Independent Dissent

Lets Be Frank

2010-10-21T12:09:00.000-07:00

Well its come, Sarah Palin has endorsed Sean Bielat (via Facebook, of course) in his quest to unseat Barney Frank in the Massachusetts 4th Congressional District. This comes amidst reports that the race is heating up because Barney Frank is loaning some money to his campaign, and his current lead (between ten and twenty points, depending on the poll) is not as large as it should be.

Although I could be wrong, I tend to view this race as quite safe for Frank. His loaning the campaign funds is likely just a move to patch up some holes and not take anything for granted, not an act of desperation. Over at FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver has this (as of October 20th) a 97.6% chance win for Barney Frank. Frank is also well above Bielat in campaign funds, and has a consistent lead.

I think the Bielat campaign will try to argue the "momentum" is shifting; as they should, it would be the smart thing to do politically and if he doesn't he should hire new media consultants. However I think the concept of momentum is a bit of a fallacy, (see Nate Silver again) and in any case its not likely he has enough time to close the gap. I could be wrong, and still remain shaken by January 2010, but I think all Democrats in Massachusetts are and are taking nothing for granted. I'm calling this race for Frank.

Unemployment Rate in MA Drops

2010-10-21T06:31:00.000-07:00

Its a crisp October day in Boston, keeping with consistency of a rather enjoyable autumn. Too many times the summer turns into a cold/rainy fall, a cold winter and a cold/rainy spring. This year we had a very nice spring (50s/60s/70s) and same for the fall. I can't help but enjoy a crisp but sunny 55 degree day. Here is some good news:

- The Massachusetts Unemployment Rate has dropped from 8.8% to 8.4%, the steepest drop since 1976. The national rate is hovering around 9.5%. I would say this fares very well for Deval Patrick, who has been maintaining the edge in a tight gubernatorial re-election campaign. Since Charlie Baker, his Republican opponent, is centerpiecing his campaign around Job Creation (as most Republicans are across the country and as anyone running for office should be doing) this would seem to take the wind out of his sails.

It will be interesting to see how he spins this. I suspect he will release a statement welcoming the improved economy, but say (a) that we are still at a net loss under Deval Patrick, (b) that we are not growing fast enough, and (c) that Patrick is somehow manipulating the real numbers.

On (a), we are still at a net loss under Deval Patrick but its kind of a silly argument to make. Patrick took office in 2006 and then saw the nation experience the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression, something completely out of his control. He has (in my view) made good and bad decisions under a very rough environment, but it seems now the MA economy is bouncing back, unemployment is dropping quite rapidly and the Commonwealth is faring much better than most of the rest of the United States. We will recover all the 2008-2009 job losses much more quickly than the rest of the country, and appear to be well on our way to recovery. That's a pretty good job if you ask me. The only thing that may hinder that would be the national economy, but that is another story.

On (b) we are not growing fast enough. Well yes it would be fantastic if we grew faster. And while this is only a single month's data, the steepest drop in unemployment since 1976 (when the recordings began) is pretty quick. It would be great to be experiencing 8 or 9% growth, but with the national economy really lagging I think this is pretty sufficient. Voters, I am guessing, will be happy with the trajectory. I am reminiscent of Bill Clinton's 1994 mid-term election when the economy was adding jobs at a pretty steady pace, and he lost control of Congress. However I am not sure what Patrick could do to accelerate growth (though I am guessing Baker would say cut taxes, cut spending, and deregulate, which is the Republican Party's answer to any single issue, ever, period. 9/11. Freedom. Support the troops.)

(c) Government employment data manipulated. Well yes I don't think employment is measured accurately enough in this country or the Commonwealth, but that is consistent. So when unemployment was low under Mitt Romney or Paul Celluci, they used the same metric that Patrick uses (or rather, the Office of Labor and Workforce Development use). I have heard it intimated that Patrick is hiding budget numbers until after the election, but there is not much he can do to artificially lower unemployment. All in all its good news.

That said, I reiterate, Massachusetts cannot experience a strong recovery if the national economy is grinding to a slow halt.

Coakley's Quest

2010-10-19T12:09:00.000-07:00

Whatever you want to say about her failed run for the Massachusetts Special Election in early 2010, Martha Coakley has been working her ass off in her bid for re-election as the Commonwealth's Attorney General. The New York Times recently wrote up on this campaign.

Originally she was running unopposed, the only statewide Democrat to have that luxury and one that surprised a lot of people. Nonetheless she went out and campaigned, shaking hands, asking for peoples' votes, "taking nothing for granted" as she says on the trail.

At the last minute she got a Republican opponent via a write in campaign. I have not seen the polls on this race, so I can't say where she falls but I hope she wins. Whatever happened this January, she has a strong record as Attorney General, and like in January she will have my vote.

Thaddeus Russell

2010-10-19T09:25:00.000-07:00

Over at the Huffington Post I came across a blog my the historian Thaddeus Russell, of whom I had previously never heard anything about. It seems he was removed from teaching at Banard College, because, he believes, he teaches radical history.

With that I came into reading a few articles by Mr. Russell, including one on the truth about Labor Day, and another on radical changes in social behavior before and during the Revolutionary War. It made me think that large scale wars, especially ones that by necessity radicalize the citizens toward ideals about freedom and liberty; often result in an explosion of social norms or at least altered behavior. Even as we think of the late 1940's and 1950's as very "conservative"; this was the time when Alfred Kinsey was publishing his works on human sexuality, when once illegal drinking was now occurring all day; when Rock and Roll was born and Playboy magazine was founded. All of which laid the seeds, or were the early growth, of the social revolutions of the 1960s.

We can find that sort of thing in the post World War One period as well. I am not as familiar with the post-civil war history on social norms but I know it radicalized labor and workers, who sought to end not just literal slavery but "wage slavery" in which a man must toil in a factory just so that he may not starve, enriching the owner who sits in his office.

In each period we see a counter-revolution, by the forces of big business, elite opinion and "conservativeness" exploit divisions in the working population in order to make gains for the wealthy.

Reading back on the history of things like Labor Day or even Roman Pagan Holidays makes me think the kind of natural celebration of life (through feast, drinking, sex, dancing, etc.) comes out of human behavior organically but is fought against very hard by societal elites that wish for the masses to just work, work, work; and not enjoy any pleasures around them. This is certainly one of the tenet's of Max Weber's seminal piece of the protestant work ethic.

It makes me long for a kind of radicalization that would lead to a renewed spirit of celebration and life in the United States. Unfortunately we are seeing just the opposite, as the elections in November appear to be promising a wave of reactionaries coming into power. I suppose I will just have to wait (while doing my part in the meantime.) And I think I will pick up Mr. Russell's new book A Renegade History of the United States.

Guevara Greenwald and Religion

2010-10-16T09:49:00.000-07:00

My friend e-mailed me with a couple articles and asked my take on them.

The first two were a debate on Che Guevara, with John Hari anti-Che and George Galloway pro.

Next was an article by Glenn Greenwald on evidence of America's collapsing empire.

Last was a religious quiz by New York Times columnist Nick Kristof.

My responses below:

On the Che articles:

I agree with Johann Hari and have always been a little annoyed but the cultish image around Che Guevara (not to mention the commercialization.) The fact is he was fighting for a system that repressed freedom, and was a major component of establishing that in Cuba. Not that Cuba was better under Batista, and in fact for the vast majority of Cubans it likely improved under Castro (for some time); in the 50's they lived under a dictator and were impoverished and starving, in the 60's they lived under a dictator but were having significant improvements in social welfare.

That being said Galloway illustrates where Guevera was good and a large part of why I think he is revered. It was the fight itself, the revolution against oppressive powers and the means to unshackle society from that. It was after all largely far-left wing partisans and communists who were radicalizing people against fascism and Nazi occupation in Europe; and in Spain it was really the anarchists who were leading the fight against fascism. In fact in almost every instance I see where there is a society under oppressive; its almost never moderate, middle of the road people who are leading the resistance. They are often either absorbed into the governing structure or sit around and do nothing. Mandela is a good case, he's made out to be some kind of peaceful moderate (in the US) but he was a radical, violent revolutionary whose imprisonment was strongly supported by the US, and he was only removed from the US list of terrorists a year or two ago.

I think the same thing goes with someone like Yasser Arafat. He was a corrupt person, absolutely no question, and did a great disservice to the Palestinian people in many ways. But he was a symbol of resistance to the Israeli occupation/oppression. He was a symbol of fighting back and not collaborating with the occupiers. And so he was revered, understandably.

So I think oppressed societies, like Cuba or South Africa or anywhere else, need those kinds of figures to lead and rally around. Going back to the European example, because it was the communists who were leading the fight against fascism before and during the occupations, the US was literally fixing elections across Europe (including in France and Italy) after the war because the communists were so popular they were going to win the elections easily. Its because they had credibility, which no one else did. I think thats why Che serves better as a symbol of a means than anything else.

On Glen Greenwald:

I am always cautious of these pseudo-intellectual fads. In 2002-2003 half the books in the Political Science section of the bookstore were extolling the virtues of Pax Americana, which was simply accepted as a matter of fact. Now people declaring an end to American empire (for various reasons, many dubious; see Niall Ferguson). You see the same thing with the EU. A couple years ago people were hailing it as a new rival to the US and publishing books called "Why Europe will Rule the 21st Century"; now its all about how the EU is failing.

But responding to his specific point, I don't think any of the data he listed is evidence of an empire declining. The shutting down of public services all over the country is not some horrible unintended consequence of Empire, its deliberate ideology. Ever since Reagan the Republicans, and many Democrats, have had it in their head that there should be no "public" anything. Not only for the utility but because they want a society where there is no "commons" or "common good", everyone should only worry about themselves and everything should thus be in private hands. So with Social Security, thats largely what they were doing. You have your own private account, no pooled money like it is now. With these libraries, mass transit systems, schools shutting down; thats a deliberate effect of starving the public sector over the past few decades, so when crisis hits you kind of have to just sell it off to private corporations. Thats what they are doing with highways in the Midwest, or the fire department in that town where the guys house burned down because he opted out of the system. Don't get me wrong, its a disastrous system for the people of the country, but its not unintended. A larger focus on military capability shows we are still untouchable in that realm. The only thing that could nick us in the end is 1 to 2% economic growth for the next ten to twenty years, which is looking more and more likely

Quiz Results:

1. B correct

2. B incorrect A

3. C correct

4. C correct

5. A all of them

6. C correct

7. A or C Kind of correct

8. B correct

9. B all of them

10. C all of them

11. C incorrect A

12. C incorrect A

13. B correct

Jobs and Elections

2010-10-15T09:05:00.000-07:00

Jon Ryan at New Deal 2.0 does something the Democrats should have done this election year. He lays out a clear, and simple, progressive agenda that would trigger job creation and address the biggest threat this country faces (climate change.)

It seems to me that the centerpiece of a progressive economic agenda has to be about creating and maintaining jobs: permanent, high-skilled, good-paying jobs. And not just a million jobs here and there, but tens of millions of good jobs, to bring under- and unemployment down, lift the new (and old) poor out of poverty, and retain what remains of the American middle class.

He goes on to say this would be done by investing in a green economy, which he gives good detail on. Its worth a read.

It strikes me that this is something the Democrats really should have pressed. The Senate's climate change bill should've been framed as a Jobs bill, then put to a vote. Let the Republicans filibuster it and if corporate/coal state Democrats choose to join them, fine. But with that failure the Democrats could run a campaign saying they are for Jobs and the Environment and need your vote to make it happen (perhaps stress jobs more than anything else.) They could use the Republican's blockage against them; highlight that the GOP is "standing in the way" of progress and we need to vote in more Democrats. I think this would be very effective in at least stemming the coming huge losses for the Democratic Party.

No COLA!

2010-10-15T08:05:00.001-07:00

So its official, as expected it was announced there will be no Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment, because as they measure it, cost of living as not gone up (at least inflation-wise).

So Nancy Pelosi says the House will hold a vote on granting seniors a mandated COLA Adjustment in the form of a $250 check they would all get.

Great! Social Security is the most popular government program, yet the Republicans have always wanted (and tried) to dismantle it. Forcing a vote on the COLA adjustment, the Republicans would have to choose to either vote against it and look bad, or vote for it and look like hypocrites for authorizing new spending. Its a win-win, and would help the Democrats with elderly voters in this very important election. So when's the vote?

After the election. Because they already broke for their election recess, so heaven forbid they are called back for a single vote. That would garner attention, and be good for them.

After the election, in the lame-duck session. The only way authorizing these checks makes any sense is politically. It will help the Democrats and hurt the Republicans. The fact is inflation is not going up and Seniors don't really need this (though I am sure many do, as a group they are the only demographic that is not seeing a stark rise in poverty.)

Says Michael Steele "If this were truly a priority for Washington Democrats, they would have done it before Speaker Pelosi sent the House home."

I couldn't agree more Mike.

Chronicles of a Crisis Foretold

2010-10-15T07:24:00.001-07:00

Friday, like Monday, is Paul Krugman day at the New York Times. Today his column is on the new mortgage crisis.

I remember a little while back when the housing crisis was in full force, you used to hear that mortgages were "sliced and diced" and sold off to investors all over the planet, bundled in packages with portions of other financial products into a "collateralized debt obligation" and it was unclear who actually owned what. Then all the mass foreclosures came (and continue). There was a disconnect that I didn't really put together.

The disconnect was that if its true that a person's mortgage was sliced up and sold off to dozens of investors or institutions who then resold it to someone else who cut that up and sold that, etc.; then how is the original bank able to seize your home?

Evidently thats done by fraud. The banks are supposed to, at least when requested, prove that they actually own the mortgage. Since they often don't have proof, they have just been giving judges signed affidavits saying that they own it. I'm not sure why that counts at all, but even those affidavits are bullshit since the banks just print out a stack of them, and then have an autopen sign them all.

Anyway that seems to be why there is effectively a national foreclosure moratorium; done not at the federal level but state-by-state, mostly by each state's Attorney General. What's the Obama Administration got to say? Take it Krugman!

True to form, the Obama administration’s response has been to oppose any action that might upset the banks, like a temporary moratorium on foreclosures while some of the issues are resolved. Instead, it is asking the banks, very nicely, to behave better and clean up their act. I mean, that’s worked so well in the past, right?

Motherfuckers! I know Obama took in a massive amount of money from Wall Street in his election, but I think he has paid back his friends well enough. And on top of that Wall Street is pouring money into Republican campaigns for the mid-terms, so what is Obama's deal? Preparing for 2012 financing?

In any case, I think its a bad move. He can't stop these moratoriums (to my knowledge) since its at the state level, so what is the utility in publicly coming out against them? Right before an election? He could at least couple it with a constructive solution, but I have yet to see that.

And on this point I want to emphasize that I am tired of these articles or comments on liberals (like me) upset with Obama must (a) be the type of people who are never satisfied, because he accomplished so much but they want more; and or (b) thought he was some magical wizard who could solve the nations problems, but now are disappointed to see he is human.

There are liberals who are upset with Obama for specific reasons, and for specific positions or actions he has taken. This is one.

Friday

2010-10-15T06:48:00.000-07:00

Cause its Friday, you ain't got no job, and you ain't got shit to do

- The Federal Reserve hinted again at using tools in its tool belt to stimulate the economy. This likely means quantitative easing (buying up bonds) to drive down long term interest rates and introduce a lil' liquidity to the economy. Many economists are calling for the Fed to declare its informal inflation target, now at 2%, is going to be 4%. That would be nice, I don't think it will happen though.

Thursday

2010-10-14T08:32:00.000-07:00

Its Thursday!

- The Feds have announced no increase in Social Security benefits this year, just like last year! Social Security benefits are by law tied to the Consumer Price Index, and so when inflation goes up (say 4%, which is healthy) recipients get their COLA fix (cost of living adjustment.) This year and last year there was no inflation (may have been deflation) and so they get no increase. This is something that occurs independently of Congress, but I suspect many elderly voters won't get that. I suspect that because I interned at a Senator's office last year and we had old people calling us constantly demanding their COLA increase, and not being satisfied with the explanation I just provided. With typical irony, they will probably exercise that anger by voting in a party (Republicans) who have been against Social Security its entire life and will likely seek to begin dismantling it under the guise of deficit reduction (which as Dean Baker or Paul Krugman routinely point out, is bullshit. Medicare might swallow the federal budget, Social Security is completely fine and with minor adjustments will be fine for a long time.)

- McDonald's hamburgers can last at least 12 years without decay, a woman's experiment shows. Not even the bread gets moldy, which is pretty fucking disturbing. If I said it once I'll say it again, never eat fast food, ever.

-The Afghan "Peace Council" is opening talks with the Taliban. Seems like the me like a smart idea; the war is not going to be won militarily and these types of conflicts are never hurt by negotiation.

-The trade deficit widens, and yet Obama seems set against penalizing China (ala tariffs) for their illegal currency manipulation, which is tantamount to subsidies on their exports, which leads to things like our big trade deficit. I wonder if post-health care he is going to fight for anything? I wonder if he really cares (though he did say he wanted to double US exports in five years. How is that going?)

- Hillary wont be VP in 2012 because Biden says Obama asked him first. Is Obama running in 2012?

Look Who's Defending the Banks (again)

2010-10-13T09:52:00.000-07:00

After the disclosures in mass amounts of fraudulent foreclosures by banks across the country; after Attorneys General from both parties from nearly every state in the country called for a foreclosure moratorium in their states; after 2.5 million homes foreclosed upon and 6.5 million currently in foreclosure; President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have come out again a foreclosure moratorium. While they may make some good technical arguments, the timing and dare I say audacity of the President is still quite shocking.

Subway Rules

2010-10-12T08:18:00.000-07:00

On my way to work this morning, the Red Line T stop at Central Square (where I board every morning) was extremely crowded. I had come in just as a packed train was leaving, and dozens of commuters had stayed on the platform because they were unable to get on the train.

When the next train did arrive, it was one of those usual free for alls when people had no regard for etiquette and basically push and shove, cut you off and push you down so they can get in the train (and everyone does this, even old women.) What is striking about this is that while this behavior is very rude and discomforting, its entirely rational. That is because you need to get to work, and if you don't get on that train you will be late. I have been in situations where the train was just so goddamn crowded I literally could not fit in, and have been late to work for it. So when you see an opening you just kind of go for it and hope you don't fall down in the process.

It made me wonder, are there any rules pertaining to traveling around on the T? I think there are some unspoken rules of the road that decent people go by, and others need to learn:

1. Give Up Your Seat: If there is an old person or pregnant lady, give up your seat for them. Incidentally I see this happen very frequently, and its not one type of person that gives up their seat for an old person/prego lady but people of all stripes. Sometimes assholes don't do it, but usually someone will volunteer, and it is always nice to see.

2. Who Gets the Open Seat: While I don't think its necessary to give up your seat for a woman (who is young and perfectly healthy), when a seat opens on a crowded train, she should get first dibs. I see people do this a lot too, they kind of motion toward the seat, and the woman either says "Oh no thank you I am getting off at the next stop", or "Are you sure? Oh, thank you!"

3. Move Your Shit: If there is a crowded train and you have a seat next to you, and your back pack is on it, don't wait for someone to ask you to move it. Either put it on the floor, or if you think that the floor is too dirty (which it is) then put it on your lap. And sticking head phones in your ears doesn't mean you can't see that people are standing and would like that seat.

4. Move In or Stand Up: This pertains to the Green Line trains, where the seats are arranged in pairs of two perpendicular to the wall (like a bus or airplane), as opposed to lined along side the wall on most other trains. If the train is empty, you can take the aisle or the window seat. If the train is crowded, or a big crowd is coming on because you are at Park Street or some other busy stop, and you are already sitting in the aisle seat, then move in. Its obnoxious when someone says "Excuse me" or "May I sit there" and the person in the aisle seat just brings their legs in so you can step over them to get to the window seat; rather than just moving in. There is no need for you to sit in the aisle seat; if you are the next stop then just stand up and wait. If you aren't, then move in.

5. Big Backpack Bumper: If you have a huge back pack that sticks out three feet, fine, we have all been there. But the rule is, on a crowded train, once you get into the spot where you are standing, then stand still dammit! Don't move around, turning left and right or all around, because you wind up hitting people with your back pack and you may not even be able to feel it.

6. Move Over: If there are several empty seats and you have positioned yourself in one such that I have to either sit right next to you, or right next to someone else, whereas if you moved over one then I could be in between two empty seats, then you should move over. These seats are small and nobody likes to sit directly next to someone.

7. Turn Down Your Music: Its an ipod and I can hear it blasting. You will go deaf, but in the meantime I don't want to listen to your crap songs.

8. Shut the Fuck Up: A. If its a crowded train, don't speak on your phone, its rude and annoying, B. Talk in a normal voice and don't scream swears; you aren't the only person on the train. Loud, obnoxious people that scream and swear, or laugh, are annoying.

9. This Is Not a Bathroom: So don't clip your fingers or toes, don't clean your ears, and for the love of God please don't spit phlegm on the floor.

10. Relax: We are all on the same T, people will be rude or obnoxious and not everyone will know subway rules. Just get from A to B and try not to let the kind of people who violate the edicts above bother you too much, hopefully some day they will learn.

Friday Jobs Report

2010-10-08T06:43:00.000-07:00

New York Times today:

Cuts in Government Led U.S. Economy to Lose 95,000 Jobs

Yes the economy shed 95,000 jobs, according to the government's tracking numbers. The private sector added 64,000 jobs (which I am sure the Obama Administration will emphasize) but the government (federal and local) shed 159,000.

