan and were aimed at both the US and Israel.

"The Zionists are a legitimate target and we warn the Americans, who are spreading their corruption throughout the world and who have stolen the wealth of the Muslim nation, to expect even more attacks," it said.

The world has riled the hornet's nest. I surely hope the next headline won't involve a dirty bomb.

Republicans Before Iraq War

2005-08-18T12:24:00.000-05:00

As often as the flip-flop charge has been lodged against Democrats, Republicans like all politicians have been just as guilty, especially when the President is a Democrat. Here are some quotes from prominent warhawk Republicans against the Bosnian War when Clinton was commander-in-chief:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-- Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"You can support the troops but not the president."
-- Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
-- Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
-- Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home."
-- Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record) (R-PA)

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-- Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today."
-- Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

If only they said the same things now. The consistency and backbone isn't there.

Babies Banned From US Planes

2005-08-17T14:37:00.000-05:00

It seems that now toddlers pose a threat to US national security. According to the AP (via BBC News), there are at least two reported cases where young children were among the supposed thousands of names on the US "no-fly" list. This again proves the adage that "zero tolerance" really means "zero intelligence."

Ingrid Sanden, after having her one-year-old daughter was stopped in Phoenix last November, told this to the AP:

I completely understand the war on terrorism, and I completely understand people wanting to be safe when they fly. But focusing the target a little bit is probably a better use of resources.

That is the sort of common sense the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other privacy advocacy organizations hope the US government will begin to adopt. It is one thing to create reasonable criteria for a "no-fly" list and quite another to simply add names out of ignorance or absence of tangible evidence. Hopefully, once Americans realize that the line the government walks between terrorist suspect and the average citizen is fuzzy at best, they will demand the return of their freedoms.

But until that day, fear will continue to overwhelm the larger role of personal liberty. Until the freedoms are lost to the government, people will continue to trade their privacy and integrity for safety and security. Of course, they will fail to blame themselves for letting them go. It was the terrorists' fault we lost freedom, right?!

Lend Your Voice to the village

2005-08-17T10:32:00.000-05:00

All right. This is my 101st post on your village. Since I began my foray into the blogosphere back in March of 2005, I have satisfied my need to rant, inform and analyze current events in the global village. Sometimes, it was with subtle wit and intelligent sources. On other occasions, I was too judgmental. I was sometimes driving the news and other times distinctly behind the curve.

All in all, I've immensely loved it. But your village hasn't become what I wanted it to be: a blog from and about the world. Since I live in the US and the other contributors(leftyjones, hope for one) do as well, this blog both skews toward US issues and sometimes entirely ignores other concerns. I also have my front-burner issues and focus on them too much or too little if I believe there is something more newsworthy.

To conclude, we need more voices. Especially those of you who live outside of the US. I need more diverse opinions, especially more libertarians, anarchists, traditional conservatives and intelligent liberals. I need your village to become your village. What we need are more individuals willing to cross political lines and speak from their own soapbox.

If you're interested, comment on this post. Include your email address and a link to some of your work, whether you have a personal blog of interest or contribute to another online source. I do want to review all entries, but it is just for quality not content. Diehard Democrats or Republicans being the exception. I have little tolerance for those who walk a party line just because it is their party.

Go ahead. Lend your voice to the village...

Iraqi Constitutional Crisis

2005-08-16T14:01:00.000-05:00

After a Sunday deadlock over key issues in the proposed draft of its constitution, Iraqi National Assembly leaders decided to push back their deadline to August 22nd. The key issues that provide the impasse include the following:

Federalism -

Sunni Arab groups reject a separate Shia nation in the oil-rich south, though both Sunni and Shia groups support Kurdish autonomy in the north. Determining the amount of Kurdish autonomy is a major stumbling block with some groups supporting demarcated boundaries, revenue control and local defense forces, and other radicals pushing for complete Kurdish independence.
Islam -

Delegates have agreed that Islam will be the official religion, but are at a crossroads as to the involvement of Muslim clerics and Islamic law in Iraqi legislation. The Shia United Iraqi Alliance (the majority party) believes all laws should be based on strict Islamic law (known as Sharia). This role is complicated by the differences in the interpretation of Sharia by Sunni and Shia Muslims. Sunni Muslims favor a strict interpretation of the Qur'an, whereas Shiites typically value the role of Muslim clerics and local customs as well.
Resources -

Distribution of the world's largest oil reserves is another contention. The Kurds want to annex oil-rich areas around Kirkuk, while Shia Iraqis want a share of revenue from southern oilfields.
Women -

Under Sharia law, females would become second-class citizens, being worth only half that of a man.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has been trying to ignore the weight of these serious issues, having put so much political capital into the importance of deadlines. Last night, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice emphasized the constitutional process despite the increasing insurgency:

We have to remember that this is an enormously important document. And what you have here is a people who are trying to build a common future after decades of tyranny.

They didn't change the [constitutional] process. They didn't walk out of the process. They didn't try to go around the process. Instead they have remained committed to a process to bring this together for all Iraqis. And I think it's pretty impressive what they've achieved so far.

It seems clear that the Bush Administration has no alternative but to wait with apprehension the result of a forced invasion and increasingly bloody occupation. The hope that these failed means will reach some justifiable ends is all the US Administration has left. Without a plan towards an acheivable goal, it is a horrifying waiting game where behind one door lies a deep three-way civil war and the other, yet another radical Muslim regime in the Middle East. Many neo-conservatives pray for yet a third less obvious and possible goal: a peaceful, US-loving Iraq.

I only hope the Iraqis have more faith in themselves.

Aceh Peace and Gaza Withdrawal

2005-08-15T10:54:00.000-05:00

Today, Indonesia and the separatist Free Aceh Movement (GAM) signed a peace deal in Helsinki, ending 30 years of civil war in the Aceh province. Over 12,000 people have died in Aceh since 1976 due to the war and over 130,000 people are missing or dead since last year's tsunami.

Both sides had to give concessions to the other. GAM had to give up full Aceh independence and mold their differences into a viable political party. The Indonesian government had to release political prisoners and offer them farmland to help reintegrate into civilian life.

Meanwhile, in Israeli Gaza Strip, the withdrawal looms. As unarmed troops attempted to deliver eviction notices in Neve Dekalim, tearful Jewish settlers locked gates, formed human chains and burned tires to stop them. Over the next few weeks, Israel plans to evict and dismantle 21 settlements in Gaza and 4 in the West Bank, giving the land over to the Palestinian state for distribution.

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz had this to say about the evictions today:

It's a painful and difficult day, but it's a historic day.

My thoughts and prayers are with these brave peoples, attempting to repair decades of violence and chaos. I've said it before and will continue to say it: peace is worth the sacrifice. Until opponents are able to come to a consensus, there will be nothing but senseless violence and needless murder in its place. We need more peacemakers.

Friday Silence

2005-08-12T09:11:00.000-05:00

With all of the heavy news this week both in the US and across the world (Bush Refuses Mother's Pleas, Britain Aids Bin Laden, Kansas and Evolution, Iraq Causality Numbers, Hiroshima 60th Anniversary), I thought I might offer some silence and peace to a chaotic week. With my upcoming birthday this weekend, I feel very reflective as I did over three years ago when I wrote this:

Silence

Too – silent.

Jumping glows illuminate
   far-away windows

   Barred doors stand shut
      to stretched clouds on a blank sky

Wait; listen.

      Droplets tap in low cadence
   with distant shadows

   Wet leaves rustle
as creaking trunks heave and sigh

Pendulum – calm.

Echoes slump on a long cart
   pulled with even pace
   by a cloaked face
Whose muted lips finally part:

“This … is all.”

Bush Refuses Mother's Pleas

2005-08-11T17:10:00.000-05:00

Since this Saturday, Cindy Sheehan has been waiting outside of US President Bush's Crawford vacation home pleading to have her voice heard. Since then many other protestors have joined her vigil, demanding some time of the President away from his advisors. Cindy had this to say earlier in the week:

The president says he feels compassion for me, but the best way to show that compassion is by meeting with me and the other mothers and families who are here.

All we're asking is that he sacrifice an hour out of his five-week vacation to talk to us, before the next mother loses her son in Iraq.

Bush not only refused this plea, but again found it an occasion to pontificate on his resolve in sending more troops to the slaughter:

I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan. She feels strongly about her position. She has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America. She has a right to her position. And I've thought long and hard about her position. I've heard her position from others, which is, `Get out of Iraq now.

And it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so.

I think the only mistake Americans are waking up to is in re-electing George W. Bush. It is sad that it takes a grieving mother to make any kind of impression in the mainstream media. That it takes over 9,000 US deaths later for the US public to take notice. But these desperate times require desperate measures and the actions of those who have lost more than their pride. I salute you, Cindy Sheehan.

