WTF time, religion

Background story from Beliefnet:

Compared with Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, George W. Bush's religious beliefs seem quite conventional.

Excuse me, but I don't remember any of those presidents hearing voices.

[I've been away from this blog for too long for reasons I won't bore you with, and there's too much to note. I'll try to catch up with the most important stuff today.]

I'm glad someone else cares about the Constitution!

From The New York Times:

Republicans have already started blowing hot air about any naysayers trying to stop spies from tracking terrorists. No one is doing that. The question really is whether Congress should toss out chunks of the Constitution because Mr. Bush finds them inconvenient and some Democrats are afraid to look soft on terrorism.

Let's do something about al-Qa'ida and our other enemies, but we can do that without shredding our Constitution. For that matter, Bush has shredded the Constitution without going after al-Qa'ida very much. That he won't move against our real enemies makes his talk of military necessity obviously hypocritical.

I kind of miss the old days

As far back as the 1960s you could have an honest debate about race with racists. They would come on TV and say that black people were racially inferior and had to be segregated. They didn't pull any punches about it. You could discuss it with them and try to change their minds. Eventually enough minds were changed that it was no longer acceptable to say such things in public. Of course the opposite has been happening with homosexuality, but that's another story, maybe for another diary.

This is about racism, and how racists are now shouted down by the public reaction. «You have not converted a Man because you have silenced him» as the Twentieth Century artist Ben Shahn famously quoted John, Viscount Morley's "On Compromise", 1874.

Let's look at the notorious recent remarks by Nobel Prize winning scientist James Watson. What did he reportedly say?

inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa. . . . All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really.

Now there's his apology, and his explanation, but no real discussion about whether what he said was true, or even the extent that it might be true, or the ways in which it might be true, has appeared in the press to date.

No, don't for a minute think that I think he's right about race and intelligence. Even disregarding the important questions "What is race?" and "What is intelligence?" I'm just not even convinced that intelligence is really hereditary. His explanation kind of hints at that, but doesn't really say it. Most people think, or just assume, that intelligence is hereditary because they were told when they were young that it is, and the generality of the population who don't follow this don't realize that Sir Cyril Burt faked his data, although he still has defenders.

I would like the press to honestly report the controversies about intelligence and the effects on it of heredity and environment, including prenatal environment. I would like people to understand that this is not a simple issue. I wish I had saved the link, but I read some time ago that blonds exposed to blond jokes before taking IQ tests scored 8 points lower than a control group of blonds. Sounds suspiciously similar to the famous 11 points difference between blacks and whites in the US, doesn't it? But there are all kinds of other explanations that should be debated. The role of caste in American society particularly needs to be considered. African Americans are not just an ex-slave group, they are the traditional undercaste group, Untouchables.

There are even more controversial ideas that no one will even mention. Most testing of blacks has been in the US. Not only have there been pressures on them to act dumb, coming not only from the white community but from other blacks who accuse intelligent blacks of "acting white".

African Americans are a distinct gene pool. If they score lower on intelligence tests than whites, what does that have to do with Africans, even assuming that intelligence is hereditary? Maybe the intelligent ones were doing the catching, and the 'slow' ones were caught and sent to the Americas? There have been claims that Igbos and other African ethnic groups are even more highly intelligent, on average than white Americans. To extrapolate from one group of blacks to all blacks is no less racist than to extrapolate from a single black to all blacks.

Most damning to the heredity theory is the fact that Igbos made a large contribution to the African American population. The word "okra" (for example) is an Igbo word in American English. The simplest (and therefore the most likely) explanation for the differential success of Igbos over African Americans is cultural. African Americans have lost their original Igbo culture and therefore are not as entrepreneurial (and not as successful) in America's highly competitive entrepreneurial society. Maybe we should forget about Swahili and get African Americans back to their real African culture.

But most of all, let us have an honest debate about race and intelligence. Let us remember that each individual is an individual, and that even if blacks, as a group, score lower on intelligence tests than whites, there are still extremely intelligent blacks.

I got that last link from a high IQ society I belong to, that W. R. Jones also belongs to. No, it's not Mensa, it's 20 times as selective as Mensa. There is no shortage of extremely, highly intelligent blacks in the world, even in the United States, where intelligent blacks were systematically killed during slavery and where blacks have been pressured to act stupid, sometimes even by their own people. Shouting people down who say blacks are less intelligent doesn't convince blacks who are unsure about their own intelligence. Facts might.

How the mighty are fallen!

Daniel Pipes used to be an expert on the Middle East. Whether you agreed with him or not you had to respect his opinion and his command of the basic facts about the region.

Not any more. Here's what he wrote on October 9 this year:

preemption justified the invasion of Iraq before Iraqis had attacked the United States

If he doesn't get up to speed with what's happening in the world outside his bubble he's going to be the only guy left in the country who doesn't know that we were lied to about Iraq and its WMD. No one is going to pay any attention to him anymore. Which is a shame. He used to be a great scholar, but I guess he got seduced by Republican money. Mammon. He's willing to criticize Republicans like Grover Norquist, but can't say anything nice about Democrats, even repeating the lie that Bill Clinton never did anything about Al-Qa'ida. He was strangely silent about Obama's wanting to invade Pakistan if necessary. This is still the only page that turns up if you search his site for Obama.