I really have no patience for hearing the president or his proxies tout the private sector adding jobs, then Obama saying "But its not good enough." No shit its not good enough.

The article notes that:

A broader measure of unemployment, which includes people who are working part-time because they cannot find full-time jobs and people who have given up looking for work, rose to 17.1 percent from 16.7 percent in August.

So that is the real unemployment rate, which measures people who are unemployed; not people who are unemployed and actively seeking work. We are basically at depression era levels of unemployment and I really think figures like this shed light on the strength of the Tea Party movement. People are furious, they are broke, they are losing their homes; and it really seems like the Administration only half-cares. People are mad because when the financial system was collapsing the government (Bush and Obama) treated it like it was a massive emergency calling for unprecedented action. But high, persistent unemployment and sluggish "growth" calls for...patience?

It calls for massive urgency. TARP was passed to avoid a kind of "worst case scenario" for the country. But if you have lost your job, your unemployment has run out, you are worried about feeding your family and your house is about to be foreclosed upon; that is a WORST CASE SCENARIO.

What we need is a massive stimulus package, as any economist with their head on will tell you (Krugman, Baker, Stiglitz, DeLong). I know the Congress wont pass it, but it would be nice to see the President (and his party) fight for it; even if they lose. That would be something that the base could rally around.

The Man Who Never Was

2010-10-07T11:49:00.000-07:00

Todd Purdom has a bio-article on John McCain in Vanity Fair this month. I kind of like these articles that focus on a particular personality, Vanity Fair recently had one on Sarah Palin, the New York Times Magazine had one on Glenn Beck.

Its a good read, the underlying thesis being that John McCain was never really a maverick but rather pragmatic (I agree) and that he doesnt really have any principles (I agree) which is a contrast to the narrative that he had principles but sold them out for 2008 and beyond.

Purdom recounts McCain's asinine "suspension" of his campaign in 2008, with some assitance from Johnathan Alter's recent book

McCain’s stagy “suspension” of his 2008 campaign to return to Washington to deal with the Wall Street financial crisis is a classic case in point. As related in Jonathan Alter’s book The Promise, at a bipartisan White House meeting—called solely because McCain had asked the Bush administration to hold it—he sat sullen and silent, saying “I’ll just listen” as Obama showed a detailed command of the situation. When he finally spoke, 43 minutes into the meeting, McCain acknowledged that he had not even read the Treasury secretary’s three-page outline of a proposed bank-bailout plan.

There is also a though experiment that I had never considered, in lieu of my anger and frustration with the Obama Administration and Senate Democrats:

There would probably have been no stimulus bill, and the country’s economic condition would be no better (and probably worse). General Motors and Chrysler would have been allowed to go bankrupt rather than helped to emerge into a state of healthiness, as they may well be doing. There would have been no significant new regulation of the financial industry. The Bush tax cuts for those Americans with the highest incomes—something McCain had opposed before reversing himself—would have been extended. There would have been only modest health-insurance reform, at best—McCain’s proposals were Republican boilerplate and meant for use in the campaign, never a serious program. Perhaps there would have been greater progress on immigration, though McCain had already abandoned that issue, and it’s easier to imagine his taking the more nativist stance he has since adopted. There would be no Supreme Court justices Kagan and Sotomayor, but there would likely be two more conservative justices, and the days of Roe v. Wade would be numbered. There would be no troop drawdown in Iraq. The United States might well have bombed or blockaded Iran in response to that country’s flawed election last year, or in response to its nuclear program. There would have been serial feuds between aides to the president and vice president, but the fact that Vice President Palin had an independent power base, far larger and more enthusiastic than McCain’s own, would have limited what President McCain could do about it.

I have never really had respect for John McCain, I think his maverick mantle was a media invention. He has always been a conservative republican and just took one or two stances that 20 years ago would have not garnered any attention (the Republican Party used to be filled with moderate and liberal Republicans, now there are zero.)

Furthermore I never understood the media's contention that his captivity during Vietnam made him an expert on foreign policy. With due respect, fighting in a war doesn't make you a foreign policy expert. It gives you insight, surely, that someone who has never been in battle cannot have. And fighting in a war is very brave and I commend him for that. But going off to bomb North Vietnam, getting shot down and held in captivity for five years does not give you credentials to opine expertise on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Lastly I think I got nothing but disgust and disdain for McCain in the 2008 re-election. Its not that he sold out this great integrity he had previously, its that he just really sold out any integrity any decent human being would have at a minimal standard. Insinuating Obama was a terrorist, via your Palin-proxy, the campaign suspension, the campaign rallies where people would chant "Kill him". McCain fanned the racial flames that feigned hurt when John Lewis called him out on it. Well if it walks like a duck, its John McCain.

AS THE WORLD BURNS

2010-10-07T11:18:00.000-07:00

Ryan Liza has a great article in the New Yorker up on their site right now. It details the rise and fall of last year's Kerry-Graham-Lieberman Climate Change bill that President Obama had promise he would find the votes to get.

If you are unaware of the background, basically the three senators put together an ok climate change bill (had a lot of bad things in it, some good) that was going to eventually be reconciled with the House's Waxman-Markey bill passed a year earlier. The significance of this was it would be the first climate change bill ever passed, that it would begin to address what I think is arguably our biggest threat, and that would give the President more negotiating power to bring to the next climate summit (in Mexico.)

But things went down hill. The bill became watered down and then eventually lost one of its co-sponsors, Lindsay Graham, after Harry Reid declared that the Senate would tackle immigration reform before climate change (they did neither.) Graham said thats a bullshit move; it helps Harry Reid's re-election but makes Graham look bad. Kerry and Lieberman went searching for other Republican votes, which were of course elusive, and the bill faded away.

The article sheds more light on other reasons the bill failed. The Obama Administration was not really co-operating at all. They repeatedly announced give aways to the Republicans (ie off-shore drilling) that KLG had planned to give in negotiations so the Republicans would have to concede something. It also seemed some leaks were being done to undermine Lindsay Graham.

The bill wasnt that great to begin with, but not having it was unfortunate. It remains to be seen if the Obama Administration will have the balls to regulate carbon emissions via the EPA instead of legislation. But I think it sheds light on their hands off attitude, and aloofness, ended up hurting the bill. Another strike against Obama.

Good Reading

2010-10-05T18:42:00.000-07:00

Two good articles that I've read recently. One was Matt Taibbi's excellent (per usual) writing in Rolling Stone, this time on the Tea Party. Taibbi does a good job in not simply denigrating tea partiers to racist hicks, but trying to understand the underlying forces behind them (aside from the Koch Brothers.)

You look into the eyes of these people when you talk to them and they genuinely don't see what the problem is. It's no use explaining that while nobody likes the idea of having to get the government to tell restaurant owners how to act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the tool Americans were forced to use to end a monstrous system of apartheid that for 100 years was the shame of the entire Western world. But all that history is not real to Tea Partiers; what's real to them is the implication in your question that they're racists, and to them that is the outrage, and it's an outrage that binds them together. They want desperately to believe in the one-size-fits-all, no-government theology of Rand Paul because it's so easy to understand. At times, their desire to withdraw from the brutally complex global economic system that is an irrevocable fact of our modern life and get back to a simpler world that no longer exists is so intense, it breaks your heart.

I will post a full review tomorrow, along with a review on Ryan Lizza's article in the New Yorker on the Senate Climate Change bill (and how it all went wrong.)

Infrastructure Initiative

2010-09-06T07:52:00.001-07:00

The New York Times this morning is reporting that the Obama Administration is going to propose a vast infrastructure project that will call for

as $50 billion in government spending to start up a long-term public works plan emphasizing transportation projects – roads, rail and airport runways – over the next six years.

It further reports that this will be just a piece of his larger economic vision to be laid out at a speech in Cleveland tomorrow. Which is good, because I was under the impression that his Cleveland speech was going to just be about a Research Tax Credit.

In any case, the initial reports of his infrastructure project, which includes an Infrastructure Bank, seem to be quite good (including building vast new stretches of rail.) I just hope the Administration, long known for not getting it, gets it. This will not pass. It may pass the House, though thats iffy because the House is in a tight battle for which party will control it and wavering Democrats will not wish to add one ounce to the deficit; but either way it will be filibustered in the Senate. Or it will be threatened to be filibustered and that will mean it wont even be brought up for a vote.

So if the Administration gets it, they will see to it that they make the aims of this bill known (and by that I mean they emphasize not the infrastructure part but the Jobs, Jobs, Jobs it will create) then move heaven and earth to emphasize and overemphasize the Republicans blocking it.

Because this is unlikely to pass (though I think it is much needed) the only way this can be used for a win is to present the case, the narrative, to the electorate that the Obama Administration has a great jobs bill, one that will rebuild America, and the Republicans are blocking it. They should call it a jobs bill and not an infrastructure bill. The Republicans are on message in that everything they say is Jobs Jobs Jobs, for some reason the Democrats are not. That is all the American public cares about at this point, even more than the deficit.

So if the Obama Administration can define this as a jobs bill, and can shine a light on Republican obstruction, which always goes without attention, then it can be a winner. But I have lost all faith in this Administration and predict this goes no where.

Econmetrix

2010-07-01T07:15:00.000-07:00

taking a cue from Krugman i was looking at back data on US treasury yields, since everyone is obsessed with an immediate need to cut the deficit;

Ten years ago we were looking at 6.58% on the 10yr, 6.94% on the twenty yr, 6.61 % on the 30 yr

Twenty years ago, 7.98 % 10yr, 20 yr N/A, 8% on the 30 yr

Here are what those yields were as of yesterday: 2.97% on the 10 yr, 3.75% on the 20yr, 3.91% on the 30yr

Short term is even better, in 1990 the 3 yr bond was 7.9%, ten years ago it was 6.43%, today...1.00%. Investors are willing to take on US debt for 1% return.

Meanwhile the consumer price index shows us down 0.2% month over month.

Long term unemployment at record highs, investors jumping over each other to buy US debt that offers barely any returns, and the specter of deflation begins to take hold. im no econometrist, but are those pressing calls for fiscal contraction? a need to cut back spending and reduce short term deficits?

the icing on the cake will be when obama's deficit commission releases its report after the elections and announces an immediate need to slash social security, with its trust fund overflowing with surplus at the moment, or we will see the end of america as we know it.

on a last note I was going over polling on the issue of debt. its a huge concern with voters, except when offered to rank it against "jobs" or "job creation" at which point it pales in comparison. bring on the republican majority

Liberal NYT

2010-06-30T07:42:00.000-07:00

Glenn Greenwald highlights a media study by Harvard that studies 4 major papers (NYT, LA Times, USA Today, WSJ) and examines how they have treated the subject of "waterboarding" over the last 100 years.

The so-called liberal (to the point of treason) New York Times, in 54 articles that spoke of waterboarding between 1930s and 2004 characterized it as torture 81.5% of the time, 96.3% of the time for the LA Times.

From 2002-2008, "the studied newspapers almost never referred to waterboarding as torture. The New York Ties called water boarding torture or implied it was torture in just 2 out of 143 articles (1.4%). The Los Angeles Times did so in 4.8% of articles (3 of 63)"

For the WSJ it was 1.6%, for USA Today zero.

2002 is of course when the Bush Administration began using waterboarding on its prisoners in Guantanamo, later to become public and unabashedly defended by the Bush people. The Bush Admin declared that waterboarding was not torture. Suddenly the newspapers, the free (liberal) press, stopped referring to it as torture. As far as I can see, they did this because Bush said so.

Monday Morning

2010-05-10T02:25:00.000-07:00

News broke just before midnight last night that Elena Kagan would be Obama's nominee to the US Supreme Court.

I assume this is the administration leaking it before announcing it in order to control the news cycle. Either way I am in agreement with Glen Greenwald and his very good summaries on why she should not be the nominee. Yet another great missed opportunity.

I suspect the Republicans will bloody her up as best they can, paint her as a radical, and highlight her having done some work for Goldman Sachs

Then probably confirm her. But still, I would've preferred Diane Wood.

In other news, the EU has quite a big bailout package. Should help those French and German banks holding all that Greek debt.

The Legal Debate about that efin Mandate

2010-03-21T16:01:00.000-07:00

Listening to the House debate HCR as I type away at a paper due tomorrow and heard Nathan Deal (R-Georgia) say when he becomes governor of Georgia he will challenge the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" in the health care bill (I assume directing the Georgia AG to sue?)

As this seems to be a big thing among Republicans, that its unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate individual citizens to purchase anything (Orrin Hatch and some others had an op-ed in the WSJ about this) its struck me that there is an easy way around the Constitutionality of it.

The government could simply announce a "health care tax" or "health care fee" on all Americans then give a tax credit of the same amount to all Americans who have health insurance. The effect of this is that every American who doesn't have health insurance (but can easily afford it) will pay a small fee; exactly the same thing that would happen with this mandate. Its completely Constitutional, there are tax credits for everything under the sun and tax credits as a concept are used in large part to create incentives to certain types of behavior; ie a tax credit to "retrofit" your home for energy efficiency.

So its basically the same thing; and depending on the language in the bill may be the same thing. Either way it can be interpreted as the same thing on a legal basis and therefore could hold up as Constitutional depending on the judge/justices. I say that because justices on all sides of the spectrum allow their biases to affect how they rule and might find legality (or illegality) in vague language depending on what they personally prefer the outcome to be; even if it goes against legal logic/precedents you've argued for for many years (see Scalia, Atonin in Bush v. Gore.)

CBO Scores Final Bill

2010-03-18T19:06:00.000-07:00

And its good!

I dont care what anyone says, I like Nancy Pelosi. I think she pulled this off well. There was a dearth of leadership and she stepped up. I also give serious credit to Harry Reid who had to deal with a nightmare of people in the Senate. The biggest disappointment was President Obama, who was such a failure on so many levels its worth considering whether he deserves to get my vote in 2012 (if I am in a blue state.)

For the Record

2010-03-16T19:01:00.000-07:00

I think the House passing Health Care via Self-Executing or whatever the hell its called is... awesome

2010-03-01T22:06:00.000-08:00

Harold Ford needs to just shut the fuck up.

And the New York Times needs to stop giving him print space.

Harold considered running for the New York senate because he moved here from TN a couple of years ago in order to work for Wall Street. He fancied running to the right of Kristen Gilibrand, President Obama and the New York Democratic Party, in the New York Democratic Party Primary.

He was so incompetent in his exploratory stage that he shot himself in the foot in interviews talking about being driven around in a town car, helicoptering over Staten Island and sudden revelations on being gung ho about gays.

He never stood a chance and everyone knew this, apparently even he because he never entered the race. But after a NYT Op-Ed a few months back talking about why he think he might run, now he has one saying he thinks he might not run now. Who cares? Why are you getting op-eds in the NYT about non-existent hopeless campaigns?

Oye vey.

Gym

2010-03-01T19:03:00.000-08:00

There is a guy at my gym who is always on his cell phone, and is really loud. This is usually between 7-9am. Who is he always talking to at 8am? Why is he so loud? What the hell is wrong with him?

It really annoys me. I needed to get that out

Schlitz!

2009-10-21T11:55:00.001-07:00

http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/massmarkets/2009/10/21/schlitz-brings-its-old-more-full-flavored-formula-back-to-the-boston-market/

Apparently Schlitz used to be delicious beer, but "fell victim to the industry trend in the 1970s when breweries accelerated the brewing process and used cheaper ingredients – all with the goal of cutting costs." Which I am guessing is part of the reason so many American beers suck.

But in a sign of good times to come, Schlitz decided to go back to the old formula it used from decades back. However, like NASA's moon plans, the original recipe had been lost and/or destroyed. Hope was ebbing as people worried they may never again taste the delicious 60's Schlitz.

But fear not. "Schlitz brewmaster Bob Newman needed to interview people who were Schlitz brewers back in the day to re-create the formula: “He literally sat for hours on the phone, talking to these guys.”"

Now its back baby.

So the new Schlitz is the old Schlitz, and it’s being rolled out in locations in Boston and other watering holes in Eastern Massachusetts. Wortham says the price will be comparable to Bud (an actual increase, believe it or not, from the bargain-basement prices that Schlitz used to sell for). A ceremonial delivery is planned for Thursday at 4 p.m. at the Eire Pub in Dorchester to herald the formula’s return to the Boston market.

Slow Day at the Globe

2009-09-25T11:13:00.001-07:00

Springfield or Boston?

Vikki Backs Kirk?

2009-09-23T12:21:00.001-07:00

Boston Globe reports that Vicki Kennedy, along with Patrick and Joe, have expressed support for Paul Kirk (Kennedy "family friend", former DNC, oversees JFK Library) for late Sen Kennedy's seat.

Meanwhile Huffington Post reports, going off a Fox News scoop, that Patrick has chosen Paul Kirk.

It leads me to believe that Governor Patrick's office may have intentionally leaked the news that Vicki Kennedy wants Kirk (the lead headline on the Globe's website for more than an hour is "Victoria Kennedy Backs Kirk"). Thus the people of the Commonwealth can sit on this for a while and let it saturate into the news; perhaps a day or two ahead of Gov Patrick actually making the appointment.

Why ? My guess is because a string of governors (Blagojavich, Paterson) have fumbled with Senate appointments and Patrick, with low approval numbers and an election next year, wants to avoid any misteps. So let the people of Massachusetts first know that Vicki Kennedy, who is immensely popular and adored and a close connection to the late Ted, prefers Kirk. Then a day or two later when Patrick appoints Kirk it is seen as being done with the blessing of the beloved Vicki, so everyone (minus angry Republicans) is happy and can focus on other things.

How is this man not more popular?

2009-09-23T11:16:00.000-07:00

From the NYT CityRoom:

Gov. David A. Paterson showed up to a meeting of state leaders meeting on Wednesday morning determined to trim the budget, but there was one immediate trim that everyone noticed: his mustache.

...It remains to be seen whether the clean-shaven look will improve the governor’s standing in the polls, or with President Obama and his administration.

...

The governor, answering questions after he met with state leaders to discuss the budget, was first asked what happened to his mustache.

“Additional deficit means additional cutting,” he said, “and it’s likely before the end of this process you will see me bald.”

He Did Act Stupidly

2009-07-24T09:39:00.000-07:00

Was the arrest of Henry Gates Louis, Jr. by Cambridge police an act of racial profiling? That remains to be seen, and I think is actually not the crux of the case here.

The officer is speaking to Boston media outlets defending himself; it was noted that he performed CPR on Reggie Lewis once (performing CPR on a black person makes you not racist?) and taught a course on racial profiling.

I would be pissed if I were Professor Gates for getting hassled for walking into your own home. So his anger is understandable. And his belief that the thus-far anonymous phone call to the police about a black man breaking into a house was probably a case of racism.

But here is the core of it. Once it became clear that Professor Gates owned that house, that it was not breaking and entering, the police should have apologized and left. Instead, Gates was arrested for "disorderly conduct" because he was an asshole to a police office? That is inexcusable. The Cambridge police did act stupidly, as President Obama noted. Not to single out this specific incident or officer; but I'm sure many of us have experience with police officers who act like assholes or act above the law, and fuck with everyday citizens. Well this could have been an outstanding officer, as it has said, but arresting someone in their own home for yelling at you is wrong. Being an asshole is not a crime. If it was, Sgt Crowley would be in jail.

Similar sentiments at Thomas Jefferson St Blog

Bloats

2009-05-26T09:55:00.001-07:00

Recent study shows in England that journalists/media workers are the biggest drinkers (by profession) "consuming the equivalent of more than four bottles of wine or more than 19 pints of beer a week, according to government research."

I'm not surprised; since the British are becoming more and more known for excessive drinking (most notably British tourists.) But is it excessive? I suppose if they are binge drinking, then it is. But if they are just enjoying wine with meals and a few beers after work, what's the problem with that? I am personally in favor of returning to the good old days of the three-martini lunch; which is almost a hark back to more leisurely days in this country (or so I heard).

prop 8

2009-05-26T09:50:00.001-07:00

so it appears that the california supreme court will rule today on the validity of proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in california

and as someone who is a proponent of gay marriage, the case nonetheless represents an interesting gray area; as im not sure there is a strong case for overturning it since it was a statewide proposition. its one of those interesting cases in which you have a position (for gay marriage) but not sure whether the case itself has any legal grounding.

i guess the question would have to be the intricacies of the california legal system, which i am not familiar with. it seems to me that the original supreme court case which ruled gay marriage was legal was an interpretation of the state constitution; and for that to be overturned it would have to be done so via a constitutional amendment, not a voter proposition (in MA when gay marraige was ruled legal, the opposition went straight for a constituional amendment). But that seems a bit too easy so who knows. from what I read it looks like the supreme court isnt likely to overturn the proposition.

the silver lining if that happens is that, according to a recent study, Massachusetts has benefited enormously over the last five years (since gay marriage was rule legal) as huge swaths of what they call the "creative class" have flocked to the bay state and contributed substantially to our economy and culture. California might siphon that off from us and we dont want that.

Hot Day in Beantown

2009-05-21T12:24:00.000-07:00

I had lunch today in the Public Gardens, which was nice. Its about 90 degrees outside, a fine day for the end of May.

I am finally done with the semester, and look forward to an enjoyable summer. I am working at ICI 20 hours a week and need a job to supplement that income. I also want to try to do more in and around Boston and get to know the city better. I also want to write more; both for the novel and the sitcom. And I have a secondary blog (to be posted) about trying something new every week here in Boston; with Renee doing the same in Chicago.