If you have a loved one currently in active service in Iraq, donate to or become a member of Gold Star Families For Peace. If you want to protest or help current Crawford protestors, check out the Crawford Peace House.

Britain Aids Bin Laden?

2005-08-11T14:27:00.000-05:00

I have been pondering over the reactions to 7/7 in Britain with sadness and the recent proposed changes in British law with increased incredulity. How easily is the British government cowed by these terrorists into giving up the sworn liberties of its citizens!

Last Friday, with the introduction of the "Kill 'Em All" strategy in dealings with bomb suspects, the straw broke the camel's back. I could barely contain my response in the form of intelligible discourse. Today, the Guardian found some of the words I lost that day:

No one will be more pleased than Osama bin Laden with the new measures announced by Tony Blair. He will be even more pleased should the prime minister succeed in turning his plans into legislation. There are two reasons for Bin Laden's satisfaction at what doubtless looks to him like a historic victory.

First, he will believe he has succeeded in forcing Britain to abandon a number of hard-earned achievements in the fields of justice and liberty - achievements that took centuries of struggle and evolution to accomplish. Bin Laden will rejoice because he has forced society into forsaking these values. This, he believes, will leave the west open to eventual defeat at the hands of Muslims.

Both moderate and jihadist Islamist activists have long recognised the values of justice and liberty within western societies as the foundation of western dominance in the past few centuries. A dictum attributed to Ibn Taymiya, a renowned Muslim scholar born seven centuries ago, states that God will lend victory to a just nation even if it is infidel and bring defeat to the unjust even if it they are Muslim. When the west loses its values of justice, it will be defeated in the long run.

The second reason for Bin Laden's satisfaction is that his strategy is based on absolute polarisation. The world is to be split into two opposing camps: a bloc of Muslims with no infidels in their midst and one of infidels with no Muslims in their midst.

The measures advocated by Blair and the accompanying atmosphere of racial hatred might cause many Muslims living in "infidel" western nations to leave for good. The harsher the measures adopted by Britain and other western societies, the nearer we will get to fulfilling Bin Laden's strategic aim.

It is perhaps not surprising that Bin Laden was able to manipulate the cowboy element in the American political structures to his advantage, turning them into his own PR outfit, which influenced huge numbers of Muslims to become supporters of his group. What is surprising is that European, in particular British, political establishments should take up the American methods, enabling Bin Laden to score similar successes on the European front.

How many more freedoms must the world cede to the terrorists before people realize giving up these freedoms only strengthen Al Queda's cause? I am becoming more convinced that this great clash between terrorist fear and Western infidel fear will lead to the destruction of us all. The more posturing and hatred, the greater our mutual demise.

Kansas Weakens Evolution Curriculum

2005-08-10T16:06:00.000-05:00

After months of debate, the Kansas Board of Education with a 6-4 vote on Tuesday approved a draft standard declaring evolution largely unproven and possibly damaging to religious dogma. The core aspects of evolution and the curricula that required it have been reduced, though there is no movement to force the teaching of creationism or intelligent design. The board is sending the drafted standard to a Denver-based education consultant before a final vote in September or October.

First, let me admit I am not a scientist, only a failed biology major who loved genetics in high school but couldn't cut it in college. Second, I am a Christian, though far from being a conservative one. Third, I believe that science and religion can coexist without one having to trump the other. Ultimately, religion and science ask different questions: religion attempts to grapple with the grand question of "why" while science by using quantative observations is focused more on the "how." So that being said, I really do not understand why this debate is raging like it is.

I am not going to attempt to justify evolution as many others have done that work for me. The honest truth is that the very basis of evolution is evidenced in observation for me as it was for Charles Darwin as he traveled the world in the HMS Beagle. What he saw and all of us see everyday is a world in constant flux, changing and evolving from one state to another. Species become extinct, they mutate into new species and the fossil record provides links between these disparate species, emphasizing our common origin with the rest of the planet. Beyond this, evolution has provided a framework by which we have come to understand genetics, viral and bacterial diseases, platetectonics, archeology and countless other sciences. So, not only has evolutionary theory attempted to grapple with deep questions of origin, it is the basis for a working science that improves health and life in general. In other words, this theory has led to cures, better environmental awareness, space exploration, and other practical accomplishments outside the purely scientific world.

Creationism has attempted to place itself as an alternate theory. Creationists believe that the beginning of all things is documented in the book of Genesis and take the Torah literally. Some creationists do not believe in science of any kind and reject almost all common scientific theories including the geological history of Earth (claiming the Earth is only as old as humans are), the formation of the solar system (some even insist the Earth is center of it, not the Sun), and most importantly, the origin of life from non-life. Other creationists debunk these theories using quasi-science to justify their biblical history, seeming to believe that faith can be supported by science. These creationists are the hypocrites. They claim that science can prove their faith, but when it is convenient, they abandon science to fill some of the logical leaps with unobservable faith. My belief is that creationism attempts to reinforce religion in an increasingly secular scientific world. However many Christian scientists reject creationism for the same reason non-believers do: it is based upon faith, not science.

What is perhaps most troubling about creationism is its insistence on destroying evolutionary theory without any regard to providing a true scientific alternative. As a matter of fact, one wonders if Genesis was ever meant to be taken literally and if trusting on English translations of Hebrew won't skew variations on creationist theory. After all, recent biblical experts found the time-honored Number of the Beast is not 666, but 616. Could there not be other errors in the Torah? I believe that is the danger in making literal translations of a human-created book; there are bound to be mistakes, mistranslations. Faith should be bound up in the meaning behind the words, not the words themselves.

Then finally, there is Intelligent Design (ID). ID doesn't disagree with evolution at all, except on one minor point: natural selection. ID theorists believe that a higher being created life from non-life and directs the constant mutations, controlling the selection process. ID "scientists" typically use probability statistics to prove their point that there must be something out there controlling evolution, because the chances this all happened by chance and through random events is slim. They epitomize Einstein's observation that God does not "play dice." Many ID theorists believe in a God as the "prime mover" behind the universe, but others claim it is the work of alien beings. ID is fairly harmless, but as equally unfounded as creationism. As a Christian, I find ID an interesting belief system, combining the observable with the unobservable, but my beliefs aside, it has no place in science directly.

The major problem I have with creationism and ID is that they propose theories against evolutionary theory, but provide no working alternative. I cannot fathom coming up with a cure to cancer based on creationist theory or how ID would help scientists better piece together the fossil record. The reason is because they are not based on quantative observation and so thus have remained the same since their inception. Even evolutionary theory has altered over the years since its embrace, and will continue to evolve as new observations are documented. Nothing is left unchallenged in science as hypotheses are proven and disproven and theories are embraced and then later abandoned. Unlike organized religion, which is typically founded on absolute unprovable truths, science is a constant flux of ideas where logical proof and observation reign supreme. That is how it should be.

This is really a non-issue. If scientists need to abandon evolution, it will be disproven scientifically, not theologically. Science will never justify faith nor will faith ever have a place in science. That having been said, I wonder if perhaps some religious fanatics should observe more and judge less what they do not want to understand.

Pentagon Cooks Iraq Causality Numbers?

2005-08-09T08:42:00.000-05:00

According to TBRNews.org, there is reason to believe the US causality numbers in Iraq as reported by the government are much lower than the actual casualties:

We have received copies of manifests from the MATS that show far more bodies shipped into Dover AFP than are reported officially. The educated rumor is that the actual death toll is in excess of 7,000.

Given the officially acknowledged number of over 15,000 seriously wounded (and a published total of 25,000 wounded overall,), this elevated death toll is far more realistic than the current 1,800+ now being officially published. When our research is complete, and watertight, we will publish the results along with the sources In addition to the evident falsification of the death rolls, at least 5,500 American military personnel have deserted, most in Ireland but more have escaped to Canada and other European countries, none of whom are inclined to cooperate with vengeful American authorities. (See TBR News of 18 February for full coverage on the mass desertions)

This means that of the 158,000 U.S. military shipped to Iraq, 26,000 deserted, were killed or seriously wounded. The DoD lists currently being very quietly circulated indicate almost 9,000 dead, over 16,000 seriously wounded (This figure is now over 24,000 Ed) and a large number of suicides, forced hospitalization for ongoing drug usage and sales, murder of Iraqi civilians and fellow soldiers, rapes, courts martial and so on.

Wait... 9,000 deaths vs. the reported 1,800? What is going on?

The reason the Pentagon is able to get away with this numbers game is because they are only counting the US casualties on the ground. If a soldier is fatally wounded and then dies in another country or even in the helicopter from Baghdad, that causality is not counted officially. The reason for the cover-up suggests the unmanagability of the Iraq War overall. The war is taking a much heavier toll on US forces than what the Bush Administration wants to admit. Otherwise, the conclusion is painfully clear: the Iraq War is in chaos.