I know most people here don't like him, but he did used to be worth reading.

He's not really anti-Muslim, in fact his "fans" often take him to task on his site for not being anti-Muslim, and when he wrote that Muslims believe the same God that Christians and Jews do most of them really tore into him for it.

I don't know what we should do about him now. Anything? Nothing? Everything?

Poll at DailyKos.com

It's going beyond surrealism

Bush is definitely disconnecting from reality. He also doesn't realize that Nelson Mandela was sentenced to life in prison for terrorism by the apartheid regime. Here's a link to a right wing site about Mandela's terrorism. Here's Mandela's statement at his trial, courtesy the ANC website. Mandela never renounced violence (what head of state could?). He thought violence was necessary to free South Africa. It turned out that sanctions woke up the South African government, and the fall of Communism left them without their justification for suppressing the South African people. But no one in a struggle like the South African freedom struggle should have to renounce violence. It they do, as Gandhi did, and as Solidarnosc in Poland did, that's powerful, and a potent weapon, but they are under no moral obligation to do it.

Nelson Mandela didn't become the "Mandela" Bush is referring to until the South African government changed policy and became willing to talk to him. In the case of Iraq there are simply no Iraqis who are willing to talk to other Iraqis. Unlike the case in South Africa there simply are no democratic forces to talk. The people who want majority rule (Shi'ite extremists) want to kill the minority Sunnis. Everyone seems to want to kill the Christians, Yazidis and Mandeans. The Jews are lucky. They already got out. Of course all the Iraqi factions most want to kill Israelis. That's who the Iraqi Jews are now. Israelis.

Too much to post about

so I haven't posted, but I've got to post this.

General Clark endorses Hillary!

No, I'm not about to endorse her myself. I think she will learn a lot from General Clark. I hope she makes him Vice president, or at least makes him National Security Adviser or Secretary of State. She needs his expertise on those questions. She's not the devil some people portray her as, and I have long said that I will vote for her whenever she wins the nomination (sames goes for all the other Democrats) but I'm just not ready to endorse her, or anyone else, for the nomination.

I'm still numb, though. I'll get back to the blog, maybe with a report on what's been keeping me away. I'm backing whoever gets the Democratic nomination, but with General Clark out of the race, I'm not backing any candidate for the nomination, even at the urging of General Clark himself.

Surprisingly good analysis of Nigeria's constitution

Apparently, the contradiction of prescribing party supremacy for the presidential model of democracy seemed to have been lost on the framers of the 1999 Constitution.

Read more from the Daily Trust via AllAfrica.com. Highly recommended.

Just up on Kos!

Dick Cheney the first knew why we shouldn't overthrow Saddam Hussein.



Here's the Kos diary it's from.

Darfur: it's not just about resources

Yes, there is a shortage of water, that may be alleviated by new discoveries of underground aquifers. But there are always shortages. Scarcity is the essential problem of economics.

As the linked article notes, if the government in Khartoum tries to centralize control of the new water supplies (and as it doesn't note, if it continues to be an Arab nationalist government) further conflict is almost a given, no matter how much water was found.

Ethnic conflict occurs when the inevitable resource conflict cannot be solved by mutually agreeable means. The US has multiple ethnic groups, but as long as there is a political system, including a court system, acceptable to everyone, conflict won't spill over into the streets. That's one major reason why the Civil Rights Movement to integrate minorities into the system was so important.

As long as the government in Khartoum is Arab nationalist there will be a disaffected minority. But as a matter of fact, Arabs themselves are a minority in the Sudan, so there will be a disaffected majority. Until Khartoum accepts African nationalism, and realizes that Arabs are just another ethnic group, not THE acceptable, legitimate group, there will be ethnic conflict in the Sudan. That's one reason the ultimate responsibility for policing Darfur must become the primary responsibility of the AU.

Another reason is that any foreign peace-keeping mission is only temporary. You cannot expect a Kashmir or Cyprus style UN force to be there indefinitely without cease fire lines. This is more like Bosnia.

That means either an African Union force, or more realistically a federal force from some kind of a United States of Africa, has to stay there to police the area, because we know the Sudanese government is one sided in their approach. They have to be, as long as they are committed to Arab nationalism, which is ethnically specific in content from the beginning.

Beyond even my parannoid fears!

Watergate went beyond my paranoid fears when John Mitchell admitted to the Congressional investigators as part of the "White House Horror Stories" that the administration had plans to blow up the Brookings Institution and blame it on leftists terrorists, thus both getting rid of the voice of opposition and providing the excuse to crack down on dissent in the name of fighting terrorists.

Pat Tillman wasn't shot accidentally. He was murdered, and the administration covered it up.

Musharraf's contradictions

General Musharraf has little base of his own. Having replaced the civilian politicians he was first forced to fall on the Islamists for support. These same Islamists were never able to attract more than 10-15% of the vote in a free election, but they became Musharraf's base.

Then he was pressured by the US after 9/11 to support the "War on Terror" against the Taliban and al-Qa'ida. He did. But this left him on shaky ground. He had to mollify the Islamists, especially those in the military and military intelligence, and he faced assassination attempts, and possibly attempted coups d'etat. Now even the Islamists have turned against him.