It is Thursday. That is all I can think of now.

Why Obama, why?

2009-03-07T05:03:00.000-08:00

Paul Krugman blogs about the one sided debate in the media when it comes to the stimulus plan; that is to say, the media systematically excludes a specific view point (this being that the stimulus was too small) and overwhelms with people from the other side (it was too big). They did this with the Iraq War too

This can also be applied to advocates of a single payer health care plan (which most Americans support). According to FAIR “the views of advocates of single payer have only been aired five times in the hundreds of major newspaper, broadcasts and cable stories about healthcare reform over the past week. No single-payer advocate has appeared on a major TV broadcast or cable network to talk about the policy during that period.”

Also Max Baucus said with health care reform “all options are on the table” EXCEPT for single payer, taking the unusual step of specifically ruling that out. Lastly at the President’s health care summit, Obama refused to invite Rep John Conyers and Physicians for a National Health Program; both of whom advocate single payer, until they threatened to stage a protest outside the White House and finally received invitations at the last minute. The insurance companies had no such problems getting in.

Recording

2009-01-30T21:57:00.000-08:00

Tonight I met Howard Zinn, and last week I met Noam Chomsky. What a week. What a week indeed. Here's to that.

Rather than describe the profound affect that both Chomsky and Zinn have had on my life politically, intellectually and most importantly, morally... something that would take dedication to describe and not important for the moment. And rather than detail the profound significance of having the rare opportunity to meet not one, but two of my heroes; which is connected to the first subtopic. I'd rather aptly describe both encounters in order to record for my own memory.
-------------

Wednesday, January 21st 2009 I went to a teach in at the Palestine Cultural Center in Allston. The event was headlined by Noam Chomsky; who, with a few other speakers, was seeking to educate and enlighten on the current US/Israeli assault on the Palestinian people living in the Gaza Strip.

The only other time I tried to see Noam Chomsky speak was when I was an undegrad. With several friends, I drove about an hour and a half (including getting lost) from Syracuse to Binghamtown, NY. Because it was in the middle of upstate New York, I didnt expect a crowd. Instead the auditorium was overflowing past capacity, including every aisle filled with people. An adjacent auditorium, which was just showing a video feed of him speaking, was also overflowing. we could not get into either. It was disappointing.

The talk on Gaza, on 1/21/09, was informative and helpful; a description which does no justice to Prof Chomsky, but is lacking in detail because a proper description would warrant a book. And he has many, which I recommend.

Afterward every left and Prof Chomsky wandered over to talk to someone, and a few people went to greet him, have their pic taken and see about an autograph. I rushed over realizing I could be one of the few. One of his handlers was rushing him off but I was able to quickly meet him and get a picture with, in my opinion, one of the greatest people of all time.

---------
Friday, January 30th, was when I met Howard Zinn. He was speaking at an event called "Voices of Gaza" in Cambridge, incidentally headlining with a wonderful professor of mine, Leila Farsakh.

There was a lack of seats when I came (due to a crowd) and I ended up being seated behind the speakers podium, facing the audience. It was odd but a great location.

There were many wonderful speakers. Professor Farsakh, who just returned from a visit to the West Bank, read a beautiful poem, which I will return to.

Professor Zinn was the last speaker, who rose to a standing ovation. He spoke of the importance and role of artists, social critics and intellectuals in society, revealing and magnifying the injustices we may be blind to. He recited e.e. cummings and read from Dalton Trumbone's "Johnny Got His Gun". He spoke of injustice, and truth and promise. Its difficult to describe if not familiar with Zinn.

As the event ended a friend and I race up to Zinn. She spoke first, shaking his hand and speaking to him briefly about her love of his work. Then I got a chance to do something I did not get a chance to do with Chomsky.

I said, "Professor Zinn, my name is Kevin and I just wanted to shake your hand." And I did.

I cant really describe how that felt. It was like meeting Nelson Mandela or Mohatma Ghandi. It was that big for me. It was overwhelming.

And he was gracious and kind, and I told him how much I love his work and he was a major influence on my life. And I asked if he minded if I had a picture with him.

----

The theme in both of these encounters, unfortunately, is that they rose amidst tragedy in Gaza. It has a lot to do with what I admire about both men.

There is, right now, whats was coinied "politicide" by an Israeli scholar, being waged upon the Palestinian people, "a gradual but systematic attempt to cause their annihilation as an independent political and social entity." There is unspeakable death, destruction, humiliation amidst a brutal and inhumane occupation that none dare speak of in the United States; lets they be labeled "anti-semetic" for questioning Israeli policy.

I wont go into the details of the particular assault on Gaza; ostensibly waged to fight Hamas rocketfire, which is indefensible and criminal in its own right. But Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaza in a brutual occupation denying the most basic human rights since 1967. And worse, it has been annexing Palestinian land; forcing them from their land, bulldozing their homes, and building "Israeli only" colonies, connected by 'Israeli only" roads, correctly described as Apartheid. One speaker at the Voices of Gaza, a doctor, pointed out that Israelis bar Palestinians from digging wells for water on their own land so that Israelis can steal that water. On the West Bank Israelis take over 98% of the water, leaving Palestinians with less than 2%.

The west bank, of course, is worse. Over half of the people do not have daily access to food or water. It is collective punishment upon a civilian population and can only be described as a descent into a kind barbarism. And I should add at this point it is the United States that enables all of this, supports all of this, funds all of this; and stops anyone from trying to stop this. Every American (myself included) harbors responsibility.

Including Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn; two Jewish intellectuals who took time from their lives to speak out against the injustice and horror of the Israeli actions against the Palestinian people. Speaking out for the defenseless, speaking out against injustice, struggling for hope. Because as both men point out, we as American citizens have responsibility to stop the crimes of our own society and our own government; including its support and arming of the Israeli occupation.

Turning back to the poem read by Professor Farsakh, it was particularly moving for a few reasons. ALthough it was about Palestine, it had a human universality that was relevant to all of our lives. And it was tragic, in that it spoke of a livilhood and nation being destroyed by American and Israeli policy. But hopeful, in that the struggle is not over and more can be done, and must be done. We are all humans, we all inhabit this planet and we are all mortal.

The poem is called "We have on this earth what makes life worth living" by Mahoud Darwish

We have on this earth what makes life worth living:
April’s hesitation
The aroma of bread at dawn
A woman’s opinion of men
The works of Aeschylus
The beginning of love
Grass on a stone
Mothers living on a flute’s sigh
and,
The invaders’ fear of memories

We have on this earth what makes life worth living:
The final days of September
A woman leaving forty in full blossom
The hour of sunlight in prison
A cloud reflecting a swarm of creatures
The peoples’ applause for those who face death with a smile
And,
The tyrants’ fear of songs.

We have on this earth what makes life worth living:
On this earth, the lady of earth,
Mother of all beginnings
Mother of all ends.
She was called… Palestine.
Her name later became… Palestine.

My Lady, because you are my Lady, I deserve life.

More Good News

2009-01-28T07:45:00.001-08:00

Updates on stimulus package;

According to, yes, the NYT; the bill expands health care coverage for the unemployed; stating that if you are collecting unemployment, you are automatically elegible for Medicare.

Previously it was means/income tested, meaning it wasnt enough to be unemployed, you also had to be impoverished to be on Medicare. Thus a lot of people had to either enroll in Cobra (which costs a small fortune) or go without health insurance. As someone in that position, I ended up just going without health insurance for a while, which is a scary thing. Cobra is widely expensive.

So more good news for average people. Lets hope this bill passes

Good News

2009-01-28T07:03:00.000-08:00

money money money money money money

Good news on some of the components of the economic stimulus package (as it currently stands.) According to today's New York Times, the bill will "shower the nation's school districts, child care centers and university campuses with $150 billion in new federal spending, a vast two-year investment that would more than double the Department of Education's current budget."

It goes on to note that the money will be spent "on nearly every realm of education, including school renovations, special education, Head Start and grants to needy college students" and that it would be " the largest increase in federal aid since Washington began to spend significantly on education after World War II."

"The bill would increase 2009 fiscal year spending on Title I, a program of specialized classroom efforts to help educate poor children, to $20 billion from about $14.5 billion, and raise spending on education for disabled children to $17 billion from $11 billion."

Not everyone is happy though. The right-wing American Enterprise Institute noted that "It's like an alcoholic at the end of the night when the bars close, and the solution is to open the bar for another hour".

Confused? A lot of Republicans want to eliminate the Department of Education and claim to be against government spending in general (which they really aren't, they are just against government spending on social services; if the government spends on military or hands money without strings to private business, for any reason, thats ok.) So they think its stupid that the Democrats' solution to our horrible education system is to just spend more money. Hence, its like giving an alcoholic more alcohol.

ANd they are partially right (although hypocritical, they will trip overthemselves to sign military spending increases). But we have a new education secretary Arne Duncan (I think?) who is going to direct this money, and regardless there is a lot of money for proven successful programs like Head Start which is badly lacking in funds.

Its a good measure.

2008-10-22T15:16:00.000-07:00

Is there potential for a landslide?

Yes. There is potential.

I'll quickly summarize why I think there IS potential, then give a much lengthier reason why it may not occur.

OK the first doubt that should come to mind, with anyone paying attention in the polls; is that the candidates are essentially still tied, with Obama MAYBE leading by 5-10 points (which is not insignificant).

By, we dont go by the popular vote, unfortunately, so what counts are electoral votes. So it all goes state by state.

Now if we assume the current, average polls are accurate (and I cannot emphasize enough the fact that they can be greatly OFF), but if we assume they are accurate, then Obama right now has leads in enough states to clearly pull a win (which is 270 or more electoral votes.) But that is not a landslide.

But where it gets interesting, really interesting, are the "toss up" states:

I know the writing is small on this (sorry) but basically the key says: DARK BLUE is solidly Obama, LIGHT BLUE is leaning Obama, similarly, DARK RED is solidly McCain and LIGHT RED is leaning McCain. GREEN is a toss up.

THE GOAL is to get to 270. If you add up all the BLUE, Obama has 260. If you add up all the RED McCain has 158.

THe obviously conclusion, Obama only really needs to win ONE or TWO green states to win. I mean Florida is fucking 27 electoral votes, Obama only needs 10. So, big advantage. McCain needs to win almost all of them.

So why is there potential for landslide?

There is a lot of speculation that the polls may be overstating Obama's lead; for one thing he had a huge lead going into the NH primary, then lost; for another there is a so-called racial bias that makes it look like a black candidate is higher than he actually is.

But what if the polls are understating his lead? Here is what I think may be the underlying cause for a potential landslide:

1. HE GOT GAME - The #1 reason Obama may have a landslide is he has what appears to be the best ground operation in history. Because when you poll someone, you assume they are going to vote. But not everyone votes, not everyone who says they are going to vote will vote. So it comes down to who will get their people to the polls. And people seem to be saying McCain has a really shitty ground game; but Obama's is amazing.

2. THE YOUTH - This is always overstated, but you never know. A - Most young people have cell phones as their primary contact, and pollsters call Land Lines. B - As a former pollster myself, we usually get a list of registered voters from the PREVIOUS election, meaning all new voters are not counted. We know Obama has a sizable lead among young voters; but all Democrats do, whats the difference?

1. HE GOT GAME - Obama has a weird cult of personality that is especially prevalent among young Americans. Dont ask me why, I dont really get it, but he's no John Kerry. Young people go crazy for him and they just may come out and rock it.

So look back at this map:

A remote, tiny possibility; is that Obama wins all the blue states and most if not all the Green States. 380 electoral votes. That may not be a landslide, but its a LOT.

But here is why he may not; the following is a summary of landslides (electoral and by popular vote). I think the odds are against Obama as an African-American and just as a Democrat.

The largest electoral landslide was in 1984, in which Reagan won 58% of the vote, and lost only 1 state (Minnesota) and the District of Columbia.

Could Obama win in a landslide when its so close? Maybe, maybe not. TO understand best, its good to look at 5 recent so-called landslides, three of them what might be called "Realignment" elections.

FDR was election in 1932; and began enacting the New Deal. It was so wildly popular that he was re-elected in a shattering landslide, losing only two states (Maine and Vermont) but garning an astonishin 60.8% of the vote.

Its important to note this landslide was a RE-ELECTION, which most are.

The next big landslide was in 1964. Johnson was elected Vice-President in 1960, but the President (Jack Kennedy) was murdered in 1963, elevating Johnson to the Presidency. The Republicans happen to elect a radical named Barry Goldwater.

As McCain says incessantly; MY FRIENDS, this was and is today the largest election landslide in American history, measured by the popular vote. Johnson pull away with over 61% of the vote.

But it changed everything. EVERYTHING. AND we are still feeling it today.

The Solid South was solidly Democrat from Reconstruction to 1964 because it was the party of White Power in the South. After his election in 1964 Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, and remarked to Billy Moyers that this may cost the Democrats the south for a "generation."

Well a man named Dick Nixon picked up on it and used whats called the Southern Strategy; meaning he ran in the south proclaiming a love of States Rights, against Affirmative Action, and other racial topics. This eeked him to victory in 1968 but vaulted him to what became the biggest ELECTORAL landslide in American history (to that date) when he won EVERY SINGLE STATE EXCEPT.... Massachusetts :-)

Oh yeah and he lost the District of Columbia too. But thats not a state...

Anyway Nixon fucked up bad and had to resign. Ford took over in 1974, ran for election in his own right in 1976 and lost to Jimmy Carter. It was a close election and not a landslide. And the South actually largely went for Carter, he being a Southern himself, positioned as a moderate Democrat.

Yes Reagan won one vote.

Well Carter had a tricky term which we wont get into, but a B list actor who's previous jobs included being a corporate spokesman for General Electric and making speeches paid by the American Medical Association claiming that Medicare will lead to Communism; and he was former governor of CA; ran for President.

BUT its funny to see how Reagan started his campaign. "STATE'S RIGHTS" had been a rallying cry to Southern States to continue slavery; and it was a rallying cry for Southern States to continue Jim Crow and Segregation laws. When the federal government attempted to pass civil rights legislation, the Southern States cried it was violating "STATE'S RIGHTS".

In 1964, the same year of Johnson's landslide, the same year of that famous Civil Rights Act that lost the South for the Democrats; was also the year of one of the most famous civil rights murders in American history. Three men, one black and two white, were in Philadelphia, Mississippi registering blacks to vote. The Ku Klux Klan got to them, beat them, shot them, and burned the bodies. (This was not, unfortunately, an isolated incident, but happen to garner national press attention.)

In 1980 Ronald Reagan came to Philadelphia, Mississippi, now famous for the lynchings, to launch his presidential campaign; making a speech centered around his desire to protect state's rights. But I digress...

Here is the 1980 electoral map:

Yes he won big, and it wasnt even a re-election.

I wont say much more on Reagan except created whats called the Reagan Coalition; which is.... Big Business, evangelicals, southern racists, white, and working class people who think "liberals" only care about minorities and are going to take all their money (the so-called Reagan Democrat.)

In 1984 Reagan managed to pull off what is still today the largest ELECTORAL landslide in American history (thought he did not beat Johnson in the popular vote, getting 58% to Johnson's 61%)

AND WE end really here because since then we have been living in the age of Reagan.

That is to say, there are Blue States (the North East, the Great Lakes States, and the West Coast) and the Red States (The Solid South and Midwest) with only a few states here and there switching, the so-called "Swing States"

TO exemplify here are the electoral maps of 1996, 2000 and 2004:

So obviously, even if Obama wins, it would be hard to change all those red states to Blue. Perhaps it will happen in his re-election, perhaps not.

But... you never know

Morganthau

2008-10-19T17:08:00.001-07:00

Studying for a mid-term and was reading some Hans Morganthau, thought this (his 5th of Six Principles of Political Realism, from his book Politics Among Nations):

"All nations are tempted – and few have been able to resist the temptation for long – to clothe their own particular aspirations and actions in the moral purposes of the universe. To know that nations are subject to the moral law is one thing, while to pretend to know with certainty what is good and evil in the relations among nations is quite another. There is a world of difference between the belief that all nations stand under the judgment of God, inscrutable to the human mind, and the blasphemous conviction that God is always on one’s side and that what one wills oneself cannot fail to be willed by God also.

The lighthearted equation between a particular nationalism and the counsels of Providence is morally indefensible, for it is that very sin of pride against which the Greek tragedians and the Biblical prophets have warned rulers and ruled.

That equation is also politically pernicious, for it is liable to engender the distortion in judgment which, in the blindness of crusading frenzy, destroys nations and civilizations -- in the name of moral principle, ideal, or God himself."

What does that remind me of! The sad thing is that the Bush Administration is not the entire embodiment of this concept; but merely an extreme manifestation of something that has prevailed since the Republic was founded. Ben Franklin once said,

"If a sparrow can fall to the ground without His notice,
it is likely that an empire can rise without His help?"

Which the Cheneys found so delightful they put it on their annual Christmas Card in 2003 (the first Christmas after invading Iraq.) How delightful...

Going back to Morgenthau; I think it was Thomas Aquinas who described Pride as the worst sin of them all. And he may have been quoting the messiah himself, Jesus Christ. I don't care to look it up as I have to continue studying

Powell

2008-10-19T14:29:00.000-07:00

There he is...

Colin Powell was on Meet the Press today and officially endorsed Barack Obama. I don't know if this is significant or not, I don't particularly care as I'm not really a fan of Powell's anyway, but he did say something that I thought was very profound and almost completely missing from recent discussion of race.

There has been a whisper campaign for quite sometime (I don't believe its centrally coordinated) that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim. A Pew Research poll this July showed roughly 12% of the electorate believe him to be a Muslim (20% of Evangelicals believe this). He is repeatedly referred to by his opponents as Barack Hussein Obama. He has to explain to people, no he is not a Muslim.

At a recent McCain rally, some woman said she did not trust Obama because "he's uh...he's an Arab."McCain was praised because he corrected the woman, said Obama was not an Arab, he was a decent, family man.

HERE is what Colin Powell said, that I haven't heard anyone else say, that struck me today, regarding these inuendos and rumors that Obama is an Arab and/or Muslim:

"Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America."

Finally! My God did it really have to take this long for someone of prominence to say that? The fact that this context is virtually absent from the media speaks volumes of the levels of acceptable racism in this country against Arabs and Muslims.

Picture this. We have a campaign where two white men are running for president. One of them is of Eastern European descent; and there is a rumor that he is a closet Jew and has a secret Jew agenda. And at the opponents rally's people say they can't trust the other guy because "He's a Jew,"; and the all the opponent says is "No, no, he isn't; he is a decent family man who cares about this country."

I would hope people would be outraged; that the correct response should be "What if he was? Is there something wrong with that?" The only person I have heard say this is Powell. And there is something wrong with the fact that we do not hear more of that, from both McCain AND Obama.

Pardon my speculation, but its rather obvious Obama's campaign made a conscious decision not to say "No he isn't, but what if he was? There is nothing wrong with that" lest they look like they are defending Islam. Why? If person X is racist enough to care whether or not the candidate is Muslim, the campaign likely assumes they would associate any defense against racism with being a closet Muslim; or at the very least the campaign realizes a large segment of the electorate IS racist against Muslims and therefore they don't want to upset them by defending Islam. Simply put; its a strategic political descision not to upset racist white Americans who have enough to deal with having an African-American on the ticket. Shame on them.

For those who saw Powell on Meet the Press; he referred to a picture he saw in a recent photo essay, taken at Arlington National Cemetary.

In Powell's words

"I feel particularly strong about this because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay, was of a mother at Arlington Cemetery and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone, and it gave his awards - Purple Heart, Bronze Star - showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death, he was 20 years old. And then at the very top of the head stone, it didn't have a Christian cross. It didn't have a Star of David. It has a crescent and star of the Islamic faith.

And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan. And he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was fourteen years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he could serve his country and he gave his life."

This is the photograph he was referring to.

From Jason Linkins:

"And some people, in fact, do have it harder than Joe The Plumber."

Stock slide

2008-10-15T14:05:00.000-07:00

Today's fall in the Dow. So much for recovering losses!

From the NY Times:

“I believe this is the sound that hedge funds make when they are imploding,” T.J. Marta, a fixed income strategist at RBC Capital Markets, said, characterizing the sell-off in the last hour.

Analysts said the market was continuing to react to the same fundamental factors that drove it lower in the morning, including weakness in the manufacturing sector, the large drop in retail sales and the growing realization that there will be no quick fix to the credit crisis.

Retail sales decreased 1.2 percent last month, nearly double the 0.7 percent drop that had been expected, according to one government report, while an index of New York manufacturing hit a record low in September.

“To some degree, we’ve moved on from the old crisis to the new crisis. The credit crisis has been addressed to some extent, but now there’s the recession, unemployment, and rising manufacturing costs in the pike,” a senior index analyst at Standard & Poor’s, Howard Silverblatt, said.

Nouriel Roubini says to expect a two year recession, 9% unemployment and further drops in home value.

He also keeps saying that while the measures that the Treasury are finally taking after much delay (partial nationalization) are good; but unfreezing credit markets are not enough. I think it was an NPR interview I heard with him yesterday where he stressed the need for a Home Owners Loan Corporation and a Keynesian style fiscal stimulus bill.

Except Republicans (and it seems most Democrats these days) revere Milton Freidman and supply side economics (which, I cannot emphasize enough, just doesn't work) and turned their back on Keynes in 1980.

So go out there and vote for liberal democrats! They are supposedly working on a massive infrastructure spending bill that will serve the purpose proposed by Keynes and Roubini.