Of course these numbers are at least reported however "cooked" they may be. The Iraqi civilian death toll is at best only an estimate. Just since July 2004 through January 2005, the civilian casualties have been the following:

3,274 people were killed and 12,657 injured in violence related to the war
2,041 died as the result of military action (including insurgents, and Iraqi security forces)
1,233 were killed after "terrorist" incidents

What all of these numbers suggest is a situation out-of-control. The insurgent effort to re-take Fallujah is simply further evidence that the US military presence, despite its successes, has not provided the sustaining order the Iraqi fledgling democracy needs. It could be perhaps suggested that the US Occupation has simply fanned the flames of insurgent violence and recruitment.

This brings into serious question Bush's "shooting gallery" strategy and how the Iraq War could possibly aid US foreign policy against terrorism.

UPDATE 8/12/2005: Ted Rall recently retracted his political cartoon based on the TBRNews.org information. I still stand by my assessment though I admit the numbers might not be quite as accurate as I had previously believed.

Dead Soldier's Mom Waits For Bush

2005-08-08T09:27:00.000-05:00

It seems with the falling poll numbers last month and an increasingly violent insurgency, the War in Iraq is now more of a thorn in Bush's side than a triumph of his War On Terror strategy. When he arrived home in Crawford, TX, protestor Cindy Sheehan was waiting for him:

The mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq, Sheehan, 48, of Vacaville, Calif., is camping near US president's ranch in Crawford, Texas. She's set up on a narrow strip of land between the hardtop of Prairie Chapel Road and a drainage ditch.

"I plan on staying here the entire month of August or until he comes out to talk to me," she says. Bush is spending five weeks at his ranch.

Spc. Casey Sheehan, 24, was killed in Baghdad on April 4, 2004, five days after he arrived in Iraq. An Eagle Scout who trained as a Humvee mechanic, he volunteered to help bring in soldiers wounded in an ambush. He died after his convoy came under attack.

Bush met with the Sheehan family and other families of fallen troops in June 2004 at Fort Lewis near Seattle. Cindy Sheehan has said she didn't get across to Bush how misguided she believes his policies are, so she decided to act against him.

Sheehan has been involved in protests against Bush since last year. She founded Gold Star Families for Peace, described on its Web site as made up of "families of soldiers who have died as a result of war." She is being supported by the Crawford Peace House, which has facilitated about two dozen protests in the town since 2002.

Cindy epitomizes the tenacity US citizens need to have if they are going to have any influence on ending this war. Only its US citizens can end a US war before it becomes too late to extricate from the situation. Let us all help Cindy in her efforts.

If you have a loved one currently in active service in Iraq, donate to or become a member of Gold Star Families For Peace. If you want to protest or help current Crawford protestors, check out the Crawford Peace House.

Hiroshima 60th Anniversary

2005-08-06T08:05:00.000-05:00

Today is the 60th Anniversary of the Allied dropping of the atomic bomb on the bustling metropolis of Hiroshima during World War II. August 9th will mark the 60th of Nagasaki.

The AP reports the details of this event in Japan:

For a brief moment, the trolleys will stop and the city will fall silent. Then, with water and flowers for the dead, Hiroshima will remember how a flash in the early morning sky 60 years ago turned life to death for more than 140,000 people and forever changed the face of war.

To mark the 60th anniversary of the world's first atomic bomb attack, more than 50,000 people were expected to gather Saturday in Peace Memorial Park, a sprawling, tree-covered expanse that for one day each year becomes the spiritual epicenter of the global anti-nuclear movement.

Let us all pause in our daily lives and offer our own moment of silence. Perhaps in this reflection, humanity might find a way to redirect its wartime hatred and energies by scrapping these weapons and taking up the more difficult path to peace. The death of so many innocents surely proves the end that beckons us all if we continue developing nuclear weapons and following aggressive leaders that fill our brains with fear and hatred.

Fear and hatred will only lead to oblivion; the only viable path is hope and peace.

For more debate on the fateful US decision to drop the bomb, check out the LA Times article today - The Myths of Hiroshima.

Kill 'Em All

2005-08-05T16:21:00.000-05:00

According to Reuters, the International Association of Chiefs of Police issued new guidelines to its 20,000 members a mere two weeks before British authorities repeatedly shot a Brazilian suspect in the head.

The new guidelines: use deadly force to deal with suspected bombers. Shoot them in the head. Don't even bother asking questions and forget about investigating their answers. Kill 'em all.

So, what a are the guidelines for ascertaining whether a suspect is a bomber? They are fairly general:

Among signs to look for listed in the police organization's behavioral profile are wearing a heavy coat in warm weather, carrying a backpack with protrusions or visible wires, nervousness, excessive sweating or an unwillingness to make eye contact, the Post said.

The new guidelines also say the threat does not have to be "imminent" -- as in traditional police training -- an officer just needs to have a "reasonable basis" for believing a suspect can detonate a bomb.

The threshold has been lowered from "imminent danger" to "reasonable basis", from "arresting a suspect" to "killing a suspect". The establishment of what constitutes a "reasonable basis" is equally questionable. According to the above signs, a homeless person with an old coat might be a target. Anyone carrying a walkman or iPod would constitute a bomber. As for the person who demonstrates "nervousness, excessive sweating, or unwillingness to make eye contact," that could describe almost anyone who still uses public transit these days. Though now, it's not just the terrorist threat that creates this "nervousness," it's the possibility that the police will mistakenly shoot them in the head as well.

I know "Kill 'Em All" advocates will argue that though some innocent individuals could be killed, it will still drastically reduce the hundred that would have died from the bomber's blast. But I challenge the assumption of that argument. Besides the morality of equating suspicion to absolute guilt and finally execution, I believe there is no proof that such a system will prevent suicide bombers. As a matter of fact, the list of suspicious activity can either be avoided or completely ignored by using groups rather than individuals. The concept that terrorists continually use one technique over and over again is ludicrous. Even in Iraq, terrorists and insurgents are constantly evolving.

The final point is this: by giving into hysteria, the world is admitting defeat. The goal of terrorism is to cower a population by fear. The fear that causes groups to abandon their rights under freedom, to report location of terrorist cells, and the fear to continue turning the world economy.

This violent reaction to the London Bombings and terrorist violence worldwide will only serve to justify the terrorists. By not sticking to the guns of democracy and giving into fear and intimidation, the terrorists can rightly claim the democratic world is made up of hypocrites. As Benjamin Franklin so aptly put it:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

US "Secret" Detainment Facilities

2005-08-04T15:47:00.000-05:00

Today, Amnesty International released yet another report on US abuses, this time highlighting "secret" worldwide detainment facilities. Back in June, Amnesty International delegates visited two Yemeni detainees said to have recently been transferred from the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. This is a synopsis of their findings.

Two individuals, Mahummad Faraj Ahmed Bashmilah and Salah Nasser Salim after 1.5 years were transported to a detainment center in Jordan for four days. They were held in solitary confinement with no explanation, visits from family, lawyers, diplomatic representatives or Red Cross members. While in Jordan, both were tortured and held only by request of US authorities.

Salah Salim (27) was detained in August 2003 in Jakarta by authorities. He was held for 4 days, handcuffed, blindfolded and without food. After repeated attempts, his wife was told he was held by immigration authorities, and she had to pay money for his release. After his passport expired, he was told he would be transported to Yemen via Thailland and Jordan. He was later detained by Jordan authorities in a torture "hotel" where he was beaten, sodomized and underwent electric shocks.

Muhammad Faraj Ahmed Bashmilah (37) also lived in Indonesia. In October 2003, he travelled to Jordan with his wife to be with his mother and was detained at Amman airport by Jordanian immigration authorities. After re-collecting his passport three-days later, he was asked if he had ever been to Afghanistan. He said "yes" and was thenwhiskedd away to be interrogated by both Jordanian and US interrogators. After a year and a half later, he was transferred to Yemen.

Both men were transported to a secret facility run by US forces. These prisoners "disappeared" from the international radar for 1 year and half. Amnesty documents the use of this technique as against UN regulations:

"Enforced disappearances" are described in the 3rd preambular paragraph of the UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances as taking place when,

"... people are arrested, detained or abducted against their will or otherwise deprived of their liberty by officials of different branches or levels of Government, or by organized groups or private individuals acting on behalf of, or with the support, direct or indirect, consent or acquiescence of the Government, followed by a refusal to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of their liberty, which places such persons outside the protection of the law."

Thousands of detainees remain held in US custody in Iraq and hundreds remain in US custody in Afghanistan, with some of them detained without trial and virtually incommunicado for more than a year. Several thousand other detainees are believed to be held in the custody of other governments at the behest of the USA.