More lately the majority of the Pakistanis have rallied around the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Chaudhry. The Supreme Court has ordered him reinstated. General Musharraf is getting more and more alienated from the society as a whole. He more and more needs the backing of the Islamists. But he more and more needs the support of the Americans, who are putting more and more pressure on him.

If I were him I would try to negotiate a transition with the democratic forces. If I were running US foreign policy I would try to make overtures to the civilian political leaders to get their support against the Islamists. But I just have a blog, that's all.

So what's the point of Africom?

from the ever rambunctious Nigerian Press:

the launching of AFRICOM has raised a number of questions and concerns about U.S. interests in Africa. Its mode of operation, its very existence in Africa, some say, resembles a spying mission and will possibly attract terrorists to the Continent. AFRICOM, according to Henry, will have no new troops, no bases, but will have a staff and "a distributed approach where the staff is located. And that will be both on the continent and off the continent."

Meanwhile, the Liberian government has been lobbying and has recently offered the country for AFRICOM headquarters. According to President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf who is a frequent visitor to Washington DC, "If AFRICOM aims to use its "soft power" Mandate to develop a stable environment in which civil society can flourish and the quality of life for Africans can be improved, African nations should work with AFRICOM to achieve their own development and security goals...".

But what is the Bush administration planning? Do they even know? Will this effectively be left to the succeeding administration to decide what to do with the African command in the military? Congress should ask some oversight questions, but Congress is too busy asking other oversight questions to bother with this little problem, especially when the administration might honestly have no real answers to the questions.

I'll be back

I'll be back. I've been having someworkplace issues, and a lot of other things are keeping me busy, but I haven't abandoned this blog. I shall return.

Was W ever a Boy Scout?

"Be prepared" doesn't seem to be his motto.

Here's the latest on what he's doing to the military:

As wildfires, floods and tornadoes batter the nation, the readiness of the National Guard to deal with those disasters, as well as potential terrorist assaults, is so depleted by deployments to foreign wars and equipment shortfalls that Congress is considering moves to curtail the president's powers over the Guard and require the Defense Department to analyze how prepared the country is for domestic emergencies.

"Have I ever heard of a dead president?"

Sure, they're all over the money. Every bill except the $10 and the $100. What is it with those denominations? But I digress.

Someone seems to have thought that the quote I made the title of this blog entry was a threat against Hillary Clinton. I certainly hope they don't think this blog is a threat against Hillary. I'd vote for her over any of the Republicans. However, I think, or at least I hope, that there is more to this story than they have made public. I will wait for evidence at the trial before making up my mind. There will be a trial, right?

Police said the student reported Wargo to the university after a second conversation, in which Wargo allegedly made a second remark indicating he planned violence against Clinton.

‘Have you ever heard of a dead president?’
That remark "was something along the lines of, 'Have you ever heard of a dead president?'" Adams said. "That's language that should be of concern to anyone. Thank goodness the classmate reported it."

Why (else) we STILL need Wes Clark for president

From The Nation's coverage of the Democratic debate in South Carolina:

There has been this idea going around that the Democrats have a fabulous, unstoppable array of candidates this year. We can't lose! This debate gave the lie to that comforting notion in any number of ways.

But they think it's only economics that will win the debate.

They still don't know--not after tonight--that the Democrats are their best bet to heal the economic fissure between the ever-fattening haves and the vast, anemic mass of the rest of us. Out in the hinterlands, local and state politicians are stirring souls and winning elections by reviving the old spirit of Huey Long and Share Our Wealth. But among the national Democrats, there appears to be scant recognition of the bleeding obvious: People are hurting, and not just those who've been unfortunate enough to land in Iraq or have family members there. A full one-eighth of Americans now officially live in poverty, we learned this past week, just as the Dow ding-dinged its way to 13,000. On this issue, among the folks I've been talking to, the anger and frustration are mingled with heavy doses of mystification: Doesn't anybody get what's happening to us out here?

It's not just economics. Besides, Democrats always have the edge on economics with the majority of Americans. It's also national security, and that's where Wes Clark has the edge on just about anybody, Democrat or Republican. He's not so well known for his positions on economic issues, but let's go to his website and see what he has to say about the issue. It's not easy to find what he has to say, so let me find it and bring it to you here:

I taught economics and political philosophy. I’ve worked in the civilian side of the Office of Management and Budget in the White House, I’m a businessman. I have, like, four different businesses. I consult for various different companies and I’ve been around the block a few times. So I’ve got strong ideas.

I believe we need to raise the minimum wage. We need to help small businesses in this country. We need to fix the access to the healthcare system. We’ve got to stop the unfunded mandates, that are running out for the No Child Left Behind Act. We’ve got to raise and enhance teacher pay and morale and performance. We’ve got to get preschool education for every child in America.

In America we’ve got to take a much more proactive role in helping Americans help themselves. Families need help. Families need leadership. Families need an advocate. I’m not talking about someone who hands out dollars or food stamps in a program and who says “Oh, I’m sorry, you don’t meet the criteria for the program.” I’m talking about people who know that family and will stand up and argue for that family. And if the programs don’t work to help our people, they’ll get those programs changed. So, I think we’ve got to really have a broad front program to help this country. If we don’t, we’re not going to be competitive in the larger, global environment. And ultimately, America’s strength, as General Eisenhower said is not our Armed Forces. It’s America’s economy. It’s the men and women who work and the men and women who put those companies together and lead those companies. And it’s teamwork. And it’s about teamwork.

