Searching Congress vs. Searching Citizens.

From the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 6:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

I don't see anything there that says the offices of Congressional representatives can't be searched. I don't see anything that says they can't be arrested for bribery. I don't see anything that says William Jefferson can't be searched, arrested or indicted or anything else that can happen to an ordinary citizen who breaks the law. It does say he can't be forced to hold a press conference, much less be questioned by the F. B. I., but he's not above the law.

Why are Republicans insisting that Congressional offices can't be searched for evidence of wrong-doing? What have they got to hide? Why doesn't violation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution bother them?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Wole Soyinka and Darfur

Wole Soyinka (on Democracy Now) expects the Arab League to clean up Dar Fur:

"The Arab League has a clear responsibility, and I think that if a family member of the Arab world, you know, if a family member errs, then the entire family has a responsibility to say, “You cannot do this in our name. And if you do this, we expel you, we cut you off, we denounce you, and we proscribe you from our community.” I expect that kind of action of deep and profound moral integrity from the Arab world."

Personally I think that expecting the Arab League to stop the genocide in Darfur is like expecting the Ku Klux Klan to take responsibility to stop lynching of African Americans.

The Arab League is an ethnically based organization designed to promote the interests of Arabs as an ethno-linguistic group. Not a race, Arabs are not a race, but they are the largest ethnic group in Africa. The Arab League should be abolished and the African Union should become a federal government designed to defend the rights of all people regardless of their ethnicity or their language.

The problem with Soyinka and his politics is that he can't see things in any political paradigm other than ethnic. That's why he expects the Arab League to take action in Darfur to stop genocide. That's why he doesn't support the African Union. That's why his book about Nigeria blames everything on northerners and why he supports Yoruba, as long as those Yoruba will criticize other ethnic groups in Nigeria and end what he insists is northern domination of Nigeria. He doesn't mention that northerners are the majority of Nigerians, and calling for ending northern domination of Nigeria is about as democratic as calling for ending black domination of South Africa. I won't even go into the fact that northerners are deeply split politically, as are Yoruba, as any ethnic group should be. I don't like ethnic separatism.

Sure, celebrities have as much right to talk about politics as anyone else. However, I have to wonder if it is always a good idea. Soyinka's plays are great, but they don't show much political sophistication.

Read it and weep!

from Wikipedia:

"Voting locations that used electronic or other types of voting machines that did not issue a paper receipt or offer auditability correlate geographically with areas that had discrepancies in Bush's favor between exit poll numbers and actual results."

Why is a paper trail for elections even an issue? OK, so the handicapped people need the electronic voting so they can vote by themselves, but there could still be paper trails. Justice must not only be done, it must be SEEN to be done, and without a paper trail how could anyone be expected to trust the result? This shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Iran to require oil payments in euros

"TEHRAN, May 15 (UPI) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Friday that in July Iran will abandon dollar payments for its oil and natural gas exports in favor of euros.

. . .

"Some observers speculate that the Iranian switch to euros could negatively affect the dollar, as many central banks from oil importing nations could choose to stock up their currency reserves with euros rather than dollars."

Yes, folks, the same thing happened in Iraq just before the US invasion. Well, this time Bush doesn't have the wherewithal to invade. It looks like the dollar really is going to tank this time, and there's nothing we can do about it.

MORE TAX CUTS?!?!?

Let me get this straight:

If the economy is booming, we need tax cuts. Presumably this is to cool off the economy, so it doesn't overheat or something.

BUT, if the economy is tanking, we also need tax cuts. (Look for the section entitled "A Slowing Economy" in the plan.)

So which is it? Have these people ever heard of the business cycle? Or do they really think the proper response to both boom and bust phases of the cycle is cutting taxes? Do they ever stop? Do they think there are any functions of government that ought to be paid for? Whom do they think should pay for them?

Whatever happend to countercyclical spending?

Whatever happened to fiscal conservatism?

Legalize "drugs"?!?!?!

The whole debate about legalizing "drugs", most recently in Mexico, is completely ridiculous. We already have legal drugs, and no, I'm not talking about pharmaceuticals, either "over the counter" or prescription. I'm talking about recreational drugs.

I regularly recreate myself with alcohol. I mostly stay away from the hard (i.d. distilled) stuff, but most nights find me imbibing some beer or wine. Don't laugh, this used to be a crime in the United States, in fact it was against the Constitution.

I don't smoke tobacco anymore, and that's still legal, even in California, for the time being. I try not to be one of those ex-smokers who can't be around the stuff. I understand, because I remember, how nicotine after a meal can be very satisfying. Just don't smoke it while I'm still eating. It interferes with the flavors of my food. You shouldn't smoke while you're eating either. Wait until you've finished eating, then savor a fine cigar (or at least a nicotine fix) and a snifter of brandy. That's it!