Help Amnesty International deal with this epidemic and call to action the following governments:

Jordan: Call on the Jordanian Authorities to Stop Torture in Detention Centers
Yemen: Urge Yemen to Stop Secret and Incommunicado Detentions and 'Disappearances'
Egypt: Detainees at Risk of Torture in Unknown Locations

Also, let your senators know how you feel about torture in the name of US Liberty and Justice.

Bush Waxes Philosophical on CAFTA

2005-08-03T10:50:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, President Bush signed the US-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) after a contentious Senate battle (56-44) and a razor-thin victory in the House (217-215). Despite concerns of US job loss, corporate tax evasion, and international labor exploitation, Bush decided to shift the focus to national security and his "freedom is on the march" philosophy. He again confuses capitalism with democracy as is common in a Cold War mentality. According to the US President's speech, it is economic forces alone that drive the "democracy domino" effect:

CAFTA is more than a trade bill; it is a commitment among freedom-loving nations to advance peace and prosperity throughout the region. As the oldest democracy in the Western Hemisphere, the United States has a moral obligation and a vital national security interest in helping democracies in our neighborhood succeed, and CAFTA advances this goal.

By strengthening the democracies in the region, CAFTA will enhance our nation's security. Two decades ago, many of the CAFTA nations struggled with poverty and dictatorship and civil strife. Today, they're working democracies, and we must not take these gains for granted. These nations still face forces that oppose democracy, seek to limit economic freedom, and want to drive a wedge between the United States and the rest of the Americas. The small nations of CAFTA are making big and brave commitments, and CAFTA is a signal that the United States will stand with them and support them. By helping the CAFTA nations build free societies, we'll help them eliminate the lawlessness and instability that terrorists and criminals and drug traffickers feed on. And this will make our country safer.

Yeah, right . . . I feel safer. Everyone knows the reason why terrorists exist is because of trade tariffs and government's ignoring the rights of their businesses. Perhaps, worker unions have become the new breeding grounds for terrorist training! Thank God CAFTA will save the day. It is the international USA Patriot Act we need to fight the "War on Terror."

Seriously, this speech does belie the basic tenant of Bush Philosophy: the equality of corporate interests to individual interests. The assumption is there is no tension between labor and business or consumer and business, and especially no tension between the government and business. The concept that business might exploit its labor force, take advantage of customer ignorance or stash profits for the rich few is not understood in Bush World.

This is not the case in true Straussian neo-conservative ideology which understands these things and intentionally hides it from the ignorant public. But to be honest, George W. Bush was never really a neo-con, despite the majority of his cabinet. And now his Paul Wolfowitz has moved forward into the World Bank to corrupt it just as thoroughly as the current US Administration with these ideals of well-intentioned deception and individual subjugation to the greed of power.

But, I digress. Perhaps a discussion on Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind will have to wait until a future post.

What disturbs me most is the juxtaposition of what Bush said on signing CAFTA and what Clinton stated on signing NAFTA. Whereas Bush seems focused on the far-reaching future, Clinton described the current US economic situation fairly accurately:

But I want to say to my fellow Americans, when you live in a time of change the only way to recover your security and to broaden your horizons is to adapt to the change, to embrace, to move forward. Nothing we do -- nothing we do in this great capital can change the fact that factories or information can flash across the world; that people can move money around in the blink of an eye. Nothing can change the fact that technology can be adopted once created by people all across the world, and then rapidly adapted in new and different ways by people who have a little different take on the way the technology works.

That is it. The "adapt to the change, to embrace, to move forward" part was missing from Bush's speech. But to be honest, both Clinton and Bush and many presidents before them have failed to take the initiative to move the US workforce into the future, blindly believing that the invisible, magic forces of free-competition and capitalism will somehow transform US businesses.

The education system is so bad in the US that it takes someone like Bill Gates to point out, "America's high schools are obsolete." The frequency of out-sourcing and off-shoring is so prevalent that there are a slew of companies in business just to help other companies do it as fiscally as possible. Meanwhile, the US workforce is facing sharp competition by cheaper, illegal labor overseas, never mind the illegal labor market within the country. Instead of ramping up for this free-trade agreement and embracing the future, the US is crossing its fingers it will work, hoping that market forces will somehow accomplish what the government and American corporations are unwilling to do.

So the Bush Philosophy on CAFTA is simply a red herring to the real mystery behind free-trade. The real mystery is how Mr. Bush can believe no plan is a good plan and why corporate interests are trumping those of the average US citizen.

America - "Culture-Free Zone"

2005-08-02T14:57:00.000-05:00

According to a Financial Times article on Sunday, America is increasingly viewed as a "culture-free zone" inhabited by arrogant and unfriendly people. It seem among 25 countries polled, America ranked 11th in terms of good brand recognition for businesses:

The US ranked 11th in the Brands Index, which asks people around the world to rate 25 countries according to their cultural, political and investment potential and other criteria. Australia received the highest overall score, with respondents expressing "an almost universal admiration of its people, landscapes and living and working environment", according to the report.

Although the US received high marks for its popular culture, it ranked last in cultural heritage, a measure of a country's "wisdom, intelligence, and integrity", according to Mr Anholt.

This is truly sad. For far too long the general US population has been informed by a decaying education system, blinded by the short glory of rampant consumerism, hoodwinked by fear and anger into spewing hatred across the world. That this one study holds any real sign of America losing its position on the world stage would be mere speculation. But no one can deny that the international community is certainly doubting US dominance in business and potentially, world affairs.

Who will become the new dominant player in the 21st Century? China?

California Rules For Same-Sex Couples

2005-08-02T12:33:00.000-05:00

According to the LA Times today, the California Supreme Court decided 6-0 on Monday that businesses must give spousal privileges to registered couples whether they are married or domestic partners. The case involved a lesbian couple who sued a country club in San Diego after it denied golfing privileges given to married couples. The couple claimed the country club was violating a state civil rights law, which ultimately California's Court upheld.

Though a clear victory for domestic partner advocates, there is some concern that this might confuse the same-sex marriage debate. By giving spousal rights to state-registered domestic partners, the main contention for same-sex marriage advocates has now been removed. State Attorney General Bill Lockyer backed the Supreme Court decision, but believes that because same-sex couples have the same rights under domestic partners laws, there is no need for granting these couples the right to marry.

This might become the basis for a prolonged debacle over the discrimination issue and make the right of marriage a moot point. The idea of "separate but equal" might extend the gay marriage ban under the banner of good segregation. Rather than dealing with real prejudices, this decision might lead to a slew of "lesser evil" laws that will still deny fundamental rights to homosexuals but claim that other compatible rights will take their place. This claim assumes that there are irreconcilable differences between heterosexual and homosexual freedoms, so thus only equivalency is possible.

And that is the travesty in this decision. I hope this will be just another step on the long road forward not another step backward into bigotry and discrimination.

Mice Who Elect Cats

2005-08-02T09:55:00.000-05:00

I just came across this parable called "Mouseland" today and thought it represents just as well the problem with the political parties in the US as it does in Canada.

Mouseland
As told by Tommy Douglas in 1944

It's the story of a place called Mouseland. Mouseland was a place where all the little mice lived and played, were born and died. And they lived much the same as you and I do.

They even had a Parliament. And every four years they had an election. Used to walk to the polls and cast their ballots. Some of them even got a ride to the polls. And got a ride for the next four years afterwards too. Just like you and me. And every time on election day all the little mice used to go to the ballot box and they used to elect a government. A government made up of big, fat, black cats.

Now if you think it strange that mice should elect a government made up of cats, you just look at the history of Canada for last 90 years and maybe you'll see that they weren't any stupider than we are.

Now I'm not saying anything against the cats. They were nice fellows. They conducted their government with dignity. They passed good laws--that is, laws that were good for cats. But the laws that were good for cats weren't very good for mice. One of the laws said that mouseholes had to be big enough so a cat could get his paw in. Another law said that mice could only travel at certain speeds--so that a cat could get his breakfast without too much effort.

All the laws were good laws. For cats. But, oh, they were hard on the mice. And life was getting harder and harder. And when the mice couldn't put up with it any more, they decided something had to be done about it. So they went en masse to the polls. They voted the black cats out. They put in the white cats.

Now the white cats had put up a terrific campaign. They said: "All that Mouseland needs is more vision." They said:"The trouble with Mouseland is those round mouseholes we got. If you put us in we'll establish square mouseholes." And they did. And the square mouseholes were twice as big as the round mouseholes, and now the cat could get both his paws in. And life was tougher than ever.

And when they couldn't take that anymore, they voted the white cats out and put the black ones in again. Then they went back to the white cats. Then to the black cats. They even tried half black cats and half white cats. And they called that coalition. They even got one government made up of cats with spots on them: they were cats that tried to make a noise like a mouse but ate like a cat.