I think our labor unions have a vital role in this. Our labor unions have to be strengthened. We need the ability to do real training,

(Applause)

And real education through the unions.

(Applause)

I think the union movement is the real secret weapon of the American economy. We just have to turn it loose.

Unions are the only real, effective, market method of bringing greater economic equality into society. Support them. Wes Clark does. He understands the economy better than any of the announced Democratic candidates, and they aren't even in the same league with him when it comes to foreign policy and national security. He has to be the next president. Write to him and ask him to run for president. He has to know people support him. Go to the Clark Community Network and make your voice heard.

Spread this around

I couldn't put it better myself.

racial progress?

Remember when white women would falsely accuse black men of rape? I'm sure they still do, but it doesn't lead to lynchings and outrageously unfair trials the way it used to. But I'm also sure most people alive today can't remember the kind of fear the possibility of a false rape allegation kept most black men in. Americans are much more mature in the 21st century.

Or are we? Well, nobody was murdered over the false rape allegations recently filed by a black woman against several white men on the Duke University Lacrosse Team. Despite the lynch mob mentality of several politically correct commentators who assumed the guilt of the young men in question, and the even more outrageous mentality of Ann Coulter, who not only assumed their guilt but who even justified their alleged behavior, it turns out to have been just another false rape allegation. I guess that's racial progress of a sort. Now there is enough racial equality that a black woman can make false rape allegations against white men and be believed. It's not gender progress, though, and it doesn't speak well of the human race. It especially doesn't speak well of the people who believed the allegations without waiting for the evidence and weighing it.

from the Associated Press, via the Winston Salem Journal:

As word spread yesterday that all remaining charges had been dropped against three Duke lacrosse players accused of sexually assaulting an exotic dancer, there was at least one point beyond dispute: This case was poison for everyone touched by it.

More evidence that Bush is fixing for a fight with Iran

This is from The Guardian:

The US offered to take military action on behalf of the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran, including buzzing Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions with warplanes,

Luckily the British administration has finally learned to just say NO!

The British declined the offer and said the US could calm the situation by staying out of it. London also asked the US to tone down military exercises that were already under way in the Gulf.

This is the most important, unreported story

THIS IS NOT AN APRIL FOOL STORY!!

and it needs to get noticed, it needs to get immediate attention, and it should get that attention ahead of Iraq, global warming and every other issue, because if the bees die off, we won't be far behind.

Now if you're like most people you probably think of bees as a nuisance, you probably got stung by one when you were a kid, you might even be allergic to one, and you stay as far away as possible from them. Oh, yes, if you think about it, you remember that honey comes from bees, and honey tastes nice, so maybe bees aren't all bad. Still you don't think about them much, and are content to let them remain someone else's concern. You just don't mess with them.

Bees are much more important than most people, at least people who aren't farmers (and it's been a long time since most Americans were farmers) think. Bees pollinate crops. We eat those crops. Many crops we eat require bees to pollinate them so they can reproduce. If bees become extinct, many crops will follow. Some think we will be next into extinction ourselves. Maybe intelligent mushrooms will evolve in a few billion years, but I'm not waiting around to find out.

Here are some stories about the problem:

Illinois Farm Bureau

The Illinois State Beekeepers Association (ISBA) will conduct its 2007 Midwest Beekeeping Symposium June 9th at the McHenry County College Conference Center in Crystal Lake.

"2007 will be a crucial year for beekeepers, gardeners and farmers as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) makes headlines across the U.S. and devastates honeybee colonies," says ISBA president Ken Haller.

Where have all the bees gone?

Researchers are looking for known and unknown diseases, chemicals in the wax and food reserves or pollen and bee bread, which is how bees store pollen. The bees themselves are being probed for gross evidence of disease to make sure they are digesting their food properly, Mr. vanEngelsdorp said. The protein bees store in their bodies also is being investigated.

Colony collapse disorder is the latest name for an ailment that leaves bee hives suddenly empty.

Lewisburg beekeeper Dave Hackenberg is pointing the finger at a relatively new class of insecticide, neonicotinoids. The insecticide weakens an insect's immune system so the bug becomes an easy target for mites, viruses and fungi. It also affects bee behavior; an infected bee leaves the hive and forgets to return home.

Colony collapse malady imperils crops

Colony collapse disorder has been reported in 24 U.S. states, with bee losses of up to 90 per cent in some hives, according to a study. The U.S. agriculture department says $14.6 billion (U.S.) of pollinated crops may be threatened.

Of course the Bush administration has been slow about this. After all, they think the government is part of the problem:

from COX NEWS SERVICE

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has failed to grasp the urgency of a mysterious plague that has killed millions of honeybees, threatening billions of dollars worth of crops that depend on the insect pollinators, the chairman of a House subcommittee charged.

and probably the best article I could find.

Theories about the cause of the so-called colony collapse disorder range from illnesses, stress from traveling all over the country with their keepers to pollinate fruits and vegetables, and mites that feast on them. Or it can be a combination of things, bee experts said.