Recession

2008-10-15T13:28:00.000-07:00

Headline for the Financial Times when I logged on at 4:30EST.

"Stocks slide on mounting recession fears"

Really? They didn't assume a recession was coming one way or the other? Wasn't that a fundamental agreement by all parties on all sides of the spectrum, that whether or not this bailout works we are facing or are already in a recession? I very much doubt investors just kind of realized this.

Must avoid those two consecutive quarters of negative growth!

Bonjour

2008-10-12T12:59:00.000-07:00

Its the end of the world as we know it!

I am hoping after the elections, that Obama wins, and he can jet set the G-7 to Bretton Woods and try again.

Terrific commentary by Noam Chomsky on the topic. The economic liberalization that the US initiated in 1980 with Reagan (and Thatcher abroad), which was embraced by democrats and the moderate republican Bill Clinton; was really begun with Nixon when the original Bretton Woods system was destroyed.

Bit of background:

After the first collapse of global capitalism in the 1930's, each country had a go at it alone approach. Then toward the end of WWII all the major players, including the great John M Keynes took off to New Hampshire and settled down at a ski resort known as Bretton Woods; to establish a sound, common global capitalist system.

What Chomsky highlights, and is crucial I believe; is the need stressed to prevent capitalism from overruning democracy. They put checks on capital flight and had currencies pegged, instead of free floating. Why does this matter? One minute.

Vietnam was draining on the dollar and Nixon decided to rip of Bretton Woods to help the US. Instead of pegging the dollar to gold, the dollar was now pegged to nothing. So fell the house of cards. Currencies could float freely now. More on this later...

About this time Milton Friedman and his band of thugs were off promoting what would in the 80s be called the "Washington Consensus"; or in the 90's "Neoliberalism"; or "market reform" or "economic liberalization". Many names.

The premise was this: Capital and corporations should have no constraints whatsoever. And because the only way people CAN control them is through government, it was decided government was awful and must be destroyed. Everything must be privatized, regulations must be torn down, so-called free trade (which isnt free but thats another topic) was promoted.

But no one liked this in rich countries; so instead it was experimented in South America where the US installed right wing dictators who enacted Friedman's reforms in exchange for tactical support (see Naomi Klein for more on this).

These economic "reforms" were disaterous and eventually the dictators across Latin America were overthrown and replaced with democracy. But here's the kicker. Although the economic policies were hated by the people, the Western Corporations said they must stay. And if they do not? Capital flight and currency attack. They could destroy these countries. And in many cases did (see Argentina).

Then these reforms came to the US ala Ronald Reagan (and Britain ala Thatcher) where they kept railing that government is awful and must be destroyed, it cannot interfere with business. Being two democracies, the government is the public, and they were essentially arguing that democratic governments are awful, they should stand back and let corporations rule. The public should not have an opinion. "Government is the problem"

So for 30 years this was embraced by the US and England and pushed on much of the rest of the world. The result has been that for the vast majority of the American people, their incomes have either stagnated or declined for the last 30 years; despite economic growth and substantial gains for the top 5%

In fact its the first time in american (or world) HISTORY that we have had steady economic growth for years, with virtually no gain for the vast majority of the population. About this time credit and debt became very popular. So now for the past few years the US has had a negative savings rate for the first time since the Depression.

Anyway, here we are in 2008. For 90% of American's, their incomes were higher in 2000 then today. For 10% of Americans the last 8 years have been a dream come true.

But now the global economy is collapsing.

Now I'll just add this. From 1945-1970 was the most egalitarian and biggest growth for the majority of American people. What that means is we had economic growth, and that translated into income and wealth growth for the ENTIRE POPULATION.

Then stagflation and reaganism. Now we have had economic growth, but that translates to income decline or stagnation for most americans and wealth growth for the top 10% (and wild growth for the top 1%).

So when we consider the new system we will build (if they do) I hope they rely more on Keynes and Bretton Woods then Friedman and Reaganomics.

And I hope Obama is in the White House negotiating. But not with Clinton economic advisors

Vanguard of the Capitalists

2008-09-23T07:16:00.000-07:00

VANGUARD OF THE CAPITALISTS

David Brooks today discusses alternatives to Sec Paulson's "plan" to rescue capitalism. For those unfamiliar with Paulson's plan, it involved an emergency meeting with top congressional leaders asking them to give him between $700 billion and $1 trillion immediately, with no strings attached and the power to do whatever he wanted with it, not subject to review by any agency or court of law.

Paulson also said if this was not passed immediately, the entire US economy would face a meltdown. Then he went on four different Sunday talk shows to scare the hell out of the American people lest Congress balk.

Thankfully the Democrats are now saying not so fast, lets put some strings on this baby, lets get some power over these companies before we hand them a trillion dollars. John McCain said that no company seeking a bailout should have anyone paid more than the highest government official ($400,000); and only a few noble Republicans have stood up aghast at the final, inevitable destruction of their myth of a non-existant free market.

Back to Brooks. He proposes we set up a "financial elite" of the United States; Paulson, Volcker, Rubin, Buffett. This elite will be handed power becasuse, "These time-tested advisers, or more precisely, their acolytes, are going to make the health and survival of the financial markets their first order of business, because without that stability, the entire economy will be in danger. Beyond that, they will embrace a certain sort of governing approach."

This may more accurately be referred to as Leninism; where the masses are too dumb to govern themselves and therefore a group of elite intellectuals will manage society for them. The elites Brooks volunteers are all unelected officials who have come from Wall Street. They will manage the country for us. This is the alternative to Ceaser Paulson?

Hillary Clinton is starting to piss me off

2008-03-17T19:43:00.001-07:00

-China has been brutally cracking down on protesting Tibetans this week and last. I wonder if the Bush Administration will say anything. I doubt there will be much more than a pander to human rights activists since China holds a lot of US public debt and its not exactly the best time for the US to be rattling its creditors.

-Alan Greenspan and Paul Krugman finally agree on something, that the current US recession is likely to be the worst since WWII. This is a phrase tossed around a lot these past few days. Except it appears to be a nicer way of saying a terrible thing. The US didnt have a recession during WWII. It experienced a rather large one the decade prior to the conflict. I suspect that is what they are referring to. Its rather unsettling

-Lastly, Florida has decided it will not do a revote. Good then you will not have your delegates seated! It was a sham primary! I was never a huge Obama fan but I'm sick and tired of Clinton and her crew bitching that the Florida and Michigan delegates must be seated. Fine, they can sit, but the primaries dont count!

Florida and Michigan were told if they move their primaries, then they wont count. They moved their primaries anyways. The candidates, including Clinton, agreed the primaries should not count. They agreed not to campaign there. Obamas name wasnt even on the Michigan ballot. Amazingly some people bothered to vote anyway, and Clinton "won" Florida. She also "won" Michigan, where an astounding 40% of the people who voted cast their vote for "uncommitted." I suspect that if 40% of the voting electorate took time out of their day to cast a vote for a non-candidate, running against Hillary Clinton, in a primary that didnt even count; then I bet if Barack Obama was on the ballot he would've done pretty well.

This is Clinton's desperate attempt to win the primary, along with claiming super-delegates should vote for her and decide the election, even if Barack Obama wins more overall votes, states and delegates from the voting public.

This is a pattern of unfair actions by her. Her husband, as President, ran the party for eight years. His surrogates are largely still in place. That is a huge advantage for Clinton. Its clearly unfair. Just like claiming the Michigan win.

More and more each day I'm being pushed into the Obama camp. Although I think I may still vote Green, Hillary Clinton is starting to piss me off.

Howard Zinn

2008-02-24T19:03:00.001-08:00

Election Madness

by Howard Zinn

There’s a man in Florida who has been writing to me for years (ten pages, handwritten) though I’ve never met him. He tells me the kinds of jobs he has held-security guard, repairman, etc. He has worked all kinds of shifts, night and day, to barely keep his family going. His letters to me have always been angry, railing against our capitalist system for its failure to assure “life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness” for working people.

Just today, a letter came. To my relief it was not handwritten because he is now using e-mail: “Well, I’m writing to you today because there is a wretched situation in this country that I cannot abide and must say something about. I am so enraged about this mortgage crisis. That the majority of Americans must live their lives in perpetual debt, and so many are sinking beneath the load, has me so steamed. Damn, that makes me so mad, I can’t tell you. . . . I did a security guard job today that involved watching over a house that had been foreclosed on and was up for auction. They held an open house, and I was there to watch over the place during this event. There were three of the guards doing the same thing in three other homes in this same community. I was sitting there during the quiet moments and wondering about who those people were who had been evicted and where they were now.”

On the same day I received this letter, there was a front-page story in the Boston Globe, with the headline “Thousands in Mass. Foreclosed on in ‘07.”

The subhead was “7,563 homes were seized, nearly 3 times the ‘06 rate.”

A few nights before, CBS television reported that 750,000 people with disabilities have been waiting for years for their Social Security benefits because the system is underfunded and there are not enough personnel to handle all the requests, even desperate ones.

Stories like these may be reported in the media, but they are gone in a flash. What’s not gone, what occupies the press day after day, impossible to ignore, is the election frenzy.

This seizes the country every four years because we have all been brought up to believe that voting is crucial in determining our destiny, that the most important act a citizen can engage in is to go to the polls and choose one of the two mediocrities who have already been chosen for us. It is a multiple choice test so narrow, so specious, that no self-respecting teacher would give it to students.

And sad to say, the Presidential contest has mesmerized liberals and radicals alike. We are all vulnerable.

Is it possible to get together with friends these days and avoid the subject of the Presidential elections?

The very people who should know better, having criticized the hold of the media on the national mind, find themselves transfixed by the press, glued to the television set, as the candidates preen and smile and bring forth a shower of clichés with a solemnity appropriate for epic poetry.

Even in the so-called left periodicals, we must admit there is an exorbitant amount of attention given to minutely examining the major candidates. An occasional bone is thrown to the minor candidates, though everyone knows our marvelous democratic political system won’t allow them in.

No, I’m not taking some ultra-left position that elections are totally insignificant, and that we should refuse to vote to preserve our moral purity. Yes, there are candidates who are somewhat better than others, and at certain times of national crisis (the Thirties, for instance, or right now) where even a slight difference between the two parties may be a matter of life and death.

I’m talking about a sense of proportion that gets lost in the election madness. Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes-the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth.

But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice.

Let’s remember that even when there is a “better” candidate (yes, better Roosevelt than Hoover, better anyone than George Bush), that difference will not mean anything unless the power of the people asserts itself in ways that the occupant of the White House will find it dangerous to ignore.

The unprecedented policies of the New Deal-Social Security, unemployment insurance, job creation, minimum wage, subsidized housing-were not simply the result of FDR’s progressivism. The Roosevelt Administration, coming into office, faced a nation in turmoil. The last year of the Hoover Administration had experienced the rebellion of the Bonus Army-thousands of veterans of the First World War descending on Washington to demand help from Congress as their families were going hungry. There were disturbances of the unemployed in Detroit, Chicago, Boston, New York, Seattle.

In 1934, early in the Roosevelt Presidency, strikes broke out all over the country, including a general strike in Minneapolis, a general strike in San Francisco, hundreds of thousands on strike in the textile mills of the South. Unemployed councils formed all over the country. Desperate people were taking action on their own, defying the police to put back the furniture of evicted tenants, and creating self-help organizations with hundreds of thousands of members.

Without a national crisis-economic destitution and rebellion-it is not likely the Roosevelt Administration would have instituted the bold reforms that it did.

Today, we can be sure that the Democratic Party, unless it faces a popular upsurge, will not move off center. The two leading Presidential candidates have made it clear that if elected, they will not bring an immediate end to the Iraq War, or institute a system of free health care for all.

They offer no radical change from the status quo.

They do not propose what the present desperation of people cries out for: a government guarantee of jobs to everyone who needs one, a minimum income for every household, housing relief to everyone who faces eviction or foreclosure.

They do not suggest the deep cuts in the military budget or the radical changes in the tax system that would free billions, even trillions, for social programs to transform the way we live.

None of this should surprise us. The Democratic Party has broken with its historic conservatism, its pandering to the rich, its predilection for war, only when it has encountered rebellion from below, as in the Thirties and the Sixties. We should not expect that a victory at the ballot box in November will even begin to budge the nation from its twin fundamental illnesses: capitalist greed and militarism.

So we need to free ourselves from the election madness engulfing the entire society, including the left.

Yes, two minutes. Before that, and after that, we should be taking direct action against the obstacles to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

For instance, the mortgage foreclosures that are driving millions from their homes-they should remind us of a similar situation after the Revolutionary War, when small farmers, many of them war veterans (like so many of our homeless today), could not afford to pay their taxes and were threatened with the loss of the land, their homes. They gathered by the thousands around courthouses and refused to allow the auctions to take place.

The evictions today of people who cannot pay their rents should remind us of what people did in the Thirties when they organized and put the belongings of the evicted families back in their apartments, in defiance of the authorities.

Historically, government, whether in the hands of Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals, has failed its responsibilities, until forced to by direct action: sit-ins and Freedom Rides for the rights of black people, strikes and boycotts for the rights of workers, mutinies and desertions of soldiers in order to stop a war.
Voting is easy and marginally useful, but it is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens.

Howard Zinn is the author of “A People’s History of the United States,” “Voices of a People’s History” (with Anthony Arnove), and most recently, “A Power Governments Cannot Suppress.”

Winter's Days Are Numbered

2008-02-24T09:52:00.001-08:00

33 Degrees!

Its finally above freezing today in Chicago. Its also sunny!

After a bitter cold December, January and February... it feels as though winter is beginning to thaw. In fact the 10 day forecast gives us a lowest low of 14 on Tuesday. The high (the lowest high) that day is 22. Thats fantastic because most of this winter we haven't gone 10 days without subzero temperatures. No wonder people in the Midwest are (stereotypically) so fat. Its necessary!

The freezing temperatures may or may not have contributed to a burst pipe in my building that cause a near collapse of one of my ceiling panels, which has been removed and is now just a large square hole.

Yes the days are getting longer and the sun shines brighter. In less than a month we will be celebrating the Vernal Equinox; twelve great hours of daylight matched with an equally significant twelve great hours of night. From then until the autumnal equinox, daylight will be on the winning side of the equation. Fucking fantastic!

The Blog is Back

2008-02-03T20:56:00.000-08:00

The Blog is Back, again!

I haven't written the blog in a while but for several reasons am bringing it back. One of which is that I am taking a Creative Writing class at the "Chicago Free School". The classes at this school are, as the name implies, free. I believe they are taught at a commune too, which should be fun. When I called the instructor to sign up for it (first class is Thursday) she informed me that I was the second person who had called thus far. If my friend Renee comes, that makes three.

So that is one of the reasons that I am writing the blog again. I must come up with a creative writing sample to bring to class on Thursday. So I need to get back into writing. Whatever creative writing work I come up with, I may or may not post on the blog, depending on how I feel about it.

I also am applying to grad schools now and must write essays for that. So once again, it helps to write the blog for writing exercises. I may or may not post those as well. We will see. We will see.

Krugman

2008-02-03T20:52:00.000-08:00

Op-Ed Columnist

Clinton, Obama, Insurance

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: February 4, 2008

The principal policy division between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama involves health care. It’s a division that can seem technical and obscure — and I’ve read many assertions that only the most wonkish care about the fine print of their proposals.

Paul Krugman.

But as I’ve tried to explain in previous columns, there really is a big difference between the candidates’ approaches. And new research, just released, confirms what I’ve been saying: the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short.

Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s — at only slightly higher cost.

Let’s talk about how the plans compare.

Both plans require that private insurers offer policies to everyone, regardless of medical history. Both also allow people to buy into government-offered insurance instead.

And both plans seek to make insurance affordable to lower-income Americans. The Clinton plan is, however, more explicit about affordability, promising to limit insurance costs as a percentage of family income. And it also seems to include more funds for subsidies.

But the big difference is mandates: the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn’t.

Mr. Obama claims that people will buy insurance if it becomes affordable. Unfortunately, the evidence says otherwise.

After all, we already have programs that make health insurance free or very cheap to many low-income Americans, without requiring that they sign up. And many of those eligible fail, for whatever reason, to enroll.

An Obama-type plan would also face the problem of healthy people who decide to take their chances or don’t sign up until they develop medical problems, thereby raising premiums for everyone else. Mr. Obama, contradicting his earlier assertions that affordability is the only bar to coverage, is now talking about penalizing those who delay signing up — but it’s not clear how this would work.

So the Obama plan would leave more people uninsured than the Clinton plan. How big is the difference?

To answer this question you need to make a detailed analysis of health care decisions. That’s what Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T., one of America’s leading health care economists, does in a new paper.

Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.

That doesn’t look like a trivial difference to me. One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured.

As with any economic analysis, Mr. Gruber’s results are only as good as his model. But they’re consistent with the results of other analyses, such as a 2003 study, commissioned by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, that compared health reform plans and found that mandates made a big difference both to success in covering the uninsured and to cost-effectiveness.

And that’s why many health care experts like Mr. Gruber strongly support mandates.

Now, some might argue that none of this matters, because the legislation presidents actually manage to get enacted often bears little resemblance to their campaign proposals. And there is, indeed, no guarantee that Mrs. Clinton would, if elected, be able to pass anything like her current health care plan.

But while it’s easy to see how the Clinton plan could end up being eviscerated, it’s hard to see how the hole in the Obama plan can be repaired. Why? Because Mr. Obama’s campaigning on the health care issue has sabotaged his own prospects.

You see, the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates — most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the “Harry and Louise” ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care.

If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.

If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen.

Chaos!

2007-08-09T19:52:00.000-07:00

HOT AS FUCKIN HELL
in the Windy City

The above is a shot of my neighborhood. Like much of the country, we here in Chicago are embroiled in a bloody humid heat wave. This makes for a bitch of a commute. In the morning I stand in the sun, two stories up waiting for the El. I get into a packed car that usually has no A/C. But in the afternoon, after work, I have a better method.

I walk six or seven blocks past my normal stop and get on in the outbound train from the South Loop. This means I will have a seat. Everyone else, as we make our way through downtown Chi-town, must stand. There is no room, and I move for no one, save for pregnant women. Last week some fat woman was bitching to her husband how nobody would get up for her, and she kept nudging me. It was kind of gross.

During my commutes I read, and now I am on Ayn Rand's critically acclaimed The Fountainhead. For those who are wondering, I have not read Atlas Shrugged but plan to after I am done with the current book. The last great book that I read, about a month ago, was On the Road by Jack Kerouac. A good book inspires one in a way that affects his or her life. Kerouac made thirsty for adventure and mayhem in the great Chicago night. My next book, Ulysses, was terrible. The Fountainhead, my current book, is about a young architect named Howard Roark. Like me, he sticks to his principles and defies common notions! He follows his gut and will not conform to arbitrary standards of the modern capitalist system we live in. And here I am working in a corporate law firm, I thought, everything I never hoped I would be. Thus for that, and other reasons, I gave my two weeks notice. Thank you Ayn Rand.

Most probably won't understand but its one of the best decisions I've made. Back to square one.

In the political realm, the President has decided to push for more corporate tax cuts. If the Democrats are anything like they appear to be, they will balk, fight back, decry the corporate influence over Washington at the behest of working people, then present the President with a slightly reduced tax cut then he had proposed; which is probably what his political advisers predicted before hand anyway and therefore likely asked for more then they wanted, anticipating a politically driven reduction. Thats how the budget process works every year anyway.

Today the Democratic candidates are in Los Angeles at a gay forum/debate. I say good for them. I dont believe any of them are for gay marriage (except Kucinich), which is unfortunate, but it appears that grassroots are growing stronger. I detest most of the candidates, I like Kucinich and kind of like Gravel. But it is clear that something positive is happening.

The great chaos and terrible reign of the Bush administration, for the past seven years, has caused a great stir among the common folk. When people realized the democrats were useless; to stop the war, to protect their rights, to watch out for them; the people started organizing. They organized into anti-war groups, environmental groups, womens' rights groups. Once you organize and realize you have power you start pushing more. The Democrats running for office are now having to face all of this (as the Republicans face... religious zealots and such). And its a good thing. They must compete for the black vote, the hispanic vote, the anti-war vote, the bloody LABOR vote, the Gay and Lesbian vote. Because they know all of these constituencies have organized themselves like hell over the last few years, they do not trust democrats for just being democrats, and they will fight like hell to exercise their influence. This is what democracy looks like.

The View

2007-06-24T18:14:00.000-07:00

CHICAGO, CHICAGO!

My mother was in town this weekend and Sat. night we had drinks on the 96th floor of the John Hancock Building, known as the "Signature Lounge". You can see the entire city. Its the most beautiful view I've ever seen.

I've previously been to the top of the John Hancock (both Bos and Chi I believe) and the Sears Tower. But those were all in the daytime. I was even atop the Eiffel Tower many, many years ago. But that was in the daytime too. Seeing a city like this at night is like coming from a plane. Except instead of a glance you can stare as long as you want. I highly recommend this for anyone coming to Chicago. Its a nice restaurant/lounge but a lot of tourists and its very pricey, and not because of quality but just because of its location (kind of a Time Square effect I suppose, the applebees on 42n on 50th both double their prices, literally. Why the hell they have two applebees so close I dont know.) I had a Sam Adams at the top of the Hancock for over $8.00, which is the price for a six pack of Sam Adams at the corner store around the block from my apartment.

But anyway it was a crazy place to go and I will try to post pictures if I can get the one my mother took.