You see, my friends, the trouble wasn't with the colour of the cat. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats, they naturally looked after cats instead of mice.
Presently there came along one little mouse who had an idea. My friends, watch out for the little fellow with an idea. And he said to the other mice, "Look fellows, why do we keep on electing a government made up of cats? Why don't we elect a government made up of mice?" "Oh," they said, "he's a Bolshevik. Lock him up!" So they put him in jail.

But I want to remind you: that you can lock up a mouse or a man but you can't lock up an idea.

This parable has the potential to represent any government that is controlled by only two corrupt parties based solely on capitalism. The good of the people must be represented by those people and not from those who wish to use those people. Government should not control all business, and corporate issues alone should not run the government. The government should be the ultimate arbitrator between the worker and business, but ultimately the government must takes the side of its electorate, not its campaign contributors.

But how do we create such a balance in a democratic society? How can socialism and capitalism coexist without one dominating the other? There is no doubt that the government cannot strangle business especially in a global economy, but there is equally no doubt that capitalism alone cannot satisfy the will of the people. There must be other protections in place.

The amount of protection is the question.

Bolton Appointed to UN Post

2005-08-01T13:19:00.000-05:00

After much contentious debate within the Senate, President Bush has decided to use his recess appointment for granting John Bolton the post of US Ambassador to the UN (Bolton - US Ambassor Or Ass?). Bush had this to say about the appointment:

The United States Senate held thorough confirmation hearings, and a majority of United States senators agree that he is the right man for the job. Yet because of partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators, John was unfairly denied the up-or-down vote that he deserves.

As a result, America has now gone more than six months without a permanent ambassador to the United Nations. This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about U.N. reform.

So today, I've used my constitutional authority to appoint John Bolton to serve as America's ambassador to the United Nations.

Despite the dramatic emergency the President has tried to veil over this appointment, the decision is just another in the long line of the Bush Administration's power stratagem. The move comes as no surprise to most political pundits, nor does this president's incessant use of recess appointments. If one cannot garner the consensus of the Senate, direct appointment through loopholes in the constitution seems a more viable option than compromise. As Fred Kaplan pointed out back in April, the US Senate, even with a Republican majority, seemed unlikely to approve the nomination without much contention:

The most telling thing about today's hearing may be that Bolton displayed not the slightest bit of energy, one way or the other, when discussing the challenges facing international organizations. President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice have said several times, since the second term began, that the United Nations will be a forum where some of the day's central challenges - Iranian nukes, Lebanese independence, an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord - may be played out.

Apart from all the other doubts about Bolton's suitability, does the U.S. Senate really want a U.N. ambassador who seems, at bottom, so uninterested in what goes on there?

So now the US has an ambassador at the UN (until 2006) who believes in foreign policies funded by bad intelligence, who dislikes multilateralism and genocide prevention, and who vehemently hates the institution of the United Nations. On top of that, the consent of the US Senate was circumvented and dilutes the effect such an ambassador will have on the international stage.

And as time will tell, that might be the only good news. Let us all hope the UN will hold strong despite its more contentious members and embrace reform, and escape a US transformation or dissolution.

On King Fahd's Death

2005-08-01T11:07:00.000-05:00

After 23 years of absolute rule, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia at the age 0f 84 died today. Upon his six-week long illness, Crown Prince Abdullah was named his successor on Thursday. Meanwhile, the two factions between democratic reform and Islamic radicalism seem locked in a decisive war for the future of Saudi Arabia. King Fahd's death may have only deepened rifts within the Al-Saud - his own family of over 22,000 princes/princesses.

In a country where women cannot drive vehicles, cannot vote and are segregated from men in every aspect of Saudi life, democratic reform is extremely difficult. In a country with close ties to the US, specifically the Bush family, both militarily and economically, radical Islamic terrorists have now turned on the Saudi family since May 2003, citing issues of corruption and betrayal. Both reformers and Islamic radicals have a common enemy in the form of the ruling Saudi monarchy, teetering on the edge of full-blown revolution.

As Mai Yamani assesses the current dilemma at www.tompaine.com, new King Abdullah's choice for Crown Prince:

If Abdullah (aged 83) can perhaps skip a generation and appoint a more open-minded younger figure, there may be hope. But Naif (age 77), his full brothers - including Sultan (age 82) - and their supporters within the Wahhabi establishment appear too entrenched to allow that to happen. Like the geriatric successions that preceded the collapse of the Soviet Union, the succession in Saudi Arabia seems to be only a step in an inexorable march toward political decay. Russia found a young reformer in Mikhail Gorbachev too late. It may also be too late for Saudi Arabia.

Indeed so. Abdullah's appointment does not seem very promising. With King Abdullah's health in decay, the appointment of Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz as Crown Prince seems to herald only a retreat from reform, angering both fundamentalist and democrat alike.

The question remains however: who will rule Saudi Arabia after the fall?

Will the Western world find an ally or a much stronger, focused foe?

IRA Calls It Quits

2005-07-28T17:08:00.000-05:00

After the 1916 Rising, the Republic of Ireland finally won its freedom from England in 1918. The political party Sinn Fein had as much to do with its freedom as the revolution did, voting in the English Parliament to cede from England. There was one notable exception in 1921: a 5500-mile stretch at the northern tip of Ireland, already more industrialized than its southern neighbor. At the time, the populace of Northern Ireland was largely made up of British loyalists (Protestants) with very few Irish Republicans (Catholics) living there.

The religious associations between the two groups became a litmus test for political affiliation. If one was Catholic, then one was treated as a rebel. Incidents of British brutality and negligence in certain Catholic neighborhoods were commonly reported. Thus, the Irish Republican Army was formed to protect those Catholic citizens from their Protestant neighbors.

In 1969, the Catholic minority staged a series of civil rights marches intent on securing fair allocation of public housing and fair employment practices. After many Protestant anti-protests ignited violence, the British Army was sent in as a neutral force to protect the Catholic protesters from the Protestant mobs and paramilitary. The violence, despite British forces, spiraled out of control, and marked the suspension of Northern Ireland's Parliament.

This consummated in 1972's Bloody Sunday where 12 unarmed men and boys were killed and 14 others wounded when British forces laid siege to a peaceful Civil Rights rally in Derry, Northern Ireland. It was this fateful event that marked the spike in the IRA's recruitment and its increased role in the Northern Ireland resistance movement.

The violence that ignited both Northern Ireland and England finally paused in 1998, when the "Good Friday" peace accord was signed by the IRA, Protestant paramilitary leaders and the Irish and English governments. Thus, only the political party Sinn Fein remained in pursuit of a unified Ireland, constantly denying its one-time association with the violent IRA.

Now, today marks the IRA announcement that it will end its violent campaign entirely:

The leadership of Oglaigh na hEireann has formally ordered an end to the armed campaign.

This will take effect from 4pm this afternoon.

All IRA units have been ordered to dump arms.

All Volunteers have been instructed to assist the development of purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means.

Volunteers must not engage in any other activities whatsoever.

This painfully slow process towards peace in Northern Ireland seems to have been embraced fully by even its most radical elements. Whether it was simply the wearisome strife and destruction since 1972 that ate away at the incessant violence or the new violence in London and the terrorist threat at large that woke the IRA up, there is for a time peace.

And that for now, may be all that matters.

Pentagon Reconsiders War On Terror

2005-07-28T15:09:00.000-05:00

After writing numerous posts criticizing the military approach to a largely diplomatic and criminal issue the War on Terror presents (Filling The Swamp, Bombs Aren't Nutritious?, Heaven's Not Overflowing, Article Heard Round The World, Bush's Shooting Gallery), I was shocked to hear these words on CSPAN from the US News and World Report:

Officially titled the "National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism," the document is the culmination of 18 months of work and is a significant evolution from the approach adopted after the 9/11 attacks, which was to focus on capturing or killing the top al Qaeda leaders. For the first time since then, Pentagon officials say, they have a strategy that examines the nature of the antiterror war in depth, lays out a detailed road map for prosecuting it, and establishes a score card to determine where and whether progress is being made.

So, it took almost 4 years after 9/11 before such a detailed plan emerges? It has taken an unnecessary war in Iraq and increased public skepticism before the US government reconsiders its options. I can only hope the reign of "bumper sticker" foreign policy is over.

The following key points of the soon-to-be declassified document are as follows:

Terrorists are no longer considered only Al-Queda operatives or associates. Terrorists are now considered "Islamist extremists" within a "global web of enemy networks." This provides a much needed admission that the terrorist problem has been growing rampantly despite Al-Queda's reduced leadership.

The Pentagon cannot win the War on Terror by military alone. The new plan details diplomatic and social means of reducing terrorist recruiting, and places a strong emphasis on destroying terrorist networks rather than waging war on other countries.