You can do it to the country

but apparently you can't do it to a private company.

from CNN:

U.S. prosecutors on Monday charged David Stockman, a former chief executive of Collins & Aikman, and seven other former company officials with fraud and conspiracy related to alleged financial misdeeds at the bankrupt auto parts maker.

Stockman, a former Reagan administration budget director, and three others are accused of misleading the company's investors to hide its declining financial condition, according to an indictment brought by federal prosecutors in Manhattan.

It sounds rather similar to what Stockman was doing for the Reagan administration, which he allegedly suffered remorse for. Unfortunately we can't prosecute him, or the rest of the Reagan administration, for what they did to the US financially.

More important, we can't prosecute the even more irresponsible Bush II administration. At least we can't prosecute them for this. We can prosecute them for so much more, and we have to, if only to get them out of office before they do further damage.

Republicans are in their own little world

In the April edition of Esquire magazine, Hagel described Bush as someone who doesn't believe he's accountable to anyone. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes," Hagel told the magazine.

Yes, Senator Chuck Hagel actually believes that you "might see calls for [Bush's] impeachment" in the future. Someone should alert him to the fact that a very large proportion of Americans, possibly a majority, want the president impeached. It is long since that large majorities said they wanted him impeached if he lied about Iraq. It is long since that that he has been proved to have lied about Iraq. IMPEACH HIM ALREADY!!!

This is from Op-edNews.com:

Sentiment for impeachment among several impeachment polls conducted in early 2006 ranged from 30%-42%. However, by October support was increasing. A Newsweek poll, which was hardly publicized, found 51% of Americans supported impeachment, with 44% opposed.[*]

But the major media have increasingly ignored these polls. As impeachment sentiment has risen, so has the reluctance of the press to address the issue.

Did he confess to the Lindbergh kidnapping, too?

From Ann Wright at Truthout:

Graham said with a twinkle in his eye that "Americans don't mind torture; they really don't." Then he smiled broadly, almost gleefully, and said that the US had used certain interrogation techniques on "Sheikh Mohammed, one of the 'high-value' targets" - techniques that "you really don't want to know about, but they got really good results."

If they tortured him, how can we believe anything he says? Or doesn't Senator Graham care how truthful his confession is, as long as it helps Republicans win elections?

The US budget deficit - What is to be done?

Here it is, the reality:

Deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars, as far as even the lying Bush White House can figure it.

A gross federal debt that amounts to more than a third of annual GNP, with no plan to pay it off. Ever.

It's funny how this issue has gone from being a conservative issue to being a liberal issue, but it's really a result of conservatives not really understanding Keynesian economics. Keynesian spending policies are supposed to be countercyclical. When the business cycle is going down, you run a deficit to stimulate the economy out of the recession. (The exact mix of fiscal (spending) and monetary (money supply, i.e. interest rate) policy is a matter of policy, but the role of the government in stimulating the economy out of a recession is accepted by most economists these days.) When the business cycle is on the upturn (what used to be popularly referred to as "good times") the government should run a surplus to take some of the 'irrational exuberance' out of the economy and cool it down. That's what BIll Clinton was doing during the 1990s boom. Say what you will about Bill, but he was an economic policy wonk.

There's a new kind of "vulgar Keynesianism" on the right (apologies to vulgar Marxists) that has resulted in the assumption that deficits don't matter. This new conservative orthodoxy represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what modern Keynesian economics and its countercyclical policies are all about. These people may understand the microeconomics of running a business enterprise (although Bush doesn't), but they do not understand the macroeconomics of running the American economy.

Someone else asks "Are conservatives naïve or just plain stupid?" I wonder myself, but I think that either way what this really means is that conservatives (or most of them) just don't understand modern Keynesian economics. I honestly would like to make survey macroeconomics a required course in American universities. But back to economic policy.

I can only see four ways out of this. There's not enough fat in the budget to cut, and ending foreign aid won't solve this.

Oh, and don't even THINK about not paying it. The 14th Amendment says you can't even QUESTION the national debt.

1. Throw out the Defense Department. There's enough expenditure there to balance the budget, but there goes America's stature as a world power. There goes the safety of Americans in the world, I would say. It would be effective national suicide.

2. Drop Social Security. That seems to be Bush's preferred solution, but he can't get any traction for it. Fuggedaboutit.

3. Print money. This one doesn't get much attention because of the US's bad experience with inflation in the 1970s. I wouldn't favor it, but you could pay off the debt by printing money. As more and more of this debt is held overseas, this may become a more and more popular solution. But it would wreak havoc on the economy, and it would be VERY difficult to get the effects out of the economy. Just ask anyone in Latin America.

4. Raise taxes. I mean, honestly, they shouldn't have been cut in the first place. This administration's solution to everything is to cut taxes. It's time to get real about the economy. We have to repeal the Bush tax cuts. Then we have to figure out what to do about the economy, which may involve raising taxes even higher to pay for the accumulated debt. Of course the details will depend on the business cycle, not to mention policy considerations, but it's time to stop worrying about being called a "tax and spend" liberal. It's better than being a "spend and spend and spend" conservative.

The media horse race and the presidency

I don't want any more unqualified presidents. I don't want any more Fundamentalists, or ideologues who want to abolish Social Security, or anyone else with fringe ideas, either, but the worst problem with Bush is his complete lack of qualifications (and I don't mean credentials, or other paper qualifications) to be president.