------

On a separate topic, I'm reading Ulysses by James Joyce right now. Its a bloody strange book but interesting. Not as riveting as On the Road though, which I finished, I think last week. I'm considering going back to Kerouac after Ulysses but we'll see how I feel after I finish. Anyone who has read this or any Joyce and wants to give me tips, let me know.

God Bless.

Oh Happy Day!

2007-06-04T16:13:00.000-07:00

Adventures in Chicago: Notes for a Book

swsf

Today was a very hot day in Chicago. Its 6:52pm and still hovering near 90. A cold front awaits in the west, rushing over the Midwestern plains toward Lake Michigan, bringing with it a "wind warning", "tornado warning" and promises of a pretty intense storm. I'm hoping it will cool things down so I can sleep.

I've finally picked up a good book to read on the El, like seemingly every other person on my commutes. For some reason a good 80% of people on the train during my commutes are people roughly under age of 27, and a good 40-50% of them are reading books the whole time. My ride home today was semi-comical, enough so to jot down.

I went to the Daley Plaza Blue Line stop on the Blue line, the second to last downtown stop. As it was just after 5pm the dirty little underground station was packed. As usual, the inefficient blue line kept us waiting roughly 10 minutes for a train to come. Actually we saw it approach the station then stop and wait ten minutes, with people on. Then it finally started up and headed towards us. Everyone pushed real close to the edge since we all knew only about one third of us would make it on what was expected to be a packed train. Only, the train honked then kept going by. Some people laughed, some people bitched, some, like myself, kept reading out books.

Then 5 minutes later another train came and stopped just before the station, and waited 5 minutes. When it finally pulled up to the platform, the doors of a relatively unpacked car stopped right in front of me. By relatively unpacked I mean all the seats were taken and some people were standing. I was very excited that the doors stopped in front of me, and felt like a leader of the pack as everyone in my vicinity gathered around me, knowing I would be on board first, hoping to follow and squeeze on. We kept waiting until we realized the doors were broken and were not opening. I quickly rushed over, with my crowd following, to the other doors of the car and squeezed on.

Well we finally all squeezed into the front of the car, all packed in, squished against eachother, leaning over eachother to grab a pole or a seat or something to keep us from being thrown against one another. Then we all looked down the isle to the other side of the car, where the broken doors were, and saw it was basically open and empty. And of course no one could simply walk down there because the whole isle was blocked with people standing, and there must have been that one guy at the end who wasnt moving down. So I lifted up my book as best I could, as did about 5 other people around me, and we jerked along to the next stopped . Another crowd rushed in and squeezed themselves down to the open side of the cart, so it was finally packed to capacity. Then, every stop after that, a group of people from one side of the car where the doors were broken would frantically push themselves to my side of the car where the doors were open so they could get off in time. Back and forth, back and forth, frantically, pushing, the heat wasnt helping. And all the while everyone not getting off, the people around me, are standing there holding the pole with one hand and reading a book with the other, quite oblivious to the chaos around them. It was, I found, very funny.

I tried to see what other people were reading, and I only got one, this morning. Some girl was reading a book called "The Wonder Spot". I wikipedia'd it and it looks like one of those summer time beach girls books.

Work was kind of chaotic today, as I am still new. I work in some crazy ass law firm in downtown Chicago. Its about 50 years old and the founder still works there. I've been subbing as a legal assistant the real estate department, where everyone is very old. Its like working in the 1950's. But I enjoy/hate it. Some moments I wish to be at a job where there is no pressure to get it done, some moments I thrive on it. Overall I think its good for me right now. So I am enjoying where I am at and taking in the experience. Its kind of fun being reoriented, getting to know people, figuring out the office makeup, the cliques, the social hierarchy, the way things work. I know 100% now I dont want to be a lawyer, but its a good interim job before grad school. I think I need to just take in more and live more for the experiences, in the present. If all goes according to plan I will be in New York in early 08 so I want to try to make the most out of my time in Chicago; yet while at the same time saving up as much money as possible. So thats kind of a difficult balance but I am figuring it out.

My short term (next 9-10 months) goals are to make the most out of every day, live scrupulously, be adventures, bring lunch almost everyday, cut down on binge drinking, get a second job, explore Chicago, get to know the personalities of the bars around me, meet new people, be a dreamer, and sha la la la live for today

Syberworld

2007-05-22T19:09:00.000-07:00

Per suggestion from one of my blog fans, I am going to blog more about everyday stuff, and not just about politics. Today is the first day I do that. Here goes:

______________
Creed Thoughts

Hey-o, everyone out there in SyberWorld. It’s old Creed Bratton coming at your again, here from my perch as a Quality Assurance Manager at Dunder Mifflin paper. Just a few observations on the world around me.

What do you guys think is the best kind of car? To me, you can’t beat motorcycles. They’re small, and dangerous.

I got into a car accident yesterday and I just took off. It didn’t look too bad. The guy was making a big deal out of it, but come on – dogs don’t live forever.

_____

You should know where thats from. The season finale was good, Jan got fake tits. She is funny. I hope they dont pursue the Pam/Michael storyline too much. I think they need more Creed. He is the man.

I started working my new job high atop the Title Tower in Chicago. I am a legal assistant for some bad ass corporate law firm so I have temporarily sold my soul while Im saving up for grad school. I am at a very convenient location, right across the street from the main subway terminal downtown which keeps my commute to a short twenty minutes, because the El is so slow. I am also next door to a huge outdoor plaza (Daley Plaza) where this week they are having Asian Festival, which I go watch while enjoying the nice weather at lunch. Yesterday I saw a very beautiful South Korean ballet troupe perform. Today was not so good. Some Asian-American kid played drums. I didnt see the benefit in me watching that, nor any cultural importance.

Any day now, billions and billions of underground shrimp sized bugs called Cicadas will come above ground from their 17 year hibernation and reak havoc on the midwest. Im looking forward to it. It sounds cool.

Sunday I went to a Catholic Mass that was partially in Polish. The new priest, recently ordained by the local Archdiocese, was from Poland. He was so happy he was fighting back the tears, his family was there, and sitting in the front row. They were taking flash-photographs of him using their new digital cameras. At first, before I knew who they were, I thought it was inappropriate to use flash-photography in Church. But I suppose I would be proud if my son became a priest. Although Im not Catholic and dont intend to raise my children that way so its a moot point.

Well, that's all I can think of. Peace out Syberworld

The War Goes On

2007-05-07T16:34:00.000-07:00

Who'll Stop the Rain?

-Over 655,000 Iraqis dead
- 3,337 Americans dead
-26,000 Americans wounded

The war goes on.

GOP Debate

2007-05-03T20:02:00.000-07:00

Republican debate sucked. They are mostly crazy. Rep Ron Paul is at least consistent and principled (heavily libertarian.) Romney, McCain, Giuiliani are jackasses. I still think Romney will win the nomination and Hillary will win the Dem nomination; then Hillary will win the White House. I will be voting for neither.

The Blog Is Back!

2007-04-26T08:58:00.000-07:00

Ludicrous!

Dr. Rice is in Oslo today meeting with NATO officials, trying to raise support for the installation of Missile Defense Shield components in Eastern Europe, which has stirred the pot with Russia. It's almost comical, but here is a brief background on what is going on:

The USA is trying to build what is called a Missile Defense Shield. It claims this "shield" is to protect the US from "rogue states" like Iran and North Korea. They are now trying to expand the shield into Europe, by installing components on Russia's border.

Now, outside the pages of New York Times, nobody takes seriously the claim that this is a "shield". It is part of a first-strike capability which would make the US invincible and re-acheive the unstable position of nuclear primacy.

What that means, in brief, is this: In 1945 the US was the only power in the world to have the atomic bomb. It could safely attack any nation on the planet without consequence. Thats "nuclear primacy". That lasted until 1949, when the Soviet Union got the bomb. After a 10 year uncontrolled arms race; it was realized by both sides, after the Cuban Missile Crisis especially (in 1961), that they each side had enough nukes to completely destroy the world, and a kind of uneasy peace was established because of the existence of whats called "MAD" or "Mutually Assured Destruction." Meaning, if the USSR attacked the USA with everything it had, its likely the USA would either in mid-attack or after, have at least a couple nukes left somewhere to attack the USSR, and vice-versa. So, essentially, both sides were safe because any attack , from the US to Russia or vice versa, meant both sides are destroyed. Mutually Assured Destruction.

Also in 1969 both sides signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which required nuclear powers to begin dismantling and eventually get rid of nukes altogether. But thats ignored.

Back to the present. The Missile Defense Shield, as explained in foreign policy, security and military journals; gives the USA nuclear primacy again, thats its raison d'etre if you will. Its been sold, however, as protection against Iran and NK. So for the first time today, a US official responded to the idea that it removes Russia's deterrent. Condi Rice said:

“The idea that somehow 10 interceptors and a few radars in Eastern Europe are going to threaten the Soviet strategic deterrent is purely ludicrous, and everybody knows it. The Russians have thousands of warheads. The idea that you can somehow stop the Soviet strategic nuclear deterrent with a few interceptors just doesn’t make sense.”

What everyone knows, is that she is lying. The Russians are afraid that a shield would remove what she called "the Soviet strategic nuclear deterrent", (soviet?). Meaning if we have a shield against Russian missiles, then there is nothing stopping the US from attacking Russia, since we can block their retaliation. As Dr. Rice says, how could TEN interceptors and a FEW radars stop THOUSANDS of warheads. It just doesn't make sense. Oh what a tangled web we weave...

This is from an article in Foreign Affairs, April of 2006, in an article called "The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy":

"...the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one -- as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal -- if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would have so few warheads and decoys left."

And everyone knows it. So why should we care? So what if it scares Russia and China that the US is trying to become invincible and thus threaten them? Because they are responding. Both Russia and China are vastly increasing their missile stockpiles to overwhelm a US missile defense system. They are scattering their nuclear weapons all over the country, putting them on hair trigger alert. Russia has even begun a system where, at any time, day or night, year round, there are a good load of nuclear weapons being transported across the country on *highways*; because they believe constantly moving them is safer then leaving them in a permanent spot where US satellites can target them.

If we are in a war against terrorism, and are convinced that terrorists want to acquire nukes; is it safe to know Russia is transporting nuclear weapons on highways on a constant basis?

No. No it isnt

Hey Hey

2007-03-04T07:44:00.000-08:00

Have not blogged in a while, but I am back by popular demand. I will be moving to Chicago in under two weeks. My goal is; within six months, to become the toast of Chicago. Mark my words.
__________________________________________

Here are some thoughts:

I'm no expert in Middle Eastern affairs (or am I?) but I do take an interest in reading up on certain topics. What astonishes me is when I watched prominent members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, who appear on television and, quite simply, say the most ridiculous things. I used to think they were intentionally lying to promote their cause. But now I am convinced they simply dont know what they are talking about. They really dont.

Example: Silvestre Rayes, Democrat, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (Pelosi's personal choice.) He was interviewed by Congressional Quarterly. He was asked if Al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite. He said predominantely Shiite (Al Qaeda is Sunni, they hate Shiites almost as much as the USA).

There is much more, Democrats, Republicans, Senators and Congresmen, dont know anything about the Middle East, Islam, Arabs, etc:

Frightening
_______________________________________________________

I bought Jimmy Carter's "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". I am very skeptical, for the opposite of most of the criticism he is getting. He has been attacked for the title of his book by Democrats and Republicans for daring to say Israel, once a close ally of South Africa, practices apartheid. I tend to agree with Archbishop Desmond Tutu that the brutal and cruel system imposed on the Palestinians is worse then apartheid.

The Gaza Strip, for example, is a 25-5 mile strip of Palestinian land. It is surrounded by an electric "fence" and nobody is allowed to leave. The US and Israel have imposed a brutal and cruel blockade to the point where most people are starving.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/829307.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/832929.html

That isnt apartheid, of course. Its collective punishment and quite sickening. The apartheid system is in the West Bank. Palestinians are not allowed to dig wells for water, Israeli settlers are. The entire area is criss-crossed by roads that Palestinians are not allowed to use, but Israeli settlers are. Palestinians have to wait hours to even cross the roads, if they are allowed. About half of them are malnurished and the vast majority live in poverty. But how dare Jimmy Carter use the word Apartheid!

Anyway I opened the book, and I was taken aback. The font is huge. I mean huge. And the margins are huge too. Its a 230 page book, I swear it could be 100 pages. Its like reading a Robert Byrd speech. But anyway I'll give Jimmy Carter's book a chance, even though I dont think Jimmy Carter has much authority of human rights given what happened under his administration. Ive written about it before but Ill quick reiterate, Carter directly aided in the largest genocide relative to the population since the Holocaust, when he backed (through money/arms) the Indonesian's genocide of East Timor. Carter also has an atrocious human right record in Central America and is directly complicit in the murder of Archbishop Oscar Romero.

In fact when Carter was on C-Span live promoting this book on a call in show, I desperately tried to call in so I could ask him about his own human rights record. I couldnt get in :-/

_________________________________________________________

I predict Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton will get their party's nominations. Here is why

Republicans:

Rudy Giuliani: Pro-choice and pro-civil unions. He simply wont survive the primaries. He was also married three times. The first time he had it annulled after 14 years when he and mrs. giuliani discovered they were second cousins. The second time, while mayor of NYC, he was fucking one of his staff members and got caught. But as NYC is liberal, no one cared and so he started making public appearances with his mistress, then divorced his wife and married his current one. NYC people didnt care, I think the south will.

John McCain: Scumbag and everyone knows it. Republicans dont think he is conservative enough, everyone else is disgusted as he tries to prove he is a radical conservative, by sucking up to demagogues and acting homophobic.

Mitt Romney: Mormon, yes. That will hurt him in the primaries (I dont think anyone else will care. It simply wasnt an issue when he successfully ran for governor of Mass.) He also used to be pro-choice and pro-gay rights, in fact he ran against ted kennedy and tried to seem more liberal than him! Ha ha. But he has gone through some revelations! And I think the idiots in the GOP primaries will believe that.

________________________________________________________

Democrats:

Obama: Obama is a media creation. The media became bored a few months ago and decided to build him up. Being naive, he fell for this and thought he was actually something special, so he decided to run for president. Except he doesnt really stand for anything. I mean, he stands for "hope" and "change". I think thats pretty much what every presidential candidate has stood for since Jefferson v. Adams in 1800. Obama's campaign will collapse.

Edwards: Nobody cares about him. He is old news. What I do like about him is, he realizes his chances are slim so he decided to become wildly liberal. I think this will force the other candidates to turn left so he doesnt out flank them. But he has no real chance.

Clinton: Elch! She is awful. But she has the "Clinton Machine" which is this vast network of money and connections. I really think that will ultimately help her. I think the media will be tough on her though. But she will pull it off.

_________________________________________________

After that, I think Clinton will beat Romney and win. Why? Because Iraq will still be going on and Romney is 100% behind Bush. Because the crazy Christian Right will stay home. Because generally the country wont want another Republican because Bush is so awful. And because of Iraq, Iraq, Iraq!

f

f

2007-02-10T09:59:00.000-08:00

testing

testing

1

2

4

24 is boring?

2007-01-30T07:09:00.000-08:00

PASSED OUT!

Last night I passed out during 24... because it was so boring!

Actually I was a bit jet lagged and had been traveling for 12 hours... from Chicago, so it shouldnt have taken that long, but at the end of the day I had traveled on: a subway, a bus, a plane, a train and an automobile!

Anyway, I'm not quite into this season of 24 yet, though I will give it more time. I just dont like any of the current storylines:

Karen Hayes: She goes from mid-level bureaucrat at Homeland Security to National Security Advisor to... CTU Los Angeles? Imagine if Condoleezza Rice resigned (when she was NSA) and then got a job at a regional Homeland Security branch. And Karen did this after a nuclear bomb went off in LA, when the President begged her to stay... because the Chief of Staff is blackmailing her? So now she is on "military escort" to Los Angeles from D.C. I'm sure that means she will be flying faster than normal, but unless she is in a supersonic jet then this bitch is out for a couple episodes. Perhaps she will call Bill from the plane ever so often. Perhaps her plane will crash? That would be cool.

Sandra Palmer: For the past 3 episodes, her only line, repeated over and over with slight variance, is "OK can we get WAH-LEy'ad now! He's gonna get hurt! Les get Wah Ley'ad! He's gonna get hurt! I'm gonna go get Wah-Ley'ad!" First of all, she isnt pronouncing his name right and its annoying! What s with her weird, semi-ghetto southern drawl? David Palmer had none of that, neither does his less competent brother. Second, everytime she said that I kept thinking, they are in a dentention facility there are guards everywhere! How could Walid get hurt? Well, he does get hurt, unfortunately. Its quite annoying. That entire storyline is annoying, and pointless.

Nadia: Give me a break! Nadia is locked out of some levels of security because she is a Muslim, quite ironic due to the fact, as Milo point out, that she is a "registered Republican." So Bill calls Karen who fights with Tom Lennox again. Its too political, even for me. All they do is argue about civil liberties and security over rights, Constitutional boundaries, yadda yadda yadda. Its like 24 is trying to show us "both sides". Stop trying to send a message, just write a good show! Its stupid. Nadia is annoying. I hope she does turn out to be a terrorist. Now that would be cool.

Jack: Gee its hard to even find Jack in the show now, what with these idiotic other storylines going on. Jack's is one of the lamest. His brother, who looks nothing like him, and his dad, may be connected to the nuclear bomb going off! Wow! What a coicidence. It just doesnt interest me at all. Its too soap-operaish. I dont want to know about Jack's family (except his daughter) because I dont care. Terri Bauer getting shot was one of the best things to happen to 24, because she was so fucking annoying. I hope they do away with this whole brother brother father thing. Whats next, his mom?

---------------------------------------

But, it is just the beginning of the season so Im hoping it gets better. It appears Audrey Rains will be coming back by mid-season, since the actress who played her had her other television show canceled. Plus its good to know that on 24, the storylines at the beginning usually wrap up and new ones begin. After all, in the first part of season 5, Jack was on the run as a suspect of Palmer's death and they dedicated a bit of time to that airport hostage situation, involving the woman Jack was banging and her bastard son. We never heard from them after that! Hopefully season six goes the same way.

Give me just a litle more time!

2007-01-24T05:15:00.000-08:00

MOVE OVER HILLARY, WE WANT WEBB FOR PRESIDENT!

Everytime I've ever watched the State of the Union, which I started watching during the Clinton years, I always think to myself "If I was in the Congress, I just wouldn't clap or stand the entire time." As if the speech isn't boring enough, people in Congress feel the need to clap and stand every other sentence, depending on what he is saying. Some obnoxious members even whistle, which I found particularly annoying last night. Everytime the Republicans stood to clap I would hear four or five people whistling, as if it was the academy awards or something.

Despite what your teachers may have told you, the State of the Union is not important and you get virtually nothing out of watching it. Because its the biggest audience the President gets all year, he sugar coats everything and doesn't ever really say anything big. Its a very ceremonial thing and reminds me a lot of the Queen opening Parliament in England. If anyone has ever seen that its quite a spectacle.

The Queen is all dazzled up like she is back in the 16th century and is taken by a horse drawn carriage to the House of Parliament, where she walks on over to the House of Lords, because she is forbidden by law from stepping into the House of Commons. So when she sits down on her big throne, a representative of hers walks across the hall to the House of Commons where Blair and Gordon and everyone else is hanging out. As soon as the Queen's represenative gets to the room, he has the door loudly slammed in his face (literally) to show that the House of Commons has the power. Then he bangs on the door loudly, invites everyone to the House of Lords, they all go, sit down, and the Queen reads a very long boring speech where every sentence begins with "My parliament will..." and she says things like "My parliament will continue to protect us from terrorists" or "My parliament will seek to simplify the tax code" and everyone claps. Its boring and ceremonial and not of any real importance, just like the State of the Union.

The Democrat's response though, I thought was fantastic and quite suprising. Because both the Democrats and Republicans are bought off by corporate America, they rarely talk about economic issues. Jim Webb, however, did! Here are some great excerpts from his speech I found suprising and very hopeful:

"Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits.

But these benefits are not being fairly shared.

When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times.

In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world.

Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them...

In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy - that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base.
-

Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today...

Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th Century.
-

America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines.

The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.
-

Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions.

He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves 'as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other.'"

I didn't think it was possible anymore for a politician in Washington, Democrat or Republican, to acknowledge the dangers and warn against "corporate influence", which is destroying our country and is one of my #1 concerns. The war on the middle/lower class that the ruling elites have been conducting over the past 25 years has been ignored by Washington and the media, almost entirely.

Literally, wages for 80% of Americans have stagnated or declined over the past 25 years, while economic growth has continued at a relative pace. Thats never happened before in our history. We've had depressions/recessions, but never a period of sustained economic growth where wages are declining for most of the population (but skyrocketing for the top 1-5%.)

In the 1960's, families were much bigger (more kids) and usually had just ONE parent working. Yet that one parent could support his wife and kids, own a house, two cars, and afford vacations and other economic comforts. America is a much more wealthy nation now. Yet two parents struggle to afford what one parent could afford 40 years ago.

Yet our productivity has skyrocketed. Americans are working much longer hours then we were back then, in fact as Webb noted, Americans work more hours then any other industrial nation. What is the result of that? Not only declining wages, but declining benefits. Whats going on?

And yet, if you turn on the television, as Sen Bernie Sanders noted at the media reform conference, you would think nothing is going on. Its not mentioned at all. It should be a national scandal. We, the richest nation on earth, have the highest poverty rates, child mortality, longest hours, least benefits, declining wages (while the top 1% is overflowing with wealth.)