A new set of metrics will be used for bi-yearly review of current progress. These metrics involve field commanders reporting success in locating and dismantling terrorist safe havens, financial assets, communications networks, and planning cells for each of the target groups.

The Pentagon's Special Operations Command is designated as the global "synchronizer" for all military commands and is responsible for the overall "War on Terror" campaign. This will hopefully reduce the chaos that currently plagues the US effort and move all military and diplomatic forces into a common direction.

Despite all of my inner cynicism, I knew it was only a matter of time before someone realized we are creating enemies faster than we can kill them. To treat the terrorist threat like a verbatim routine as was instituted against communism in the Cold War, would be suicide. But to deny the nuclear dimension of the terrorist threat is equally suicide. I don't believe any sane individual wants the rapture in the midst of a nuclear holocaust. We must strike at the root of terrorism: the fanaticism and desperation that fuels it or fall victim to legitimizing them through lengthy military engagements.

Perhaps if the US and other nations can keep their war-hawks at bay, we really may drain the swamp...

Bombing Mosques...Seriously?!

2005-07-27T13:56:00.000-05:00

Not that I believe John Edwards was extremely erudite on the Roberts Supreme Court nomination, but I was curious nevertheless what the former lawyer would have to say. Well, the honest truth was I got bored with Mr. Edwards opinion, so I started reading comments. Then, I came across this right-wing conspiracy nonsense:

Which MOSQUE is YOURS ???????
by Faith on 2005-07-22 23:39:29

Several mosques in America have been used as recruiting stations . The leaders of the 9/11 hijacking ring attended at least 7 mosques in the United States while in America. That is one example. It's something that happened in the past, but even as I write this the same kind of meetings are taking place all over America; even the world. The members of dangerous hostile groups are using these mosques as sanctuaries of terror and subversive plots against our government.

Some mosques are being used to procure weapons and some have been arrested last year for trying to buy a missile used for terror attacks. Yes, the unpleasant truth is that too many mosques are being used as sanctuaries for terrorist activities. SOME MAY BE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD!

(actual listing of mosques omitted)

Be afraid--be very afraid- ! And quit worrying about the Islamics who will be insulted ETC. Because,or if, we decided we don't want any more mosques built in our country !!!! Lets be some of those who rise above the crowds of bleeding hearts screaming for more tolerance in America. Why should we "tolerate" Sanctuaries of terror and those who use them to conspire against us ? All you have to do is use common sense to realize you are being exploited and you have a right to resist that !

As soon as I can I will give more details about these mosques in maybe YOUR town ! The details are very convincing; believe it.

I find it unfathomable that this kind of fear could pervade any thinking individual. It is the equivalent of synagogues for SS in Nazi Germany and Christian Churches for the Turks in the Armenian Genocide. To simply focus on associations rather than the individual terrorists or the terrorist organizations that enable them is ludicrous.

I say this, but I know some right-wing blogger is probably going to make a fool of themselves and actually comment positively on this absolute drivel.

I surely hope I'm wrong. I would like to think America as a whole has a little bit more tolerance and comprehension than that.

Rival to Kyoto

2005-07-27T12:27:00.000-05:00

Following my previous post in June (Global Worming), there are rumors that the US and Australia are working on a rival protocol to the Kyoto Treaty, based on industry not the big picture. Supposedly some Asian countries are involved including China, India and South Korea. The competing pact involves using cleaner technologies rather than by wholesale emission reduction.

As the BBC reports, there are some very logical reasons why wholesale reduction is off the table for these countries:

According to the organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the four biggest producers of coal in the world are China, the United States, India and Australia; so it is unlikely that these nations would come up with an agreement to reduce the production and use of coal.

The final plan of action from this month's meeting of G8 leaders made clear that fossil fuel power stations are going to be a dominant source of electricity for decades to come, and reducing their emissions would be a priority.

To deny that both cleaner technologies and large emission reductions are needed to slow down if not stop climate change is absolutely ridiculous. The Kyoto Treaty does not do near enough, but surely this new US pact with a stubborn focus on technology and not emission quantity, also side- steps the larger issue. Emissions must be reduced, and industry must be held to task.

Technology is a means to that end, but cannot be an end unto itself. Or else there is no reduction and more useless legislation. The environment in which we live is as important if not more so to the world's economy. If in this alone, the world can agree only then can progress be made.

If There Was Truth on TV

2005-07-26T16:16:00.000-05:00

I read this Doonesbury comic a few days ago and I thought it summed up so much better my vain hope that this president will "turn the corner" than any blog entry I could conceive.

Quality in Iraq Police, Not Quantity

2005-07-26T09:28:00.000-05:00

On the cusp of recent news involving the increasing Iraqi Police dropout rate and more Iraqi police dead from insurgent attacks, the US Departments of State and Defense released an independent report yesterday on the current training progress. Their report points out the poor screening process used by coalition forces in accepting potential trainees and the lack of input from the Iraqis of what needs these new police officers must be trained to meet. In a nutshell, the report goes farther than criticizing the policies and procedures; it recommends an immediate overhaul of the current processes.

On the US Administration's insistence upon the numbers game, the report emphasizes the fallacy of this policy:

Coalition officials perceived a primary objective should be the fastest possible creation of a sizeable police force. To determine a force-strength target, planners reviewed per capita police-to-population ratios in neighboring Islamic countries. On this basis, 135,000 "trained and equipped" was considered to be the required number of Iraqi police (IP). The IIG agreed to this figure, and the IG Team accepts the logic of this methodology.

Nonetheless, aiming for numbers poses other issues. With the mix of IPs already on the force plus new recruits, it is hard to determine how many IPs are "trained and equipped." There are differing views on which units should be counted or how to validate the numbers against the goal of 135,000. Attrition and the failure to hire trainees (and/or trainees' decisions not to join the IPS) are additional factors that cloud the numbers' calculations. Coalition training subsequently has been driven by a focus on the numbers metric.

With a high IP casualty toll (over 1,600 policemen have lost their lives over the past year), widely publicized incidents in which the IP failed in the face of attacks, and skepticism among foreign observers, there is a perception that training programs have produced "cannon fodder" - numbers of nominal policemen incapable of defending themselves, let alone the Iraqi public.

Well, I applaud this report's gall in trying to gauge the success of the Iraqi effort. I only hope the Bush Administration will listen and act accordingly. Their track record of ignoring reality notwithstanding.

Back with More Bombings

2005-07-25T08:16:00.000-05:00

Well, thank you to all of the well-wishers and fans of your village voice for waiting out my brief absence. I am glad to report that all is well with my injured grandfather and is recovering by leaps and bounds.

Others did not fare so well in my absence. In the US, President Bush dropped his Supreme Court nomination bomb in the form of mild-conservative, darkhorse John Roberts. The only complaints from reputable sources on the left involve his murky judicial framework and political involvement within the current administration. Not surprisingly, the White House under the guise of a "quick and fair nomination" process, is stonewalling the nomination hearings by its refusal to release all memos and other documentation while Roberts was working for two Republican presidents.

Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy had this to say about invoking client-lawyer privilege over the Robert's non-disclosure:

It's a total red herring to say, "Oh, we can't show this." Those working in the solicitor general's office are not working for the president. They're working for you and me and all the American people.

In other bombing news, the oppressive Egyptian government has arrested 35 people after Saturday's Sharm al-Sheikh bombing, which killed at least 88 people. Whether they're guilty or innocent remains to be seen, but with the recent restrictions on Egyptian civil liberties, it is more of a philosophical question than a legal one.

After the failed London bombing last week, most Britons believe that the Iraq War has contributed to its recent bombing and bombing attempts. A recent survey finds more than 60%think the conflict is a contributing factor, while 23% believe the war is the main cause for the bombing attacks. In a resounding affirmation of this, two more Baghdad bombings shook Iraq this morning at Sadir Hotel and the Interior Ministry police command in one of Saddam's former palaces. This comes after yesterday's suicide bombing at a police station in eastern Baghdad, which killed least 22 people.

Is any doubt the similarity between Iraq and other news last week? The link is violence and obfuscation, whether involving Al-Queda or its US counterpart, clearly demonstrating the logical end of both radical ideologies.

Clever or Coulter?

2005-07-20T14:27:00.000-05:00

First of all...let me say thank you to "The Prisoner" for asking me to fill in a few guest posts while he is indisposed. I'm not sure I'm worthy of the honor but I'll do my best to hold all of you over until he returns.
This post below is one that I posted earlier today on my site (www.pettyrage.com)...so for any of you crossover readers...bear with me.
I will have an original "your village voice" post coming shortly.
In the meantime, I'll start you off with this:

Thanks for your patience,
Lefty Jones

Clever or Coulter?