Hillary is a nice person, who knows a lot about health insurance but not much else. Most of the people who back her seem to think she would bring Bill back to the White House, and that is what they are really interested in. Nineties nostalgia is what it's all about. Bring back the nineties.

Barack Obama is wonderful. I love him, but as a first term Senator, with no foreign policy experience, and little national experience, he's just not qualified yet. He's got plenty of years to go (I know, we thought that about Jack Kennedy, too, until his assassination - but you can't worry about that except to try to prevent it) so there's no hurry to make him president.

Edwards? Please. He couldn't carry his own state last time, and didn't even run for Senate from there because his own fellow North Carolinians were ready to dump him. His whole thing seems to be that he's southern, and the Democrats have to nominate a southerner if they expect to win the White House again. Maybe, but Edwards won't win the south.

All of these people will go down in flames in the general election. I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for them. I can't imagine voting for any Republican over any of them, but I know they're going to lose the general election.

General Clark is the most qualified to lead the country out of the two wars we are in. If you're worried that electing a general will lead to militarism or more wars, there's no historical precedent for it. Of the six professional military generals we've had for president (Washington, Jackson, Harrison, Taylor, Grant and Eisenhower) only Eisenhower has had a war during his term. He inherited the Korean War and shut it down as fast as he could. Eisenhower is also the only president who has warned us about the military industrial complex.

General Clark promises to do the same thing to Bush's war in Iraq, and he is the only candidate who knows how to do it safely. Furthermore, he knows as much about economic issues as the other candidates, and is the only candidate who will unabashedly call himself a liberal. But somehow the media keep ignoring him.

He's the only candidate who knows what he's doing. All he has to do to get my vote is to ask for it.

Oh, and he's a southerner, if you're worried about that. I don't care. I'll vote for him anyway. ;-)

Secretary Rice's history lesson

I already said she had the wrong qualifications for an administration with two wars going on in the Islamic world.

Keith Olbermann lets the world know just how bad it is.

Bush losing even his new friends

Remember how Bush's "tough" policies had (supposedly) finally tamed Colonel Qaddafi? How Bush's invasion of Iraq had convinced Qaddafi to stop terrorism and turn in his WMD, before he got invaded likewise? Well, this is just in from the BBC:

Britain and America now suggest the Libyan leader is a model for others to follow.

Libya - by rejecting terrorism and then, in 2003, surrendering its nuclear and other unconventional weapons research - earned the lifting of sanctions and lost the status of a pariah.

But still Col Gaddafi can be combative.

"Libya has not been properly compensated, so other countries, like Iran and North Korea will not follow his lead."

"This should be a model to be followed, but Libya is disappointed because the promises given by America and Britain were not fulfilled...

"And therefore those countries said we are not going to follow Libya's example because Libya abolished its programme without any compensation... This destroyed that model... no-one is going to follow that model as a result," he said.

Read the rest of the Interview at the BBC website.

That "House divided" quotation

I've been listening to the Congressional debate about the Iraq resolution, and I'm listening over and over to Congressional representatives quote the saying "A house divided against itself cannot stand." (Somehow no one says anything about a Senate.) They all attribute it to Abraham Lincoln.

I know that most Americans associate the phrase with Lincoln, and for good reason, because he used it to great effect in the Lincoln Douglas debates. But Lincoln was quoting someone else.

One of Lincoln's favorite sources was the Bible, that indispensable basis of English literature. The quote is actually from Jesus, in the Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 12:

22. Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? 24 But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. 25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: 26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast [them] out? therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. 29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. 30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. 31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come. 33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by [his] fruit. 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

I quote from the King James version, not because I think it is the best translation, but because it is the literary version in English, and this is about allusion in English, not about theology.

What really shocks me is that many of the Congressional representatives who think they are quoting Lincoln, not realizing that he was quoting Jesus, think they are Bible-believing Christians and that the United States is supposed to be a Christian nation based on the Bible. Have they even read the Bible? They certainly don't know it very well. By their words in the Congress they shall be judged, and by their words in Congress they shall be condemned.

Republicans are the real "Democrat Party"

Huh?

No, I'm not kidding. The Republican Party in the U.S. belongs to something called the "Democrat International". It is an international organization of political parties that organizes Conservative and rightist parties. Their membership is worldwide, but is especially strong among European conservative parties. They cooperate in the European Parliament, and seek to extend their influence elsewhere. Why the Republicans are in the International with them I do not know.

For the record, the Democratic Party is in neither the Liberal International, nor the Socialist International, and is, AFAIK, not in any international political organization.

Wow, that was fast!

Here's the lowdown:

The Army court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, which ended in a mistrial Wednesday, may have stranger turns ahead: Prohibitions against double jeopardy may keep prosecutors from having a second trial, his lawyer and a legal expert say.

I suspect that the military and the administration don't want a ruling on the legality of the war, and are afraid they will lose. Too bad. I was hoping they would lose.

Why DID the US invade Iraq, anyway?

We know it wasn't 9/11. Bush never even pretended it was, and I don't know how anyone got any idea that there was some connection between Iraq and 9/11.

