testing

testing

1

2


4

24 is boring?

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

Iraq Study Group, Review (in progress)

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

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

"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.