Annoying Ann strikes again.
She's truly one of those people that almost NEVER says anything intelligent OR funny and trust me, I've tried to be nice.
Worse yet, she and many other on the right believe her to be some kind of sex-symbol which IS funny but which also tells you just how out of step and loony many on the right are.
Hot?
Cracker please....(hissing sound)

So, today Ann shoots off her mouth and gets in to the headlines by decrying Justice Roberts as the nominee.
Does this mean that rational minded folk should be pleased because Annoying Ann is not?
Nope...not at all.
First of all, she's a party lackey and it behooves Republicans to put the spin out there that this guy might be too moderate.
Second of all, Ann cares about Ann. And only Ann.
Bashing Roberts gives her street cred with the Neo-con crowd that buys her wittily titled books like, " How to talk to a Liberal, if you must...."

Hehehe....she's a chucklefest, that Ann is.
Anyway...do with her words what you will. To me, they are just words that serve Ann. Which is why....and this will anger Ann....i don't hate her as she assumes all people on the left do.
You see, to hate her would require an effort that she isn't worth and it would mean that she actually holds some power or ability to implement her insane ideas.
She does not.
She simply shepherds a flock and gets well paid to do it.
In the meantime, I'll worry more about people who actually can do anything about what they say rather than just a third rate mouthpiece.

picture borrowed/stolen from MoPaul.com

Brief Blog Hiatus

2005-07-15T14:39:00.000-05:00

Sorry to all of those village dedicated fans out there, but I'll be away from the virtual world on personal business until 7/26. So, hopefully that'll give you time to catch up on some of the older posts and read some of the village voice's newest contributors.

Let's hope Hurrican Emily avoids the Houston area!

Torture? What Torture?

2005-07-14T12:37:00.000-05:00

The abuses at Abu Ghraib shocked the world. The alleged torture of detainees created a wave of popular discontent in America and other countries. The Whitehouse immediately responded with the following press release in May 2004:

President Bush views the Abu Ghraib prison abuses as abhorrent.

What took place at Abu Ghraib does not represent America, which is a compassionate country that believes in freedom. America sent troops into Iraq to promote freedom.

There are investigations under way to determine how widespread abuse may be occurring.

President Bush has instructed Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to find the truth and then tell the Iraqi people and world the truth. Then, to address the problems in a forthright, up-front manner.

These actions of a few people do not reflect the nature of the men and women who serve our country.

Truly, this will reassure American citizens and the world over that the Bush Administration will not tolerate this kind of behavior. These kinds of deplorable techniques are just isolated cases of abuse, certainly not a systemic trend within the Pentagon itself.

Well... not exactly.

It seems the same kind of behavior that landed seven enlisted soldiers in jail is wrong in Iraq but okay in Cuba. According to a report recently released by military investigators, the same abuses in Abu Ghraib were a clone of techniques used in Gitmo:

The techniques, approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for use in interrogating Mohamed Qahtani -- the alleged "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- were used at Guantanamo Bay in late 2002 as part of a special interrogation plan aimed at breaking down the silent detainee.

The report's findings are the strongest indication yet that the abusive practices seen in photographs at Abu Ghraib were not the invention of a small group of thrill-seeking military police officers. The report shows that they were used on Qahtani several months before the United States invaded Iraq.

The investigation also supports the idea that soldiers believed that placing hoods on detainees, forcing them to appear nude in front of women and sexually humiliating them were approved interrogation techniques for use on detainees.

Major General Geoffrey Miller, who commanded the Guantanamo detention facility and later responsible for major US operations in Abu Ghraib, was accused of improper supervision of Qahtani during his interrogation at Gitmo. The report recommended punishment for Miller, but General Bantz Craddock, head of U.S. Southern Command, refused:

My reason for disapproving that recommendation is that the interrogation of [Qahtani] did not result in any violation of a U.S. law or policy. And the degree of supervision provided by Major General Miller does not warrant admonishment under the circumstances.

The report goes on to describe the abuses as "creative" and "aggressive", but stopped short of calling them "torture." Nor does the report delineate what would constitute torture within the scenarios documented.

So, this is US Liberty and Justice? The administration and Pentagon deny any wrongdoing and arbitrarily punish soldiers who are simply doing what they are told. The public is told the situation is not "torture" (without identifying what is torture) and the military throws blame on its lowest ranks.

I am not sure which is more wrong: the abuse, the coverup of the abuse, punishment of the innocent, or the redefinition of torture. Any sane individual can see how these heinous acts have rotted out any logic they may once have had. Abuse is abuse. These means have no possible justifiable end for any country, certainly not MY country.

This abuse must stop.

Bush Country

2005-07-14T10:47:00.000-05:00

This sums up the far right-wingnut "all hail the government" arguments out there. You know who you are. No offense to thinking conservatives, of course.

USA Patriot Act Dilution

2005-07-14T07:46:00.000-05:00

After much debate over the USA Patriot Act's sunset provisions, the US House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees have proposed measures to dilute executive power and merely extend existing sunset provisions. This, of course, puts to a quick end the Bush Administration's Patriot Act Part II suggestions:

In particular, the House Judiciary Committee put a 10-year expiration date on the provision granting federal authorities the right to subpoena records from businesses, hospitals and libraries, as well as a provision allowing the government to continue to wiretap phones when suspects switch numbers.

The House Intelligence Committee approved making those provisions permanent, but only after adding measures to require additional judicial oversight of the subpoenas and search requests.

Both House committees declined to include a measure proposed this year by the Senate Intelligence Committee that would grant the investigators the right to use "administrative subpoenas" — effectively, the right to issue their own search warrants without getting a judge's approval first.

The USA Patriot Act renewal process is in its early stages however, so many are hopeful this is a good start in the right direction. I certainly hope this will lead the Senate to support more limitations and perhaps by the time it comes to a Joint Session, the USA Patriot Act may keep it potency and have additional oversight.

I hope congress will continue its examination of the SAFE Act. Co-sponsor the SAFE Act petition and show your support.

Deadly Pakistan Train Collision

2005-07-13T13:43:00.000-05:00

According to the AP:

Three trains collided in a deadly chain reaction in southern Pakistan after a train driver misread a signal early Wednesday, killing at least 127 people and injuring hundreds in the country's worst crash in more than a decade, police and railway officials said.

The accident occurred at about 4 a.m. near Ghotki, some 370 miles northeast of Karachi, in remote Sindh province.

The Quetta Express was traveling from the eastern city of Lahore to the southwestern city of Quetta when a technical problem forced it to stop at the station. Technicians were working on the train when it was struck by the Karachi Express.

The impact pushed three carriages onto an adjacent track, and they in turn were hit by the Tezgam Express, heading from Karachi north to Rawalpindi, causing more derailments, said Abdul Aziz, a senior controller at Pakistan Railways.

In all, some 13 cars derailed.

This has been another horrific tragedy due to Pakistan's antiquated rail system. Whether due to mechanical or human fault, I am sure all of the world's condolences are with the survivors of this catastrophic event.

I cannot begin to imagine not only the anger and sadness of the survivors and victims' families, but also the anger and despair of that train driver. I don't know if I could live with that kind of guilt. How often have we all "misread signals"?

I only hope this tragedy won't be misread. This is a sign to upgrade Pakistan's rail system into modern one, not to scapegoat a human being whose small error had grave consequences. The fact that 3 trains depended on one driver's judgment alone, with no other fail-safes in place, should be the issue in all of this chaos.

London Bombed by British Terrorists

2005-07-13T12:24:00.000-05:00

Steve Gilliard, over at the News Blog, laments the recent revelation that the London Bombing was committed by British civilians, rather than by foreigners:

As I said, someone let these lunatics fill their heads with this nonsense and now people are dead, lots of people. The idea that these guys were born and raised in the UK, has scared the sh*t out of everyone. I thought they were recent immigrants. So I think a lot of us were wrong, and it's time to look very hard as to why these guys would do this and why they think it made sense.

Though I agree with the last point, the revelation of their citizenship can't be that surprising. After all who bombed Oklahoma City, 1996 Olympics and shot up Columbine?

All Americans.

It doesn't take foreign nationals to commit horrendous acts of barbarism. That is the myth. Anyone is capable of atrocious acts, any group is capable of doing horrible things against other fellow human beings. It is in a close-knit society this would be a shock, but in a heterogeneous population such as in Britain and the US, the very melting pot that creates the great flow of ideas can also create isolation and friction between different people. That is what living in a truly tolerant and free society is all about.

The problem is not the people. It is the ideology. Any radical group whether it is a terrorist organization, company or entire nation that believes in extremes and is willing to accomplish its goal by any means necessary could be dangerous.

But don't let the conservative blogs convince you that Europe is alone in its tolerance and hate-fanning. Ask the Pentagon about the "Salvador Option" in Iraq and you'll probably get the same speech about "the ends justify the means."