WMD? Joseph Wilson and others debunked that before we went in. Bush knew there weren't any, and he lied about it, not just to the public, but to Congress, which is criminal.

To impose democracy? That's a great oxymoron. I can't take that seriously. I hope they didn't. They never even made noises about invading Equatorial Guinea, North Korea (which actually has WMD) or Myanmar.

Bush wouldn't even take the question from Cindy Sheehan. Helen Thomas cornered him at a press conference, but he couldn't come up with a coherent response.

Oil? Why not invade Venezuela? Bush doesn't exactly like them either. Or Equatorial Guinea.

I guess it was "This guy tried to kill my Dad." Bush really thinks his family owns the US of A.

Civil disobedience

The American tradition that everyone, even Nat Turner, is entitled to a day in court is so strong that people will deliberately violate the law to get a day in court and challenge the law. H.D. Thoreau did it personally to challenge the Mexican War. The IWW had free speech fights to challenge the kind of threats to freedom of expression that called forth the ACLU into being. Dr. King did it to challenge segregation laws. Billy Mitchell even did it to bring attention to the future of air power. Of course his situation was a little different. The law he broke wasn't the one he wanted to make the issue, but the principle is the same. He went out of his way to deliberately violate a law to get a day in court and turn it into a platform. Lt. Watada violated the law that he wished to make the issue, and his day in court is a wonderful chance to challenge the legality of the war in Iraq. I hope he wins his case. [crosposted @ D-Kos]

The latest as of today:

On the first day of the court-martial in Fort Lewis, an Army base near Seattle, Watada explained that he saw the order to go to Iraq and support combat operations as illegal because the war itself was illegal.

Wesley Clark at the DNC Winter Meeting, February 2, 2007.

Democrats.org has a post called "Wesley Clark Video" that's worth checking out...

Wes's speech still isn't tuned to the audience, which was hardcore Dems who reacted more to Hillary than to Wes. But I think that Wes's sentiments will appeal more to the country at large, not to mention the fact that he has far more experience with foreign policy and national security affairs. Hillary does have the one issue of health care down, and I know that that's important, but I don't think it's as critical as either the threat of global warming or the disastrous war and our relations with the rest of the world. We can deal with health care when we get more pressing issues out of the way, and Hillary would be the person to push universal coverage through Congress.

But let's not forget Barack Obama! He doesn't have enough experience to be president yet, but one day he will make one of the best we ever had.

In the meantime I think Wes Clark is not only the most qualified candidate in any party, I think he is the Democrat with the best chance of winning in today's world. Maybe he should have used this speech instead:

Studying countries that no longer exist

Condoleeza Rice and I have something in common. We are both experts in the history of countries that no longer exist.

Now, when she began to study the Soviet Union it did exist and she did not expect it to become history as soon as it did. No one did.

The successor states to the Soviet Union are still important in world affairs. Russia in particular is still a major power, if no longer a superpower in the same category as the United States. So her expertise is important.

However, many of the problems of the world today, from Bosnia to Palestine to Iraq, are the result of the collapse of an empire which collapsed long before the Soviet Union. I am, of course, referring to the Ottoman Empire. The problems caused by the collapse of that long ago empire, not the problems caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union, are the problems that are causing the most problems for the United States today.

Isn't it about time we had a Secretary of State, or a National Security advisor, who is an expert on the Ottoman Empire?

I was wrong

I've been saying that the era of airline hijackings was over. After 9/11 and United flight 93 no passengers would sit still for a hijacking. The shoe-bomber just proved the point, as far as I was concerned.

This just in from Sudan.

So I was wrong. At least I didn't bet any money on it!

Are the Bushites afraid they will be prosecuted?

I hope so. But even more, I hope they WILL be prosecuted for their crimes. It would do a lot to fix the United States of America, and almost as importantly, to fix our reputation in the rest of the world. Watergate didn't affect our international reputation as much as the Iraq invasion has. That was affected by the Vietnam War, which Nixon and Kissinger could argue they inherited and were trying to end, and by such bad deeds as the overthrow of Allende, which really wasn't very related to Watergate. But I digress.

Here's the story from TPMmuckraker.com:

At an oversight hearing this morning, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) grilled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over the sudden departure of several U.S. Attorneys at the administration's request.

This is informative

I think most people with any knowledge of history, or old enough to remember Khrushchev and his shoe, will recognize that the Soviet threat was not invented by the Neocons.

You should also know that "Jahiliyya" literally means "ignorance" and refers to the state of illiteracy and polytheism that the pre-Islamic Arabs lived in. That this "ignorance" of God and of the benefits of civilization is something Sayyid Qutb saw taking over the world speaks more to his own troubled mind than to reality.



N.B. Most, almost all, Islamists are western educated, and have been cut off from traditional Islamic knowledge. Some of the best and most informed attacks on them have been by traditional Islamic scholars.

TIME

No, not the newsmagazine, the way things keep changing, and how they never change back. The "inexorable march of" thing, if it is a thing. the direction of which is defined by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Is it an illusion? Certainly we experience events in time, but to an objective observer (God?) are all events at any point in time just as real? Is it only from the way we experience events that they seem to happen in sequence? Why can't we go back (or forward) to experience events out of sequence? Will we be able to go back and/or forth when we understand the nature of time better? Why hasn't anyone come back to experience us yet? Or maybe they have? Is antimatter just matter going backwards? It looks that way in a Feynman diagram.