So I'm quite pleased that Jim Webb broke that taboo and actually said something about this, you rarely hear a Democrat or Republican ever say anything (because they both represent corporate interests.) For once, I'm hopeful.

BAUER HOUR: WEEK TWO

2007-01-23T07:01:00.000-08:00

THEY'RE BROTHERS!

No I dont mean Dr. Evil and Dr. McCrane, the dick from E.R. back in the days when people watched it. Dr. McCrane on another show...24 ! He was "Graham" in season 5, the dark force on the annoying headset cellphone who controlled all of the events... including the assasination of David Palmer! The evil nemesis of Jack Bauer, the ying to his yang, the Dr. Evil to his Austin Powers, was found to be...

Jack Bauer's brother! (Just like when Dr. Evil is found to be Austin Powers's brother.) If only they had gotten Michael Cain to play the Bauer brothers' father all would have been perfect.

So I could go along with this plot twist, fine, its 24, I'll take it. What I did not like was the unrealistic conversation between Graham and his wife that was one of those talks entirely meant to explain background to the audience and indicative of lazy scriptwriters.

After Graham tells his wife that his estranged brother Jack called (weird how Graham is balding but Jack isnt, by the way) his wife says "Is Jack coming here?" and Graham says something like "I dunno."

*Pause*

Time to give a quick background to the viewers. Graham turns to his wife and says something to the tune of "You never got over Jack did you, all these years! You're still in love with him!"

And she says "Jealously is unattractive in grown men!"

Dum dum DUM!

Later when Jack swings by, Mrs. Bauer is cold to him, doesnt even really say hello. Jack is brief with her as well. "Sorry to interrupt Sharon" or whatever the hell her name was "I just need to talk to Graham about our father."

By the way shortly before that exchange, Jack mentions to Graham that they have not seen eachother since Terri (Jack's deceased wife)'s funeral several years ago.

Then Graham introduces Jack to his son (you didnt bring him to the funeral?)

There is a weird, two second camera exchange between the two (Jack and his nephew.) I suspect, almost fear, the writers are flirting with the idea of a storyline where Graham's son is actually Jack's. Please, please dont do this.

________________________________________________

Im also fearing that Graham will reveal he turned evil because he hated Jack. He will have a monologue where we will hear something like "Everyone loved you more than me, first Dad... Then Sharon!" (or whatever her name is.) That, along with the "who's the daddy" storyline, are two cliches I hope the writers avoid.

And is Phillip Bauer (the Bauer patriarch) involved with the terrorist attacks? I suspect it will become increasingly obvious he was... but he wasnt! Instead, Graham used his father's business connections/associates to further his own terrorism goals; perhaps framing his father on the way? This seems too obvious to happen.

_________________________________________________

Good News: From wikipedia:

"Audrey Raines is expected to be back around episode 12.The producers said that now that she is done with The Nine, they can have her on full time."

Nice. Although its disappointing she wont be in until the second half, its nice to know she will be back.

Still no word on Kim Bauer, whatsupwithat? Perhaps this season she could be chased around Los Angeles by a cheetah.

Oy Vey

2007-01-18T05:25:00.000-08:00

Next Stop, Tehran?

People have been saying since shortly after the ill-fated invasion of Iraq that the US would next strike at Iran. I've always believed it plausible but not likely. However...I sense something is coming.

The Bush Administration is rachting up its naval presence in the Persian Gulf with not one but two aircraft carrier groups. Bush officials have recently gone on whirlwind tours of the Sunni Arab states who perceive Iran has an enemy both for its increasing power as well as its Persian-Shi'a heritage. In Bush's "speech" about escalating the war, he sent veiled warnings to Iran (and Syria) and rejected trying to solve things diplomatically. Iran claimed earlier this week it shot down an unmanned US spy plane, and I wouldnt doubt thats true.

But even more telling is the sudden talking point being propogated by the right wing in all appearances, which seeks to blame everything going wrong in Iraq squarely on Iran. Rumor has it that if the Bush Admin is to strike, it will want to do so before the end of April when stalwart ally Tony Blair steps down as leader of the Labour Party, and thus Prime Minister of Britain.

And of course it makes sense, from the crazed perspective of the Bush Administration. Not just because Iran is (probably) seeking nuclear weapons; although I should add Iran has yet to do anything illegal and has the support of most of the world as uranium enrichment is an "inalienable right" of all signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which most of the world (save Israel, India and Pakistan) has signed.

But also because of Iraq. The US doesnt want a strong Shi'a Iraq, nor do all the Sunni Arab neighbors, most especially Saudi Arabia which has its own Shi'a minority residing over the biggest oil fields. Yet what can the US do? If the US pulls out of Iraq, which domestic pressure will force it too, then Iraq may not be turned into an obedient client state. It may seek friendship with Iran and become opposed to US-Israeli regional policies, and still remain a democratic state. The only solution, it seems, is to attack Iran and cripple it as a power. I suspect immediately after that the United States military will take it upon itself to "disarm" the Shi'a militias of Iraq, including Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army; no longer fearing the militias will have an Iranian ally to their east to call upon for help.

Of course, attacking Iran is not only illegal, it would be an utmost disaster. It will be the worst thing in the world the Bush Administration could do, and yet I fear its a possibility. If it comes down to it, I would encourage everyone to take it to the streets.

This Week in 24

2007-01-16T07:19:00.000-08:00

Bauer Hour

This week we had not one, non deux, but four episodes of 24 to kick of season ("Day") six. As we know, the cliff hanger end of season 5 had nothing to do with season 5 and would have been more fitting for the end of season 4.

For a summary of the most recent episodes, go to Fox's 24 website (google it). Im here just for the commentary, so here goes:

Whats the deal?

Whats the deal with Milo from season one randomly being back at CTU? Did I miss something? I dont even think they bothered to explain this. The last time I saw Milo, he was distraught because that hoochie mama Jamie had apparently killed herself out of guilt for being a mole in CTU; although we later learned it was Nina Myers who had done it. But where has Milo been since then? Working in some corner of CTU Los Angeles? I take it he survived the toxic nerve gas attack that struck them?

So Wayne Palmer is President now. OK, I can see him being elected because everyone is sad that David Palmer was killed, and he was killed by a Republican President. So I guess the American people overlooked the fact that Wayne was present at a crime scene where his lover killed herself for having aided in the death of her husband...and also present (in the same room) for the death of Sherry Palmer, then President David Palmer's estranged (ex?) wife; the very reason David Palmer decided not to seek re-election. Lets just pray that James Heller wasnt retained at DoD.

Also, we find Karen Hayes is now National Security Advisor, and Peter McNichol(?) is Chief of Staff. Once again the President of the United States, when national security is at stake, chooses to rely on his Chief of Staff instead of Homeland Security Director. Well where's Mike?

The 4 hour premiere was filled with everyone's favorite 24 cliches. Like when Jack calls CTU and Chloe, who hasnt spoken to Jack in two years and feared for his life, said "Jack...I never thought I'd hear your voice again" and Jack (predictably) replies something to the effect of "Thats nice Chloe but I dont have time for this I need to speak to Bill." Their relationship reminds me of the abused wife who is convinced its her fault.

Anyway, we find out that Jack Bauer has been released from Chinese custody because the US government negotiated it, and, comments the Chinese official, the US government paid a "very high price". I suppose that either means we'll find out later, or the script writers are lazy. But from what I gather, President Wayne paid this "high price" for Bauer, in order to sacrifice him to terrorists, because he... believed all terrorist attacks would stop? Because Jack Bauer was sacrificed? I thought they hated us for our freedom!

The Chinese official comments that Bauer has not spoken a word in two years. Two years! Yet we find immediately his vocal chords are fine and he speaks normally (albeit in that Kiefer Sutherland raspy whisper from too many cigarettes). It must have been all that green tea he drank in Chinese prison.

Whats the deal with Curtis? He's a bitch, plain and simple. If I were Jack I would've aimed higher and shot him in the head. He's mad because his troops were killed during the Gulf War? Dont put your troops on Arab land then bitch about it if someone attacks you! Thats war Curtis! I hope you are hospitalized for the rest of the show, then randomly die in the middle of the season, impairing Jack's ability to operate because of a heavy burden of guilt.

Lastly, lets turn to the nuclear bomb detonated at the end of last night's second episode. Thats the smallest mushroom cloud I've ever seen. Its much smaller than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. I didnt know nuclear weapons could be made smaller than that, in fact, I dont think they can. As we know a "dirty bomb" would not produce a mushroom cloud. Jack Bauer, we've found, has just quit CTU because of a mental breakdown (I bet he is craving heroin again). Then Jack sees a big flash of light and a mushroom cloud. Should we assume he was far enough away to survive any radition poisoning?

I'll venture this nuke results in very low casualties. I suspect they will say something like "The bomb was intended to be detonated in downtown LA but luckily, because we raided them, it was set off in the staging area far off in the mountains". Oh good. Now we must stop more nukes from going off in populated areas. But 24 needs to top it. How about a hydrogen bomb?

I briefly saw the scenes from next week's episode and we find out Jack is back at CTU because of the nuke. I hope his first thought after the nuke is "My god where is Kim?" After all that was his thought the last time a nuke was set to go off in LA. He should really call CTU and say "Find out where Kim is! And Audrey, then get back to me, and Ill come back aboard!"

All in all its a good start to (hopefully) a good season! Just top it off with Audrey Rains and Kim Bauer and everything will be perfect

Syntax

2007-01-10T19:58:00.000-08:00

A few words on Bush's speech. The American people are overwhelmingly against this, the Iraqi people are overwhelmingly against this; it means more dead people, American and Iraqi, more bombs, more destruction, more mayhem. And suddenly, *poof* this is supposed to result in a violent-free Iraq. Only if we kill everyone.

I think the only solution in this situation is the transition, on our part, from passive protest and opposition to all out resistance. Civil disobedience. Stop the war.

____________________________________

On a lighter note, work is so mind boggling boring that I actually got into a dispute with a friend over whether I had used a word correct in a sentence. Refering to an arrangement of folders I said, in an email, "I thought you had them in perfect chronology". Now, I realize I could have said "chronoligical order" but chronology is in fact a word and I believe used correctly. He and I argued about this until I suggested we e-mail some English professors. So I went to the Syracuse English department and did just that.

The first response said something like "Grammar isnt so much the issue as common usage. I would say chronological order." Translation: I dont know the answer to your question. The other two were like that.

So I had a crazy idea. Why not try the world's leading authority on linguistics? He is, after all, a Professor and thus his email should be available. Much to my suprised, I got a response The exchange is below:

_________________________

Dear Professor Chomsky,

I was wondering if you could help me solve a dispute with a friend. In
the sentence "I thought you had them in perfect chronology" is
chronology being used correctly? I argued that one could say yes,
because it is the same as saying "I thought you had them in perfect
order" or "perfect arrangement". My friend says you need the article
"a" to precede perfect in order for the sentence to be grammatically
correct. Any help you could give would be greatly appreciated. Thank
you.

Sincerely,

Kevin Maley

p.s. I understand one would be better off saying "chronological
order", as Ive been told, but Im wondering on the specific sentence in
mention. Thank you

From Chomsky:

The notion "correct" is relative to some specific choice of a standard. In my English, I wouldn't use "chronology" that way, though I'd understand it, if used. With or without "a".

The notion "correct" is relative to some specific choice of a standard. In my English, I wouldn't use "chronology" that way, though I'd understand it, if used. With or without "a".

_____________________________________________________

While a pretty much insignificant e-mail, I've now had the honor of not only having an e-mail exchange with my all time personal hero, but got to ask the most famous linguist in the past 300 years a question on syntax! Boring to some, yes; but to me its one of life's unexpected suprises.

Give Peace A Chance

2007-01-10T15:12:00.000-08:00

Ill blog tonight after Bush's "speech" but for now Ill say something about the logic of withdrawal.

Many on the left, or just generally good hearted, who were against the war and are against it now, have painfully decided that we cannot simply withdraw from Iraq because the country would fall to pieces.

I'll once again reiterate the only thing we need to know: the vast majority of Iraqi's want us to leave, NOW! Polls done by the BBC, Pew Research, Gallup, British Ministry of Defence, DoD, State Dept... even the bloody Iraq Study Group stated their polls said the same thing. The passion is so strong that a majority of Iraqi's support attacks on US troops. So, now, whats the point of staying?

The US army is not just sitting there, guarding the green zone and getting picked off in car bombs. It is flying around the country on bombing raids, destroying villages in the hopes of killing a "terrorist". It is bursting into people's homes everyday and taking all the males, sweeping them off to secret prisons to be tortured and what not. Let us not forget that in the return to "sovereignty" the US had a number of caveats, one of which was retaining control of the Iraqi army (except for a single unit with no weapons for symbolic purposes).

So now everyone hates the USA in Iraq, and it has long appeared likely to me that the US would likely begin arming the Sunni militias who had originally started out as insurgency groups, in order to offset a power balance with what is perceived to be a Shi'a govt under the influence of the scary Ayatollah Khameini of Iran. Thus one need not be suprised by reports that Saudi Arabia is funneling arms to Sunni militias, first reported a month and a half ago. And as history tells us, when Saudi Arabia is arming someone it means its doing so with explicit authorization from the US government, which gave Saudi Arabia their arms in the first place (ex: Iraq in 80's, South Africa, Nicaragua, etc.)

The US Elite ruling class, so well represented by Jimmy Baker, has decided that the most important thing, after all, is controling Iraq's oil reserves. So why dont we takeover the Interior Ministry, get our troops the hell out of there. We'll give the Golan Heights, currently reaching a 40 year anniversary of Israeli occupation, back to Syria and throw a bone to Iran to get them to go along. The democrats cheered this.

But whats fascinating is the dilusional stance of the Bush Administration. The elite money class of the USA, that 1% with 90% of the wealth; who always loved Bush, who were lavished with tax cuts on capital gains, dividends, and for one whole year a complete vanishment of estate tax; have now turned largely against him because of his dilusions on Iraq. Their message is clear: You fucked up royally, now lets pull the troops out and keep diplomats everywhere so we can still get a stake of The Prize... if you keep at this too long we'll lose everything.

And Bush's response was: No, no. No. Dont worry. I've got a plan. More troops!

And thats his speech tonight.

Religion, Capitalism, Violence, Oh my!

2006-12-23T13:14:00.000-08:00

Pacem in Terris

________________________________________________________

Almost every Christmas song out there usually as a few lines talking about peace on earth. For example, "Hark! The herald angels sing, glory to the new born king. Peace on earth, and mercy mild, God and sinners reconcilded!"

Its very beautiful, and nice, because everyone sings about peace on earth and goodwill towards men. Im sure everyone means it their own way. Everyone wants peace, but they want it on their terms. Even the most brutal monster in history, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, etc. all wanted peace on earth. However they had a specific ideas about what that peace would look like.

Which is why I believe the President when he says he does not like war and wishes for peace. Im sure he very much does. But he qualifies that with stating that we need to "acheive victory". Meaning like all leaders, he would prefer peace over war; but will use war if he cannot get his way.

_________________________________________________________

Which brings me to the most important question of the season: When we say Peace on Earth, what does that mean?

The question was addressed some years ago, after the Second World War. Im not a great fan of the speaker but this is one of my favorite speeches of the 20th century. The topic of his speech was, in his words, "the most important topic on earth: peace.

"What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their children -- not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace in all time...

"I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary, rational end of rational men. I realize the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war, and frequently the words of the pursuers fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.

"First examine our attitude towards peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it is unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable, that mankind is doomed, that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade; therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable, and we believe they can do it again. I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of universal peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal."

Two years before this speech was delivered, the United States had invaded Cuba, but failed to overthrow Fidel Castro. A year later, the Soviet Union was installing nuclear missiles in Cuba. What ensued is referred to as "the most dangerous moment in the history of the world." 40 years later it was revealed just how close we came to the end of the world. A Soviet submarine was being blocked by US ships from reaching Cuba. The three officers on board had been given the authority from Moscow, if all three agreed, to launch a nuclear attack. Two agreed, one did not. Robert Macnamara (Sec of Defense) admitted in 2002 that ""a guy called Vasili Arkhipov saved the world."

Vasili Arkhipov saved the world from two men, John Kennedy and Nikita Krushchev. We can only wonder how they felt after the crisis ended, realizing that they literally came to the brink of nuclear war.

Said Kennedy a year later, in the speech I quoted from above, "We must rexamine our attitudes toward the Soviet Union." It was the height of the Cold War, and for 15 years Americans had been bombarded with propaganda to hate and fear the Soviets with all their might. Then Kennedy realized, after he came close to doing so, that the idea of war with the Soviets was insane. So he appealed to the compassion of the American people toward the evil empire of the Soveit Union:

"No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue...And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union in the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and families were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland -- a loss equivalent to the destruction of this country east of Chicago."

It was a turning point in that the US and USSR had been preparing for, and fully expecting, war with eachother from the late 1940's until the Cuban Missile Crisis. But they realized the stakes (world destruction) were too high. It stopped being a real question anymore. The Cold War continued until 1989, but what stopped in 1962 was the expectation of an actual war between the two.

_______________________________________________________________________

Did it really take that much to stop a war? Two leaders; ignorant, cowardice, shamefully allowing domestic pressures to overcome their integrity and nearly destroy the world?

Today the U.S. is in crisis. We are at war in the Middle East. We illegally invaded a sovereign nation, and for almost four years now we have been destroying that country, helplessly trying to fight illusive insurgents as 600,000 Iraqis die in the process. Meanwhile, the US announced intentions to build a massive fleet off the coast of Iran. Plans for the "Missile Defense Shield", which is an offensive weapons system aimed at Russia and China, continue at pace. Russia and China have reacted by massively increasing their military force, most importantly increasing missiles aimed at the US.

And all the while, the threat of terrorist attack by Islamic extremists grows more likely by the day. The United States continues killing Iraqis, threatening Iran, allowing its Israeli client state to brutalize the Palestinian people, and staunchly defends the most oppressive and tolitarian state in the world, Saudi Arabia. All across the region, the people are oppressed by dictators, which we refer to as "Kings" and "Presidents". And everyday, among the oppressed, more people fall into the lowest depths of evil, on par with the US/Israeli/Arab governments, and join the ranks of terrorist organizations. When they attack, the President announces they hate our freedom, then sends fighter jets to massacre innocent people.

And in the new Year of Our Lord Two-Thousand and Seven, the President has announced, the United States will dramatically escalate the war in Iraq, bringing a "surge" of violence upon the country, in order to acheive victory.
________________________________________________________________________

Christmas Wishes

The reason I speak of the Middle East, is that it is, in President Eisehower's words, "the most strategically important area of the world." It is because of its dominant resource, oil. It is not, nor has it ever been, for the United States to take the oil for itself. But it has, and one can read the declassified record planning this, been to control the region, through client states, who will, among other things, follow US orders such as raising or lowering the price of oil.

And that is because for most of the industrial world, Middle Eastern oil is the single most important resource their country uses. Europe and Japan get 99% of their oil from that region. The State Department declared that control o that oil gives the US a "veto power" over Europe and Japan. Which is why the US government in 1945 declared the oil of the region to be "a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history."

I hope for the United States to leave the region, permanently, unless welcomed there by a legitimate government. I wish for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to end, immediately. Both sides suffer enormously. In a perfect world, the Jews and Muslims could live together in a single, bi-national state. But as that seems unlikely, the Israelis must end their occupation of Palestinian land.

And the United States must make peace with all countries in the region. Contraty to state propaganda, countries like Iran and Syria do not seek confrontation with us. Indeed they both fear us. They would certainly love to make peace with the United States. Our fundamental goal should be a world where people are not denied their rights, the most fundamental of which, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

In that peace, and security, for the people of the Middle East, we can hope that progress and reforms will take place on their own. History has shown, almost without exception, that is the only way lasting and meaningful changes can take place. Then real, meaningful peace and progress can come. The people of the Middle East, including Israeli's, can come together with the people of the United States and work to solve our differences without threats of war and destruction looming over us.

"For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's futures. And we are all mortal."

Solving Iraq

2006-12-19T05:41:00.000-08:00

Oh my God you guys, I just realized something. Oh wow, I totally cant believe I didnt think of this before. I know how to solve our problem in Iraq. The new war slogan:

"Just get out!" A mix between 'just do it' and 'just dont look' (from a Simpsons Halloween episode during the good years.)

Here is my main argument for the logic of withdrawal. Most Iraqi's do not want us there (polls are done monthly by the US govt, British govt and private institutes), Most Iraqi's support attacks on Americans, and Most Americans want us out. Boo yah. There it is.
______________________________________________________

What about our responsibilities towards preventing Iraq from descending to chaos?
Well they want us out. There. Stop arming everyone, stop imprisoning everyone. Get out. You want to preserve influence, make friends with Iran and Syria. What do they get in return? Take the nuclear issue out of the Security Council and put it back to the IAEA where it belongs, recognize Iran's inalienable right to nuclear energy (which is in the NPT anyway) and give it security assurances in exchange for inspections. Give Syria back the Golan Heights, and the Palestinians Gaza and the W.Bank; after all, all the Arab states plus Iran promised full recognition and peace with Israel if those conditions are met. Then everyone can work together to help Iraq.

Wow ! Thats such a great solution. Most of that is also in the Baker-Hamilton report (except the Iran-IAEA part, it specifically says keep it in the Security Council.)