I am sure the suicide bombers in London believed that insanity, too.

Church Wakes Up To Zimbabwe Horror

2005-07-13T09:13:00.000-05:00

After a South African Church delegation recently returned from Zimbabwe, they accused President Robert Mugabe of "trampling on humanity" in regards to his man-made tsunami in Africa (village voice June 1st). It is sad it has taken more than a month for the Church to condemn the Mubabe's plan and fully realize its human effect. An aerial photograph was enough for anyone else to appreciate the damage and dehumanization happening in Zimbabwe.

Eddie Make, deputy secretary general of the South African Council of Churches (SACC), had this to say about the Magabe's relocation effort:

People had literally been removed from their places of abode and dumped in a remote area with no cover other than plastic sheets and pieces of wood they had cut from surrounding trees in order to protect them from the winter cold.

But we are of the opinion that this is not creating order. Rather, it is disrupting the lives of people.

Better late than never. Keep yourself informed daily @ the ZimbabweSituation.com website. If you're religious, you might want to pray that Zimbabwe will face its poverty crisis, rather than destroy its own people.

Let Freedom Ring?

2005-07-12T10:19:00.000-05:00

Tim O'Callaghan, a good friend of mine in Athens GA, had the dubious pleasure to attend a jingoistic "Christian" church service on July 3rd. He told me that all of the songs at the service were patriotic July 4th fare (only one being a Christian hymn), little children with US flags ran up front and formed a cross, and amidst the singing, displayed on a large screen images of tanks, soldiers and bombs going off. Needless to say, he felt nauseous.

Just the other day, Tim sent me the following email, playing off the Gettysburg Address that was spoken by the minister at the said service, echoing what Lincoln probably would have said had he made the speech himself:

The Gettysburg regress

2 months and 2 years ago our leaders brought forth on this planet a new war conceived in idiocy and dedicated to the proposition that all Arabs were in league with terrorists. Now we are engaged in a great political war, testing whether a war on terrorism or any war so conceived and so pointless, can long endure.

We are met on a battle-field of ideas. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as ludicrous, as a final resting place of lies, for those that have given their lives, that might feel they have some control of terrorism and oil. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this; the madness must end.

But in a large sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground.

The brave men living and dead who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can be never forget what they did here.

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the advancement of truth, to allow no longer, men and women of any nationality to die due to lies and prejudice. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, will actually operate this way, and not just claim to, or we shall surely perish from this earth.

Amen, brother. Now there's a sermon I truly endorse.

Tolerance Did NOT Cause London Bombings

2005-07-12T09:04:00.000-05:00

After watching Fox News a bit yesterday, I felt suffocated by the ludicrous notion that British tolerance is what caused the London Bombing. Many anchors went further, claiming that unlike the US, which of course really understands the War on Terror, Great Britain just didn't comprehend what Islamic Terrorism is all about (nevermind the WWII Air Raids, IRA bombings, etc.). As Newshound reports, Fox News was determined to educate them:

It would be easy to ascertain what the daily memo asked its anchors to push, i.e., the British press doesn't grasp the depth, width and breadth of the massive international Islamic terrorist conspiracy directed against all freedom-loving peoples everywhere and, therefore, the British people are in the dark about the hordes of villainous murderers living right in their own neighborhoods.

Clearly, Fox News set itself the task yesterday of enlightening its UK viewers, hoping that a barrage of accusatory rhetoric would coax weak-kneed liberals like the Mayor of London and the BBC into altering their preternaturally calm behavior, catapult them into mimicking the Yanks by erupting into a paroxysm of invective and rights-limiting legislation, all the while offering up hosannas to stalwart and true PM Tony Blair.

There is the fundamental difference. The overall political reaction to 9/11 in the US was fear and anger, which has passed much legislation and executive orders in the same vein. The overall political reaction to 7/7 in Britain has been strength and daily resolve. This, of course, upsets conservatives and though they may disregard and debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories that suggest the government could have stopped it, many conservatives want to lay blame on the British government's tolerance policies for 7/7. To be fair, in retrospect, many would probably argue 9/11 was also because of flabby liberalism and tolerance.

Many staunch conservative media bear this argument out.

They bring up good points about freedom and safety, but ignore the overriding principle of "freedom of speech" (which includes association). Rather than focus on what is being protected (freedom), they focus on the ends (stop bad people). What some of these well-meaning pundits fail to understand is how the means justify those ends. If freedom is sacrificed to stop bad people, then what is it exactly we are protecting?

The argument is invariably the same: "We are only curtailing terrorist freedoms." This proposition assumes that the freedoms of a minority are somehow separate from the freedoms of the majority. But ironically, to be a member of this minority, guilt must be assumed. So the boundary approaches the realm of hearsay, rather than absolute proof. Instead of prosecuting a committed crime, law enforcement is more willing to use entrapment techniques (as in the Hemant Lakhani case) and prove guilt by concept. This blurs the line between intentions and actions.

I only hope with the recent Yorkshire raids today, the US Right will resist the temptation of elaborating on these arguments. It's not as if we haven't heard these claims before during the Cold War:

Communism was supposed to take over the world. Turns out Communism never existed. Socialism, yes, but it creaked and groaned and only "worked" because it had to allow a certain amount of the free market to support it.

Vietnam was supposed to be an example of "the domino theory." The country was supposed to fall to Communism, then the rest of Southeast Asia. Then the world! So the US had to kill one million to two million Vietnamese to save Vietnam. Fifty-eight thousand American soldiers died. Then we left, and now, the Vietnamese are semi-capitalist. They have to be, otherwise they would starve. We might as well not even have had a war.

And it is fairly obvious that those justifications led us down the path to our current terrorism crisis. I for one, rather look to the future for solutions than repeat the same mistakes.

Police or Terrorists With Badges?

2005-07-11T11:36:00.000-05:00

On Sunday, the BBC reports 12 Iraqi men were arrested after they had taken a colleague to hospital in Ameriya with gunshot wounds. A local resident, thinking they were insurgents, called the police, who sent commandos to arrest the men. The Special Police Commandos lost 9 people today after leaving the suspects in a closed metal container for over 14 hours in the burning desert sun.

This has just been the latest in a string of alleged abuses by mercenary commandos increasingly in the employ of the understaffed Iraqi police. It is clear that the US Pentagon is quietly implementing the "Salvador Option" that was kicked around back in January. By providing money to these mercenary squads, neither the Iraqi government nor its US sponsor need worry about dirtying their hands in stomping out the insurgency.

As Fuller reports, the Iraqi Special Police Commandos have been executing the "Salvador Option" in Iraq at full throttle for quite some time:

The Police Commandos are in large part the brainchild of another US counter-insurgency veteran, Steven Casteel, a former top DEA man who has been acting as the senior advisor in the Ministry of the Interior. Casteel was involved in the hunt for Colombia's notorious cocaine baron Pablo Escobar, during which the DEA collaborated with a paramilitary organization known as Los Pepes, which later transformed itself into the AUC, an umbrella organization covering all of Colombia's paramilitary death squads (cocaine.org; ciponline).

Like Colombia's death squads, Iraq's Police Commandos deliberately cultivate a frightening paramilitary image. During raids they wear balaclavas and black leather gloves and openly intimidate and brutalize suspects, even in the presence of foreign journalists (see the report by Peter Maass). Significantly, many of the Commandos, including their leader, are Sunni Muslims.

In the last few weeks, with the discovery of several mass graves in and around Baghdad, evidence of multiple extra-judicial killings has started to become much more visible, but, in fact, even a cursory review of such archives as the one compiled by Iraq Body Count reveals that mass executions have been taking place commonly in Iraq over at least the last six months. What is particularly striking is that many of those killings have taken place since the Police Commandos became operationally active and often correspond with areas where they have been deployed.

The clearest correlation is in Mosul, where the Police Commandos began operating in late October (Stryker Newsl ). In mid-November it was reported that insurgents were conducting an offensive and had managed to drive most of the (regular) police from the city. There followed what was described as a joint counter-offensive by US forces and Police Commandos. The Police Commandos conducted raids inside the old quarter starting on 16 November in which dozens of suspects were arrested. During one such raid on a mosque and a tea shop, detainees, blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs, were seen being taken away by commandos (link ). In the weeks and months that followed over 150 bodies appeared (bbc news), often in batches and frequently having obviously been executed, usually with a bullet to the head.

The US government would do well to remember the results of the state-sponsored terror in the original "Salvador Option" and attempt to mitigate the onset of a civil war rather than push it forward. As the death of Archbishop Romera proves, the answer to terrorism is not more terrorism, but the strength to wage peace.

Outraged? Contact some US senators and let them know what you think.