Living in the present (how can you avoid it?) does it really avoid the other times? Does the present moment include all three times (and if so are there nine times? the past, present and future in the past, the same three times in the present, and again in the future?) or does it exclude them? If the present, which so quickly becomes the past, is real, is not the past which it becomes just as real? Or is the present even real? If existence in time is not real, what is? Is there existence outside of time? If it is outside of the space-time continuum that we call the universe (i.e. all that exists) can we call it "existence" at all? How can we divide the present from the future and the past, when the future seems to slide as seemlessly into the present as the present does into the past? "Carpe Diem" sounds nice, but by the time we seize the day it disappears and becomes yesterday. Non-abiding is all we can do, and we must accept it.

Speaking of the space-time continuum, I wonder if there are other universes in which movement in time is free, but movement in a spatial dimension is constant, inexorable and unidirectional, as with what we experience as time in this universe. Would that spatial dimension become the functional equivalent of time? Is that what "time" in our dimension constitutes? From the outside, if there is an outside, is time another spatial dimension? What would the universe, experienced differently, "look" like? What does it look like experienced from outside of time, (assuming that there is an experience of that perspective)?

But why speculate about this? It is typically human to wonder about things we can never know. We humans think ourselves blessed by this faculty, and hope to have answers some day. Maybe instead of being blessed we are cursed with this, and will never know answers. I don't know. I only know that I have questions, but not their answers, and that there are worse things than speculating about these things. Maybe they are what life is all about, just questions, never any answers.

My favorite Jazz musician is no longer with us!

from e-jazz news:

Jazz pianist Alice Coltrane, widow of jazz saxophonist John Coltrane, died on Friday, January 12th at the West Hills Hospital near Los Angeles, California. She was 69.

Mrs. Coltrane was born Alice Lucille McLeod in Detroit, Michigan August 27, 1937. As a young girl, she studied classical piano and began playing organ in local churches. Bud Powell was one of her early teachers. She played piano with her brother, Ernest Farrow, in several Detroit clubs before moving to New York in the early 1960’s to pursue a career in jazz. There, while playing at Birdland with vibraphonist Terry Gibbs, she met John Coltrane. They later married, and she performed in his quartet beginning in 1966 until his death in July of 1967.

There's so much sadness in me right now. She has meant so much to me for so many decades now. There is a void that will not be filled, not for a long, long time. If you never heard her music, go to iTunes or someplace and listen. She took off where John ended, moving into beautiful Indo-Jazz fusion in the 1970s. She didn't record as much as I would have liked, but I have most of her albums. Now there will never be new music from her.

I'm sorry. I just want to be alone right now. Excuse me.

As usual Olbermann says it better!

Thanks, Keith. Keep up the good work.

Who favors the "death tax"?

Everyone who follows the issue knows that Warren Buffett favors the inheritance tax.

What most people don't know is that the whole thing was the brainchild of Andrew Carnegie, who convinced Theodore Roosevelt to push for it to be made law. Carnegie made his money himself, and thought that others should make their own money, not inherit it. Permanent dynasties would be bad for the American "land of opportunity" dream.

Carnegie gave his money back to society, and felt other millionaires should do the same. If they didn't the government should take the money. If they didn't want the government to take the money, they should give it to charities of their own choice.

Bush isn't sending more troops

Bush doesn't have more troops. He's not sending anyone who hasn't already been to Iraq, over and over and over. He's asking the troops who've already been there to do more, and more, and more. Bush is taking a military that's stretched to the breaking point, and he's trying to stretch them just a tiny little bit more. Just to see if they break? Or because those voices in his head (that he thinks are God) tell him to? Or because he hates the US government and wants to destroy it? Or because he's seriously stupid?

I don't know. I just know he's not sending any more troops. Not because the Democrats (and a lot of the Republicans) in Congress won't let him. Because he doesn't have any more troops to send to Iraq. He's just asking the troops he has to do more when they're already doing all they can. That's why more of his generals have left. The same generals whom he says he listens to and whose advice he says he follows.

The man needs to be impeached. Yesterday.

De mortuis nil nisi bonum

It's not hard to say nothing bad about Gerry Ford. He was a nice guy, a rarely honest man in a profession full of scoundrels. He was also my first Congressional representative.

Everyone else has given their respects and their eulogies, although I have yet to hear anyone mention Gerry's being the straight man on the old "Ev and Gerry Show" back in the 1960s. He and Senator Everett Dirksen led the Republicans in the Congress, and went on TV to give the regular Republican response to the Democratic presidents' press conferences.

I'd like to remember Gerry for something personal, though. One of my first political memories is of a tornado in the district, and how Gerry got federal aid to the victims. Ever since I was a little kid I had warm feelings about him, more so as I learned how atypical he was as a politician. I was very happy to see him become the first president who never campaigned for the office (or at least for Vice President) since George Washington, and I didn't find it strange that he, who had so little of the consuming ambition that makes and breaks politicians at every level, also became the first and only president who lost a war. He did what had to be done, and we are a better nation for everything he did for us. I never voted for him, but I listened carefully to everything he said and I always respected him.

They don't seem to make Republicans like that anymore, or many politicians of any party.