Oh also I have one more idea. Stop trying to take control over the Iraqi government and economy. Dismiss all tke Baker-Hamilton's report recommendations about "embedding" US officials into the Iraqi government. And stop pushing the "National Oil Law" which would allow a takeover by private foreign investors, and give up on the "International Compact" which is an attempt by the global financial community to takeover the Iraqi economy.

Whap-ba-da loo-bop, a whap-bam boom.

The Effects of American Policies

2006-12-14T07:31:00.000-08:00

The World's Largest Prison

This post is from a student at Syracuse University, about his mother.
Here is the story of one Palestinian mother, victim of American foreign policy:

_______________________________________________________

Early this morning, I received the sad news that my mother (54 years old) passed away after serious health complications last night.

I am sending this message to you and many other people around the world because I promised my mother before she died to let everybody know that it wasn't cancer that killed her, it was the occupation.

Yes, the Israeli occupation killed my mother, but this time not using missiles and tank rockets, but through collective punishment and humiliation. Most cancer patients (and those suffering other serious diseases) from Gaza go to Egypt for treatment because we don't have the health infrastructure and latest technologies to do so in Gaza. This is a result of the continuous siege and control imposed by the Israelis over the Palestinian cities, especially Gaza. My mother was one of those patients who was diagnosed, at a very early stage, with bone cancer and was supposed to go to Egypt for treatment early June 2006.

Because of the collective punishment policies that Israel imposes, nobody from Gaza was able to travel (in or out) to any place in the world for three months, because the Israelis control the borders. It wasn't until August 25th that my mother was able to make it to Egypt. During these three months, I and many other people both inside and outside of Palestine tried to talk to international and human rights organizations and ask them to intervene and help in this humanitarian situation. Unfortunately, our appeals failed to change the situation or to make any special arrangements. All these requests were rejected by the occupiers. By the time my mother made it to Egypt, it was unfortunately a bit late because the cancer was rapidly growing in her body and at that stage, doctors didn't have much to do but to try the chemotherapy to see if it could help. Unfortunately, this didn't help much and she peacefully passed away last night. My mother is not the only case; she is just one the cases that someone could talk about. In addition to the tens of people being killed by the Israelis every day through the use of traditional weapons, tens, if not hundreds, of others die every day because of lack of access to health services, because of movement restrictions imposed by the Israelis and the restrictions on delivering medicine and health equipment to Gaza and other Palestinian cities.

Siege and movement restrictions don't only separate patients from health services and facilities (or even from local hospitals; many women gave birth at the checkpoints and many other women, children and seniors die before making it to the nearest hospital). They also separate students from schools and universities, believers and worshipers from mosques and churches, and families from seeing each others for many years.

There are currently more than 500 movement restrictions in the West Bank. Five hundred movement restrictions in an area that is probably smaller than most of the cities in the U.S. -- its size is around 2000 square miles and this area is currently surrounded by the new Apartheid Wall. These checkpoints separate villages, cities, refugee camps and sometimes neighborhoods in the same city. These are the same restrictions that made me unable to see my family in Gaza (when I was living in the West Bank) for more than five years. Even when I was here in the U.S. and wanted to go back and see my mother during the last two months, I wasn't able to do so because the borders were still closed (the Rafah border with Egypt, which is the only gate for Gazans to access the world, was open only six days during the last six months).

What really breaks my heart is not the fact that my mother died, because it's something that everybody will experience one day and I really have great faith in God that this may be better for her. What really makes me feel very sad is that, again, because of the occupation, I haven't seen her for more than six years and that I wasn't even able to see her one last time and say goodbye. It also makes me feel very sad because one of the main motivations for me to pursue a Ph.D. was my great mother. When I was six years old my cousin got his Ph.D. and when we were coming back from visiting him my mother asked me this question (she was probably joking at that time as I was a little kid and wouldn't even know what the Ph.D. is, but I know she meant it). She asked me, "Would you do it for me one day and get your Ph.D.?" I kept this in my mind and heart all the time and I was always encouraged by her and her high spirit to succeed and to make it to Syracuse University to get my Ph.D. Unfortunately, she will not be able to see this day and know that yes, I did it for her.

Goodbye my great mother, you were all the time the source of my inspiration and you will always be, even in your physical absence. May God have mercy on you and bless your soul, mother.Friends and colleagues, unfortunately, our world is full of similar sad and unjustified cases of unfairness and humiliation, but always remember, we can always make a difference if we want. Think of it and see what you can do to make others live the same way you and your children live. Even a little change can make a difference.

Please don’t reply to this message, if you really want to support me and to do me and my mother a favor (I am sure she will appreciate it), please forward my message (or post it on your Blogs) to as many people as possible, let them know, and encourage them to make a difference so we can save other lives and souls in the future.

RS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gaza, a tiny 15 by 3 mile strip, and one of the most densley populated areas on earth, has been sealed off for almost a year now, due to an Israeli-American policy of collective punishment on the Palestinians for electing Hamas into parliament. The USA used its power over the world's financial institutions to cut off all aid going to the Palestinians, including medicine and food. Israel, using American weapons, money, and authorization, sealed off the borders (including the ocean) and keeps the people of Gaza trapped inside, as they starve to death (50% have no reliable access to food).

I emphasize this is not just an Israeli crime, but an American-Israeli crime. Israel, simply put, would be unable to do this on its own. Over the past year at the United Nations, most of the world has reacted in horror trying to stop this. Resolutions to stop the devastation are vetoed by the United States (after passing near majorities in the General Assembly.) The American people bear a particular responsibility, it is our government leading this crime.

How I Was Framed

2006-12-08T09:41:00.000-08:00

A colleague of mine, John Schad, recently created a screen name similar to that of a schoolmate of ours, in order to impersonate him online. That person, Swift, has the screen name Hkjbw7. John Schad created the name Hkbjw7. Notice the difference?

John Schad used the fake screen name to go on a rampage, impersonating "Swift" and doing all sorts of horrible things. Many people were tricked. I was one of them.

Unfortunately, John Schad has tried to implicate me in his crime. He, apparently, colluded with his republican friend Matt Groban.

Kevster 5 1 9: hello matt

matsgd: kevin

Kevster 5 1 9: can i ask you something

matsgd: what

Kevster 5 1 9: did you tell swift that i participated with schad in making up a fake screen
name,similar to swifts, to be use in an attempt to impersonate swift

matsgd: yes

matsgd: i belieev i told him it was schad, but schad asked me to tell him you were involved as well. to 'take of heat' so to speak.

Kevster 5 1 9: but i wasnt involved

matsgd: i no

Kevster 5 1 9: then why say I was?

matsgd: shcad told me too

Kevster 5 1 9: Schad committed identity theft and was caught. ALthough you knew the truth, he used you to lie and implicate me in the crime?

matsgd: im tyingto dowork and your annoying me

matsgd: iiwll tells iwft you wer ienvolevd if youd ont stop this

Kevster 5 1 9: thats ok you've said all i needed to hear

US and Israel Continue Terrorism

2006-12-06T19:14:00.000-08:00

I was going to blog about the Iraq Study Group but Ill do that tomorrow. The US-Israeli policy toward the Palestinians is rather sickening but I was reading something today that made my stomach lurch.

For those who dont know, the Palestinians, in free and fair elections, elected Hamas to lead their government (with 45% of the vote.) That doesnt mean the Palestinians are terrorists, the only opposition was a corrupt bunch of stooges who stole all the international aid and put it in their bank accounts. Hamas provides basic social services to the Palestinian people. They are certainly a terrorist organization as well, there is no argument from me there. But so was the US-Israel backed party (Fatah) who controls the infamous Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. The only difference is, Fatah is so corrupt they can buy off the officials and get them to agree to 'peace agreements' which are horrible for the Palestinians. They did this for 10 years with Yasir Arafat, a horrible terrorist, but a corrupt terrorist who could be bought off. Hamas cant, so the US-Israel policy was to punish all of the Palestinian people; a policy known as "collective punishment" infamously employed by Nazi Germany, the official doctrine of Osama bin Laden (if the people elect an evil government, its acceptable to punish the people) and now, the US and Israel.

What they did was simple, and pure evil. The Palestinians are so impoverished they are heavily dependent on foreign aid. All financial aid, from everywhere, was cut off (behold the power of the USA). Borders (in gaza) were sealed. Nothing could get in or out, by land, air or sea. Then, they were bombed. First all the civilian infrastructure; most importantly the main electricity reactor, which among other things, powers the water treatment facilities. Not anymore. Then Israeli tanks (provided free of charge by the USA) invaded and kidnapped the government, then left.

I could report on the conditions but im sure you can picture how its been. This has been going on since JANUARY. So anyway I brought this up now because of this UN report that came out:

-The Palestinian health care system is running out of medicine and on the verge of collapse and nearly 50 per cent of Palestinians do not have reliable access to food.

God Almighty! Fifty percent of Palestinians have no reliable access to food? We are STARVING them to death? These people (US govt, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, and Israel govt, KADIMA AND LABOR) are sick, sick, evil people. These are human beings.

By the way this may be a secret in the US but its widely covered everywhere else in the world; including the Arab media.

Why do they hate us? Oh, they hate our freedom.

US and Israel Continue Terrorism

2006-12-06T18:45:00.000-08:00

Iraq Study Group, Review (in progress)

2006-12-06T13:27:00.000-08:00

Havnt finished reading the Iraq Study Group Report as Im at work but I thought Id comment on the "Executive Summary" at the beginning.

It says one of the consequences for failure is "Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations." I dispute that. In fact, I believe the opposite is true.

Whether you like Al Qaeda or not, they already HAVE acheived a propaganda victory. The invasion of Iraq was the greatest thing that has happened to Al Qaeda. According to Michael Scheuer, (CIA's foremost expert on Osama bin Laden) "The war in Iraq - if Osama was a Christian - it's the Christmas present he never would have expected"

Since the early 1990's, bin Laden and Al Qaeda propaganda has stated that the United States wants to control the Middle East; and the US secretly wants to invade Iraq to set up a puppet government and permanent military presence. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been loudly, and constantly stating this all over the Middle East since around 1994.

So a lot of Muslims heard this but said "eh, I dont know. bin Laden is kind of crazy." Then in 2003 the US invaded Iraq (to find WMD! oh he didnt have any? oh well, 'I would have invaded anyway' says Bush). Support for Al Qaeda has, as predicted, skyrocketed. The US govt knew all this by the way.

Any terrorism analyst will tell you, and it is the *official* combined assesment of the combined intelligence agencies of the United States, that the US presence in Iraq has caused and is creating more support for Al Qaeda and terrorism. The CIA concluded in 2005 that Iraq had already become a "base of operations" for Al Qaeda (which this report says we must prevent.)

If we leave Iraq "Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations."

1. Al Qaeda acheived the greatest propaganda victory in its history by our invasion of Iraq. Everyday that we continue to occupy Iraq, and kill more Iraqi civilians (accident or not) is another fantastic propaganda victory for Iraq.

2. If the US left Iraq, it would difficult to see how that would result in the country becoming a "base of operations" for Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda came to Iraq after the US invaded, to kill Americans. They are detested by the Shia majority in the South and the Kurds in the North; the only support they have is a nominal alliance with the Sunni insurgency whose goal is to get the US to leave. They are only there, and allowed to be there, because of the US occupation.

3. If the US leaves Iraq, with no permanent bases, and allows an independent government; this will be a massive propaganda DEFEAT for Al Qaeda, who is arguing that the US intends to keep permanent bases (which is true) and prevent an independent government (which is true.)

_______________________________________________________

Two other consequences if the US withdraws: "The global standing of the United States could be diminished." and "Americans could become more polarized."

1. When I read the first sentence I just laughed and thought the US is so hated, more so then its history, I cant imagine it could get worse. But I realized they arnt talking about that. The US rules the world through fear, it has "street cred". A lot of government elites cheered the invasion for, among other reasons, showing how tough/strong the US is and to send a message to the rest of the world "ha ha, dont fuck with us or you are dead!" (the result being, of course, a race among third world countries to develop nuclear weapons as protection.) If we LEAVE Iraq, it will show weakness (they were obsessed with this after Vietnam).

Well, they are of course correct about this. But what you might miss is this is quite revealing about what their real objectives in Iraq are. We went in for WMD, they werent there. Check. We went in to remove Saddam, check. We went in to establish democracy, Check. Why would it make the US look weak if we left? Because almost everyone in the world, except the American people, know the US wasnt there for those reasons. It invaded to establish a client state in Iraq, controlled by the US, mainly for the oil; and to send a message of force. If we leave now, we fail, and lose our street cred "global standing."

2. "Americans could become more polarized." I agree. The American people overwhelmingly are against the war and a huge majority wants us out within a year, a smaller majorit wants us out now. If we LEAVE Iraq, the American will lose an issue that brought them together. So they will turn to other stuff, like abortion, and become polarized.

______________________________________________________

Recommendations I want to comment on:

1. "The issue of Iran's nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany." The issue should be dealt with by the IAEA, (International Atomic Energy Agency, division of UN) which is the IAEA's JOB! The Iranians are not doing anything illegal (the NPT, a treaty signed by the US and Iran recognize's the 'inalienable right' to a nuclear energy program.) The US wants the issue in the Security Council because the S.C. is controlled by the US and the other four major nuclear powers (UK,France,China,Russia); as opposed to the General Assembly which is the body of ALL member nations (and the US cant veto anything). The problem with the General Assembly is most countries support Iran's program, because its not illegal. So the US wants the issue turned to the Security Council.

Now, this is pretty irrelevant to the purpose of their report. Its because the report recommends getting Iran involved in solving the Iraq problem. I think they added that to say "But we arnt saying you have to treat Iran with respect; treat them like shit, show them who is in charge. But get their help with Iraq." Yeah see how that works out.

________________________________

Lastly I'll comment on their recommendation for solving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Now, this is quite simply. Israel should end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and allow a Palestinian State there. Thats been the position of nearly the whole world since the 70's, passes the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly every year (with the US, Israel and Paula/Micronesia voting against) but vetoed in the Security Council. The Arab League passed the 'Saudi Plan' in 2002 which says if Israel does this, every Arab state will recognize Israel, make a full peace treaty, and integrate them into the region. After President Ahmedinjead of Iran said Israel should be wiped off the map; he was reprimanded and the real leader of the country Ayatollah Khameini, announced Iran supports the Arab Plan.

So thats my suggestion for a solution. the US and Israel would rather prefer that Israel takeover large parts of the west bank and push the palestinians into little apartheid cantons for the rest of their lives. Thats why we dont have a solution.

Thats the Executive Summary. Will post on the rest of the report tonight

Iraq Study Group

2006-12-06T09:58:00.000-08:00

The Iraq Study Group came out with their report this morning. The President had a live press conference at 8am (ha ha i dont think thats ever happened) to comment on it (I suspect it was that early so nobody would be watching, he doesnt want the report out.)

Anyway the media immediately put articles out about it. Now, the report itself is 160 pages, but the text only takes up a small amount so its probably only like 80 pages. So I imagine that *some* of the people who wrote articles on it actually read it, but I suspect it wasnt a critical reading, they just wanted to find quotes and then write on those. Point in case:

The first *sentence* of the whole report: "There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq." if you go to Yahoo.com (its 1:00pm right now) the news headling is this: "'No magic formula' for Iraq."

Anyone who's ever written a book report on a book they didn't read knows the tricks. Don't fool yourself into thinking journalists are somehow above that. They have deadlines too, and they also have a very low bar to jump.

So I printed the whole report off the internet <http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html>.

You can also buy the book if you want (its like 10 bucks, and a PORTION of the proceeds will go to a military families charity).

OR if you dont want to read it and dont trust the media, you can wait til later in the day for me to write up a review. Im going to get an iced coffee right now and read it on my lunch break. Will have a post about it by tonight.

Profiles in Courage

2006-12-04T13:20:00.000-08:00

"You shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wants to can leave -- and we will see where this process leads."

(Defense Minister) Moshe Dayan advising what (Prime Minister) Golda Meir should tell the Palestinians

Jimmy Carter now has a book out called "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". The reason its a big deal is because in America, you never hear about the unspeakable horrors imposed on the Palestinian people by the United States and Isreal. To say they are treated like dogs is inaccurate, dogs are treated much better. But I'll post more about the Palestinians later in the week.

I think its great Jimmy Carter is speaking out for an oppressed people, especially since its taboo to do so in the U.S. And I'll write a whole post about that.

I was watching Jimmy Carter do an interview on a live call-in show on CSPAN this Sunday. I kept trying to call in (to no avail.) But I had no intention of asking him about his book. The whole time I was looking at Jimmy Carter, all I could think about was Oscar Romero.

___________________________________________________________

My post today is a story about a horror forced upon a people that far elcipses what is happening to the Palestinians. A brutal terrorist regime had seized power and declared a war on its own people, correctly described by a UN Commission as genocide.

The American president at the time was Jimmy Carter.

___________________________________________________________

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916."

-General Smedley Butler, Marine Corps; and in 1933 was the most decorated soldier in US history

________________________________________________________________

Oscar Romero. Catholic priest, later Archbishop of San Salvador. He is currently on the path to becoming a Saint, and has his own statue in Westminster Abbey as one of the greatest of "20th century martyrs". He is hailed as a hero across the world and his name alone will evoke deep emotion across Latin America. However, like the plight of the Palestinians, in the United States the name "Oscar Romero" is completely unknown.
To understand this case, I'll start with a quote that General Smedley Butler gave in 1933. At the time, Butler was the most decorated veteran in American history. Here, he reflexs on his long and distinguished career as one of the few, the proud, the marines:

El Salvador is one of the Central American republics that Smedley said he "helped in the raping of...for the benefits of Wall Street." Instead of direct colonial rule, though, the US relied on quite brutal dictators. The country would be exploited and controlled by US business. But control started slipping in the 1970's. The oppressed, the peasants, the workers, the majority. They began organizing themselves (with a lot of help from the Church) and demanding basic human rights.

This became a concern for the United States, which would prefer to have Central America firmly under its control and to enrich American business. Naturally if the people start organizing themselves against their imposed regime, it becomes a problem.
____________________________________________________________________________

In 1979 a right-wing military junta seized power in El Salvador. It immediately began a program of terror, not only did they begin slaughtering the peasants of El Salvador, anyone who spoke out against this was immediately killed.

For me to just say the junta terrorized the people of El Salvador would give no justice to what was happening.

Daniel Santiago was an American Jesuit priest who wrote down what he saw. "People are not just killed by death squads in El Salvador-they are decapitated and then their heads are placed on pikes and used to dot the landscape. Men are not just disemboweled by the Salvadoran Treasury Police; their severed genitalia are stuffed into their mouths. Salvadoran women are not just raped by the National Guard; their wombs are cut from their bodies and used to cover their faces. It is not enough to kill children; they are dragged over barbed wire until the flesh falls from their bones, while parents are forced to watch. "

In a gruesome, but common, example, Santiago wrote about "a peasant woman who returned home one day to find her three children, her mother and her sister sitting around a table, each with its own decapitated head placed carefully on the table in front of the body, the hands arranged on top, as if each body was stroking its own head. The assasins, from the Salvadoran National Guard, had found it hard to keep the head of an 18 month old baby in place, so they nailed the hands onto it. A large plastic bowl filled with blood was tastefully displayed in the center of the table."

The military junta was backed and armed by the United States. The press refused to report what was going on. I emphasize the word refused. Many credited people tried to get them to report it. Many respected academics wrote op-eds. The American press refused to publish anything.

Father Oscar Romero was appointed Archbishop of San Salvador (capital of El Salvador.) Much of the Catholic Church (in El Salvad0r) was concerned about the widespread misery and poverty of the El Salvadorian people, and they were being killed off one by one for speaking out. Instead of, say, giving up and focusing on preventing evolution from being taught in schools, Oscar Romero used his position to affect change.
Romero began speaking out on social justice, poverty, widescale torture and oppression and the assasinations that were killing priests and nuns across the country. When the military junta took power in 1979 the horror was escalated to unprecedented scales, with daily massacres and some 3,000 dying every month for the whole year of 1980. Romero was a hero to a people who had never before had a voice, who had never before had anyone take their side.

In early 1980 it was reported that the US was considering a massive increased in military aid to the junta, perhaps hoping they could hurry up and finish the job. Upon hearing this Oscar Romero wrote a letter to President Jimmy Carter.

Romero begged Carter not to send the aid, telling him "your government’s contribution will undoubtedly sharpen the injustice and the repression inflicted on the organized people, whose struggle has often been for respect for their most basic human rights."

Carter decided to send the aid anyway.

_________________________________________________________________

The war of terror soon entered into a phase that the UN characterized as "genocidal." Speaking in one of his many broadcasts, Romero addressed the Salvadoran National Guard, "Brothers, you are from the same people; you kill your fellow peasant . . . No soldier is obliged to obey an order that is contrary to the will of God . . . In the name of God then, in the name of this suffering people I ask you, I beg you, I command you in the name of God: stop the repression."
______________________________________________________________

The next day, March 24, was the last day of Oscar Romero's life. He was giving mass that day. As he stood before his congregation, Romero told them "One must not love oneself so much, as to avoid getting involved in the risks of life that history demands of us, and those that fend off danger will lose their lives." Seconds later gunman burst in and, in front of all his parishiners, in the middle of his mass, opened fire and murdered Oscar Romero.

The gunman were later identified. They had been armed and trained by the United States.

As he collapsed before his flock, and lay dying on the floor, Romero looked to those around him and said "May God have mercy on the assassins," then died.
______________________________________________________________

"If they kill me, I shall arise in the Salvadoran people. If the threats come to be fulfilled, from this moment I offer my blood to God for the redemption and resurrection of El Salvador. Let my blood be a seed of freedom and the sign that hope will soon be reality."