OK, what about those illegal drugs? I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana. Period. End of story. I've known too many people who take too many drugs. Heroin is vicious. People lose all control, then they lose their friends when the friends wake up to how they've been used. Cocaine? Yeah, in the '70s people said it was harmless. Friends of mine really got messed up. One lost his job because he was always away from work trying to score. He's still in the service as an enlisted man because he couldn't get away from coke any other way. Legalize it and he wouldn't have spent so much time scoring? Get real. Even tobacco doesn't get people craving the way cocaine does. This guy used marijuana and other drugs but none messed him up like cocaine. He could always wait until after work before he went around scoring pot.

Speed? I knew meth monsters back in the 60s. They called it "the drug even hippies were afraid of" and Allen Ginsberg singled it out as an inherently bad drug, something he did for no other psychoactive substance. I remember him saying that most of the souvenirs he brought back from India were ripped off by meth monsters. I really have no problem with government's cracking down on amphetamines.

Marijuana has been used for thousands of years. It's less addictive than the recreational drugs that are already legal. You can't overdose on it. Gateway drug? Don't make me laugh. That's a common post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but even if it weren't, the percentage of hard drug users who first used alcohol or tobacco is even higher than the percentage who used marijuana. Shouldn't we go back to prohibiting alcohol? Really? Why not? Oh, right. It turned out that the negative consequences of alcohol prohibition were worse than the negative consequences of alcohol itself. And alcohol is the United States's number one drug problem.

No, I don't use marijuana myself. I used to be addicted to nicotine, I still use alcohol, and I'm still addicted to caffeine. But it doesn't bother me if people use other drugs. I'm not out to impose my values on other people. Stoners get high, giggle a lot, eat snacks and go to sleep. If you think they should be thrown in jail for that I really have to wonder about you, not them.

And if you're worried about underage smoking, the best thing to do about it is to legalize marijuana. No one ever got thrown out of a pot party for being underage. Legalizing it and regulating it would go a long way to minimizing the harm that is done by it. You would take organized crime out of the equation, make a serious dent in underage smoking, and be able to start teaching peole responsible use. Not to mention end one cause of disrespect for the law. After all, if the law comes down so hard on marijuana, then the law is an ass. Read the facts.

Need proof that Americans are becoming xenophobic?

Men detained 3 hours for school materials

"NEWARK, New Jersey (AP) -- Five airline passengers speaking in foreign languages and carrying "aircraft flight materials" were briefly detained Saturday until authorities determined they were simply returning to their home countries after attending a U.S. helicopter training school.

"Fellow passengers on American Airlines Flight 1874, which had departed from Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, became suspicious of the men, said Steven Siegel, a spokesman for the FBI's Newark office.

"A federal marshal on the plane notified authorities at Newark Liberty International Airport about the men's behavior. (Watch as a passenger describes what happened during the flight -- 1:44)

"The men -- identified only as four Angolan military personnel and an Israeli -- had attended helicopter training school in Texas, Siegel said."

9.11 video

Just found an interesting video on the Internet about the 9/11 attacks. Their website is here.

They make a lot of questionable assumptions, especially at the beginning, and raise a lot of things that are not necessarily problems for people who know anything about statistics, probability, unexpected consequences of experiments and problems with the perceptions of eyewitnesses. It reminded me a lot of the "Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster" school of investigation that we saw so much of during the Clinton impeachment. But the Vince Foster murder freaks were able to raise a number of troubling questions about the investigation of that murder, though they came nowhere near making a case that Clinton was bumping off his supporters right and left (as the list of Clinton related "disappearances" claimed) much less giving Clinton a motive for all these supposedly suspicious deaths, even much, much less that he was bumping off nobodies while leaving his worst enemies untouched.

I'm not endorsing this video for many reasons, including the classic argument agaisnt conspiracy theories (i.e. the bigger they get the harder they are to keep secret), but I think it raises a number of questions that should be considered. I would also appreciate comments from anyone who has seen the video and can comment intelligently on it.

Congressional Black Caucus Calls for Fair Agreement to End Genocide in Darfur

"After more than three years of suffering at the hands of the Government of Sudan and the Janjaweed, the people of Darfur are faced with a proposed peace agreement which falls short of the aim to end the violence and create a just and lasting peace in the region.

"The seventh round of the African-Union brokered peace talks in Abuja, Nigeria are coming to a close and the April 30 deadline for a signed peace agreement was extended to midnight tonight. The draft peace agreement is skewed to benefit the Government of Sudan and penalize the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) -- the only voices for the people of Darfur."

Read more at the Congressional Black Caucus Press Release

More China in Africa (spotlight on Nigeria)

Nigeria: China Rationalises $15bn Investment

Nigeria: China to Acquire Mines

Issues in Nigeria-China Relations

Direct air flights between Nigeria, China proposed

China, Nigeria sign big deals as Beijing pledges higher profile in Africa

China, Nigeria sign joint communique

China gains oil drilling rights in Nigeria

China, Nigeria to ink oil deal

(comments later?)

As usual, things get complicated

Darfur rebels frustrate mediator

"The two rebel groups are still seeking a number of changes, particularly over the post-conflict security arrangements such as the number of their forces to be integrated into the Sudanese army."