Three days later, in the largest demonstration in the history of Latin America, more then 50,000 peasants from around the nation gathered to bury Oscar Romero. Dignitaries from every major country, except the United States, attended. The BBC covered the event live, and millions of people all over the world witnessed something extraordinary. As the people of El Salvador began burying their hero, the Salvadoran National Guard opened fire and began massacring them. Television viewers would see widespread panic, chaos, bombs going off, dignitaries fleeing into the Church where they were trapped for hours.

Admist the bombs, gunfire and chaos as yet another massacre took place; a few brave peasants stood their ground and, with bullets whizzing past their heads, lowered their fallen hero into his final resting place.

__________________________________________________________________________

"Aspire not to have more, but to be more."

The week of March 30th, 1980, headlines around the world carried news of Oscar Romero and later his horrifying funeral, from Europe to Africa and Asia it was given massive attention. In the United States of America, the nation that armed and trained Romero's assasins, with the freest press in the world, not a word of Romero's death or funeral was even reported. A New York Times archives search of the year 1980 shows the last mention of Romero was in February, a month before he was assasinated, buried on page six in an article titled "U.S. Aid Plan Opposed."

_______________________________________________________

The repression continued for another 12 years. After the people were sufficiently slaughtered and terrorized, the US allowed elections to take place, but with an explicit warning: Vote for our candidate, or the terror will start again. The US canidate won.

Since then, US dictated economic policies (known as 'neo-liberalism', 'structural adjustment programs' or 'the washington consensus) have devastated El Salvador. For many of the impoverished majority, their only source of income is "remittances", which is money sent from Salvadoran relatives living abroad. When elections are held, the US ambassador will announce what candidate should be elected, and warns what will happen if US orders are not followed.

In the last election, FMLN was the opposition party. El Salvador was told, and it was widely (and constantly) reported in the Salvadoran media that George W Bush thinks FMLN are "terrorists" (this was just after the invasion of Iraq) and that the US will "reconsider" its relations with El Salvador if they elect FMLN, and in any case all remitances will be cut off (a death sentence for millions) and all Salvadorans in the US deported. The FMLN was linked to Osama bin Laden and on election day, international observers blocked from leaving the airport. When the votes were counted, the US candidate won.

Three days later, March 24, thousands of Salvadorans marched in a candle lit ceremony to commemorate the anniversary of the fallen leader's murder. Stretching across the capital's main plaza was a banner, which read

""Forgive us, Monsignor, for we have elected your assassins once again . . . "

__________________________________________________________

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

-Hegel

When the Reagan Administration tookover in 1981, the war was expanded. It was not only escalated in El Salvador, but added to the list of targets was Nicaragua. The devastation caused by US-backed death squads in Nicaragua essentially destroyed the country and it today remains the most impoverished nation in Latin America.

At the height of the atrocities, the US government was running a multi-national war of terrorism, deploying death squads all over Central America; destroying peasant movements, labor unions and anything else deemed an obstacle to total US control. The whole effort was being run out of the US Embassy in Honduras by the American Ambassador, John Negroponte.

Where do we find ourselves 20 years later?

After the illegal US invasion of Iraq and prolonged control by US viceroy Paul Bremer; it was announced that we were turing sovereignty over to the Iraqi people, showing that we have no interest in control Iraq or its resources. And since Iraq is now a sovereign nation, it would make sense to send a US Ambassador to occupy the new built American Embassy; which just happened to be the biggest embassay in world history (literally.) And who did Bush send to be the first American Ambassador to Iraq after sovereignty was returned? John Negroponte.

John Negroponte doesn't even speak Arabic. It seems an odd choice. Why the hell would they make John Negroponte the first Ambassador to Iraq?

"El Salvador-style 'death squads' to be deployed by US against Iraq militants"

The London Times, January 10th, 2005

____________________________________________________________

Conclusions:

- Its great that Jimmy Carter is speaking out for the Palestinians. But he had a chance to do something when he was President, and he did not. Instead, he wrote a book 30 years after he was elected president; long after he left politics, when he is a few years away from death, and at this point, has got nothing to lose.

- Oscar Romero saw suffering and did something about it. Carter's biggest risk he faced for speaking out was having some jackasses at AIPAC say you are a Jew-hater. Romero risked being killed. And he was. By weapons supplied from Carter.

-For anyone who cares, John Negroponte was replaced by a former oil executive who can speak Arabic. Instead, Negroponte is now the first "Director of National Intelligence". This makes more sense, because Negroponte made his name by conducting a secret, covert terrorist war against the people of Central America; in ways that covered American involvement. That may seem unimportant, but there were some real whackos in the government back then.

- Isn't Life Funny: One of the craziest voices in all this came in 1984. There was a high-level CIA agent who said; Look, if the people of Nicragua dont vote the way we tell them, we should bomb them, just bomb the shit out of them! It's as simple as that.

Twenty-six years later, that man was called to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee. It was today, and it was his confirmation hearing to be Secretary of Defense.

Sunday Night

2006-11-26T14:43:00.000-08:00

If you're like me, nearly all the current music played on radio stations, across the spectrum, makes you want to throw up. [Im not talking about all current music here, just the shit they play on radio]. Some songs especially (Justin Timberlake?) leave you completely baffled as to how anyone could consider it music, let alone enjoy listening to it.

For your viewing pleasure, I suggest maximizing the video underneath (click on the video, it takes you to the YouTube website and plays it again, then click on the button to the right of the volume control, it will make the video full screen.)

Enjoy the legend and, in my opinion, a presentation of what music truly is and always should be.

So set it up, Joe. I've got a story, you oughta know...

How many times can a man turn his head, and pretend that he just doesnt see?

2006-11-21T18:16:00.000-08:00

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Backed by U.S.-led coalition advisers, Iraqi security forces battled insurgents early Tuesday in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood, the U.S. military said.

At least five people were killed in the fighting, including a mother and her 8-month-old child, and 18 others were wounded, an Iraqi Health Ministry official said.

A Shiite legislator, holding the dead child's body, told reporters outside a hospital morgue that the Iraqi government should be denounced for allowing such attacks, The Associated Press reported.

"I am suspending my membership in parliament since it remains silent about crimes such as this against the Iraqi people," said Saleh Al-Ukailli, according to AP. "I will not return to parliament until the occupation troops leave the country."

Thinking back to 9/11 and the horror and traumization our nation felt at the death of 3,000 Americans; I wonder what Iraqi's think at the death of 600,000 Iraqi's during this war, not to mention the 500,000 killed during the genocidal sanctions regime the US imposed on the Iraqi people. With a low-scale civil war going in Iraq, in addition to resistance to our occupation and strong anti-war sentiment at home, the Bush Administration has decided to... escalate the war. A vast majority of the Iraqis want us to leave now and support attacks on US troops. There is no question, no moral reason we should be there if we are not wanted. Bush response? More troops, more guns, more bombs. Luckily for all of us here in the United States the press practices amazing self-censorship so when your tax money goes to murdering civilians, brown civilians who arnt even Christian and speak some bizarre language, its not a big deal. After all K-Fed and Britney are getting divorced, TomKat just got married. Compared to that, killing over half a million people (and more everyday) is not a big deal.

I think the words of Thomas Jefferson best sum up my feeling toward the United States. "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever."

A shift in elite opinion?

2006-11-21T05:58:00.000-08:00

I read a rather bizarre article in the NYT this morning regarding illegal Israel annexations of the West Bank. It was strange in many different ways. For one thing the New York Times never reports this time of thing, although it was not correctly reported anyway. The context of the illegality of Israeli colonies on the West Bank is that they are illegal under Israeli law. Because in the American media, international law is unheard of, no matter what the subject. Even Israeli papers widely discuss things in the context of international law. For example Israel is building a massive wall in the West Bank they say is for security reasons to block suicide bombers. Except, the wall isnt along the Israeli/West Bank border. It goes INSIDE the west bank, twists and curves, trapping thousands and thousands of Palestinians on the Israeli side. Like if the US built a security wall to block Mexicans from coming in, but we built the wall turned into Mexico and wrapped around Mexican cities, putting them on OUR side. It just doesnt make sense. Its widely acknowledged in the Israeli and world press that this is obviously an annexation scheme. Thats not mentioned in American media. The World Court ruled it illegal because its not ON the border, reported in Israeli and world press, not American. Finally the Israeli Supreme Court ruled it illegal (and ordered the route somewhat adjusted), also reported everywhere but the American media. So this article today in the NYT, while very much misreported, is still suprising that its reported. I'll give a brief summary and the context.

It starts off with "An Israeli advocacy group, using maps and figures leaked from inside the government, says that 39 percent of the land held by Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank is privately owned by Palestinians." First, applause for Peace Now, one of many Israeli advocacy groups (Gush Shalom, Jews for Peace) that protest government policies in the Palestinian Territories. They are almost entirely ignored in American media but their newsletters are free to everyone and highly informative.

Second, a correction. The problem, according to the NYT, is that 39% of land Israeli settlements on the West Bank is owned by Palestinians, which (as the article says) is illegal. What it does not say is that its illegal under Israeli law. What Peace Now has been saying for a long time, and what is reported everywhere in the world and something everyone except Americans know, is that 100% of the land Israeli "settlements" occupy is illegal under international law. You cannot confiscate land and build on it. The "settlements" are illegal colonies. They are not only illegal under international law but the daily expansion of them is illegal under the "Road Map".

Here is one of the most interesting parts in the article:

"Mr. Olmert says Israel will keep some 10 percent of the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, possibly in a swap for land elsewhere. The area Israel intends to keep is roughly marked by the route of the unfinished separation barrier, which cuts through the West Bank and is intended, Israel says, to stop suicide bombers. Mr. Olmert, however, describes it as a putative border."

Lets take a closer look. "Mr. Olmert says Israel will keep some 10 percent of the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, possibly in a swap for land elsewhere." The idea of Israel taking part of the West Bank in exchange for a land swap elsewhere has been widely discussed by Israelis and Palestinians. There were intense negotiations at Taba in 2000-01 which led to an unofficial delegation of high ranking Israelis and Palestinians coming up with the "Geneva Accords" that propose such a solution, which is widely accepted by most of the world, which was widely reported everywhere, except, of course, for the US. But the far-right "Kadima" party (which everyone knows is really Likud) does not want to negotiate with the Palestnians and Mr Olmert would prefer to unilaterally draw the final borders. Which is why the United States and Israel are involved in a sick collective punishment of Gaza currently. Gaza, for those who dont know, is right now cut off from the world by land, air and sea. The electricity grid has been out of order since it was bombed in June, meaning clean water is also a rareity. The United States effectively got the world to cut off all financial aid so the Gazan people are not only starving, but they have no government services (ie garbage collection.) And while the Gaza strip is only 15 miles long (one of the most densely populated areas in the world) the Israeli air force feels the need to fly super-sonic jets over the area every night, causing massive sonic booms at 2am, smashing windows and traumatizing children. It is important to mention that there are still terrorist groups in Gaza that have been able to fire rockets into civilian areas of Israel . But I personally dont believe 1.5 million Palestinian civilians should be punished for it (collective punishment is also illegal under international law.)

3. "The area Israel intends to keep is roughly marked by the route of the unfinished separation barrier, which cuts through the West Bank and is intended, Israel says, to stop suicide bombers. Mr. Olmert, however, describes it as a putative border. " You have to be kidding me. The "separation barier" (a massive wall) roughly marks the land Israel intends to keep but is intended to stop suicide bombers? What WHAT a coicidence that the massive wall which goes into the west bank, to stop suicide bombers, also demarcates the future border of Israel. What a concidence thats so weird. Only the NYT

3. "Nearly 80,000 Jews live in settlements beyond the route of the barrier, but some 180,000 live in settlements within the barrier, while another 200,000 live in East Jerusalem." OK, and what about the Palestinians? 12,000 are trapped on the ISRAELI side because the wall (its commonly known as the apartheid wall) goes into the west bank. In 2004 a report was done to research the effects the wall had on these Palestinians, "researched and written by a team of experts under the direction of the Local Aid Coordination Committee’s (LACC) Humanitarian and Emergency Policy Group, which includes the European Union, Norway, the United States, the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, and the World Bank."

The report concluded "When completed, as many as approximately 12,000 Palestinians could be left on the western, Israel-facing side of the wall, cut-off from their land, workplaces and essential social services...In addition, the Government of Israel states that the construction of the wall is a temporary measure but its extent, nature and cost and, in particular its location inside the West Bank and east of the Green Line suggest to Palestinians that the project has more permanent implications...The report notes that the 1995 Interim Agreement between the two sides states that neither party “will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations” and that “the integrity and status” of the West Bank and Gaza Strip “will be preserved during the interim period.” It adds that Israel argues that the wall is a temporary measure and therefore compatible with the Agreement." Notice how none of this is mentioned in the NYT article.

Lastly the NYT provides a map of the West Bank showing scattered illegal Israeli settlements throughout the land (it seems to me a lot are missing too). It fails to mention one crucial aspect of this. While these settlements are scattered all throughout the west bank, they are all actually connected. Special Israeli Only roads and highways connect every single one of them. If a Palestinian wishes to cross one of them to say, go to the hospital, they must wait at a checkpoint, which arnt always open, and which may have an hours long wait. This is why people refer to the "Bantustanization" of the West Bank (Bantustans were apartheid villages in South Africa).

But in the end its nice the NYT published this article at all, and cheers to the efforts of the Israeli Peace Groups who put this on the table. Hopefully a resolution will come soon, although I sincerely doubt it will come with George Bush and Ehud Olmert in power. But who knows, stranger things have happened.

How I learned to start worrying about the bomb

2006-11-17T06:23:00.000-08:00

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy

Anyone who was worried that a new Democratic Senate might change the twisted and dangerous bi-partisan foreign policy consensus that posesses the United States halls of power need not worry. Although the changing of the guard does not take place until January, a recent (horrible) bill recently passed the US Senate with a majority of Democratic Senators voting Yes; and and even larger majority of Democratic Senators voted against a pretty important amendment to that bill. I'll briefly explain:

In 1945 the US was the only country that had the atom bomb. By the end of the 60's, six states had the bomb (UK, France, China, USSR, Israel, USA). And a lot of countries were racing to get the bomb, so it was generally accepted that soon almost every country would have a nuclear weapon. So they came up with something called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Every single country in the world (except for Pakistan, India and Israel) signed it. It had three main components:

1. Every country signing that does not have the bomb hereby promises not to try and get the bomb.

2. Every country signing that already has the bomb hereby promises to take full faith measures to reduce and eventually eliminate their stockpiles of nuclear bombs

3. Everyone, nuclear and non-nuclear states, has the "inalienable right" to a nuclear energy program. [And yes this includes uranium-enrichment]

So anyway, "nuclear proliferation" (spread of nuclear weapons), has become a bit of a problem lately. Bush said this was the #1 danger the US faces. So what has he done to stop it? First he announced North Korea, Iran and Iraq were in an axis of evil, then illegally invaded Iraq (a straight out war crime) but appeased North Korea once it announced he had the bomb. Well now Iran (which is frequently threatened by the US and Israel) has a nuclear energy program (that everyone assumes is actually to make a bomb.) Well, the smartest thing Iran could do at this point is to develop a nuclear weapon, almost everyone acknowledges this. Even Israel's leading military historian, Martin Van Creveld, recently wrote "Obviously, we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and I don't know if they're developing them, but if they're not developing them, they're crazy."

Iraq, Iran, India. India never signed the NPT and developed a nuclear bomb on its own. Since they did that the US, like most states, has taken certain measures to make it clear that its not cool that India just went out and got itself a bomb (as to discourage others.) Well that was erased last year when Bush went to India and signed an agreement that said the US would send vast amounts of nuclear material to India (such as enriched uranium) for their "civilian" energy program. Well India does in fact have a large scale civilian nuclear energy program, which requires large amounts of nuclear material, leaving only a little bit left for their military program. However, since now the US is providing everything they need for their civilian energy program, that means India has a shitload left over to begin a mass-scale nuclear weapons program.

Its a stab in the heart for nuclear proliferation. The US is doing this because they want to court India as a stragetic partner as a counterweight to China. But the effects of this are profound. Everyone else in the world (except for Pakistan and Israel) followed the rules and signed this treaty. Everyone in the treaty, including nuclear-states, agreed that nuclear weapons are bad, they should not be spread, and we should not only prevent an increase but start to decrease them and eventually get rid of them altogether. But one of the 3 countries that ignored this rule and developed its own bomb is.... being rewarded and provided with everything they need to massively INCREASE their nuclear weapons program!

However Bush cant just sign these deals and make them effective. It must pass the Senate. And it did, yesterday, overwhelmingly. Here are the people who voted against it:

Akaka (D-HI)Bingaman (D-NM)Boxer (D-CA)Byrd (D-WV)
Conrad (D-ND)Dayton (D-MN)Dorgan (D-ND)Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)Johnson (D-SD)Kennedy (D-MA)Leahy (D-VT)

Yeah Kennedy! Anyway, it gets better. Now, Im sure you are wondering what Iran is thinking about this (what Pakistan thinks is a whole other topic.) Iran, like everyone else, signed a treaty saying it would not develop nuclear weapons but has the inalienable right to a nuclear energy program. And yet they are surrounded by the nuclear armed United States military in almost every country they border, have US Fleets doing "exercises" right off their coast, and are openly being threatened by the US and Israel; all for a 'peaceful' nuclear program that they are legally entitled to. Yes of course its bullshit and they are probably trying to get the bomb, but I might add they keep saying they'll give up their program if the US will just PROMISE NOT TO INVADE THEIR COUNTRY! The US refuses to make that promise. But it does promise that it will ship assloads of nuclear material to India. Well. Hm.

So now turning to the best part of this all. India has relations with Iran. Not only diplomatic, but military relations (ie trade deals, joint exercises, etc.) So yesterday Senator Barbara Boxer proposed attaching this amendment to the nuclear deal with India. The text reads as follows:

"To make the waiver authority of the President contingent upon a certification that India has agreed to suspend military-to-military cooperation with Iran, including training exercises, until such time as Iran is no longer designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. "

The amendment was REJECTED, 38 - 59. And it was NOT a party line vote. The amendment was supported by everyone from Ted Kennedy to fucking Rick Santorum! And still got rejected! I've said it once and I'll say it again; nuclear proliferation is not a priority for the US government. Not just Bush, but the fucking senate too!

The US does not play but the rules. It wants to run the world through force. It wishes make countries stay in line by keeping them in a constant state of fear that they will be attacked by the US if they dare defy it. The US is running the world like a mafia don. And I might add threatening violence for political purposes is TERRORISM, thats the definition, according to the US Army field manual. Iran must be punished because they do not cave into what the US says, and they held our embassy hostage for 444 days in 1979-80. No matter that we overthrew their parliament and installed a murderous dictator that held their COUNTRY hostage for 25 years.

So India gets to make as many bombs as it wants because they are a strategic partner that will counterweight China and Russia. Iran needs to be punished for being a bad boy and is desparately trying to develop a nuclear bomb so the US does not attack (widely recognized by the US foreign policy elite as the reason for Iran's nuclear program). But the US wont promise were not going to attack, even if they give up their program. So why the hell should they?

Friends Forever

2006-10-26T06:23:00.000-07:00

Coming soon.... how would the gang vote in this year's midterm elections? Here's a hint, you might be suprised!

Independent Dissent

Lets Be Frank

Unemployment Rate in MA Drops

Coakley's Quest

Thaddeus Russell

Guevara Greenwald and Religion

Jobs and Elections

No COLA!

Chronicles of a Crisis Foretold

Friday

Thursday

Look Who's Defending the Banks (again)

Subway Rules

Friday Jobs Report

Cuts in Government Led U.S. Economy to Lose 95,000 Jobs

The Man Who Never Was

AS THE WORLD BURNS

Good Reading

Infrastructure Initiative

Econmetrix

Liberal NYT

Monday Morning

The Legal Debate about that efin Mandate

CBO Scores Final Bill

For the Record

Gym

Schlitz!

Slow Day at the Globe

Vikki Backs Kirk?

How is this man not more popular?

He Did Act Stupidly

Bloats

prop 8

Hot Day in Beantown

Why Obama, why?

Recording

More Good News

Good News

Morganthau

"If a sparrow can fall to the ground without His notice,it is likely that an empire can rise without His help?"

Powell

Stock slide

Recession

Bonjour

Vanguard of the Capitalists

Hillary Clinton is starting to piss me off

Howard Zinn

Election Madness

Winter's Days Are Numbered

The Blog is Back

Krugman

Clinton, Obama, Insurance

Chaos!

The View

Oh Happy Day!

Syberworld

The War Goes On

GOP Debate

The Blog Is Back!

Hey Hey

24 is boring?

Give me just a litle more time!

BAUER HOUR: WEEK TWO

Oy Vey

This Week in 24

Syntax

Give Peace A Chance

Religion, Capitalism, Violence, Oh my!

Solving Iraq

The Effects of American Policies

How I Was Framed

US and Israel Continue Terrorism

US and Israel Continue Terrorism

Iraq Study Group, Review (in progress)

Iraq Study Group

Profiles in Courage

Sunday Night

How many times can a man turn his head, and pretend that he just doesnt see?

A shift in elite opinion?

How I learned to start worrying about the bomb

"If a sparrow can fall to the ground without His notice,
it is likely that an empire can rise without His help?"