Impolitically Correct

Go back to my first posts.

2011-05-01T23:59:00.000-07:00

This is what I had been waiting for, almost giving up.

As I later and often said, if Obama can catch bin Ladin and fix the economy, he will be re-elected.

Count on it.

IndictBushNow.org:

2010-11-05T01:02:00.000-07:00

IndictBushNow.org:

Let's face it, the Republicans in Congress are going to go back to their old playbook, investigating the president to see if he had a blow job on company time.

Obama MUST appoint a special prosecutor, if only to cover his own behind.

The old excuse was that he wanted to look forward, wanted to work with the Republicans, and wanted to avoid appearing vindictive and partisan.

Those arguments don't hold anymore, and when the Republicans go after him, he's going to have to fight back.

After all, they are a LOT more vulnerable to investigations than he is.

UN special rapporteur on torture Manfred Nowak declared that the Obama administration had a legal and moral obligation to fully investigate credible claims of US forces' complicity in torture. Nick Clegg, the deputy Prime Minister in the UK has, in the wake of the recent revelations, also called for an investigation into the reports of mass torture disclosed in the newly released documents.

Yemen bomb plot: key questions raised - Telegraph

2010-10-30T17:19:00.000-07:00

Yemen bomb plot: key questions raised - Telegraph

Any successful terrorist attack on either US soil or on US aircraft during this period would have had an enormous symbolic and political impact, spreading fear and panic among voters and raising doubts over Barack Obama's strategy of containing terrorism in Afghanistan. The President's expected appearance in Chicago today would have given any terrorist attack further significance.

HOW WAS THE PLOT FOILED?

Details of the plot began to emerge on Thursday night when MI6 received a tip-off from Saudi intelligence services.

NEW EVIDENCE that Alvin Greene’s “win” in SC was STOLEN! :: News From Underground

2010-08-16T16:27:00.000-07:00

NEW EVIDENCE that Alvin Greene’s “win” in SC was STOLEN! :: News From Underground

Mail-in paper ballot election results just received from each South Carolina county under Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests confirm that there were enough voting discrepancies in the recent U.S. Senate Democratic primary to have reversed the election outcome. That race had dramatic, inexplicable discrepancies between the verifiable mail-in absentee paper ballot results and the unverifiable electronic voting results recorded on Election Day, June 8.

U.S. public libraries: We lose them at our peril - Los Angeles Times

2010-07-10T14:41:00.000-07:00

U.S. public libraries: We lose them at our peril - Los Angeles Times

McChrystal Drama is Sideshow; Can Obama define a realistic Goal? | Informed Comment

2010-06-23T03:57:00.000-07:00

McChrystal Drama is Sideshow; Can Obama define a realistic Goal? | Informed Comment

In short, Karzai appears to be attempting to strike a deal with the very Taliban and insurgents that Obama says he is pledged to uproot and destroy.

How can that make sense?

How indeed, unless Karzai is so much Bush's man that he would rather lose the war than see a Democrat win it.

Texas State Board of Education approves new curriculum standards | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Texas Regional News

2010-05-21T16:21:00.000-07:00

Texas State Board of Education approves new curriculum standards | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Texas Regional News

U.S. and its history as a “Christian land governed by Christian principles.”

The United States Constitution was not handed by God to George Washington on Mt. Sinai. It was written by a groups of "We the people" (including a lot of Deists and Unitarians like Benjamin Franklin) for six specific purposes, which I had to memorize when I went to school.

Isn't it about time students had to memorize the Preamble to the Constitution again, instead of saying the Protestant Lord's Prayer in public school?

U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric - NYTimes.com

2010-04-25T03:07:00.000-07:00

U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric - NYTimes.com

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said.

Really? Are you sure?

Didn't Robert Ford collect a reward for shooting Jesse James in the back of the head?

Robert Ford, it was a fact,
shot Jesse in the back,
while Jesse hung a picture on the wall.

- The Ballad of Jesse James

Meanwhile here's the Republican criticism of Obama's move (from the same story as above):

A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president.

WELL, WHY THE &%$#! NOT!!!

Bush was swaggering around shouting "Wanted: Dead or Alive" but not really doing anything.

At least now we have a president who's going to act more than he talks.

Ephphatha Poetry: "Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black" - Tim Wise

2010-04-25T00:14:00.000-07:00

Ephphatha Poetry: "Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black" - Tim Wise

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose

It goes on, but you get the point. Or you should.

Ron Paul: President Obama Is Not A Socialist | TPMDC

2010-04-11T00:03:00.000-07:00

Ron Paul: President Obama Is Not A Socialist | TPMDC

"The question has been raised about whether or not our president is a socialist," Paul said. "I am sure there are some people here who believe it. But in the technical sense, in the economic definition of a what a socialist is, no, he's not a socialist."

"He's a corporatist," Paul continued. "And unfortunately we have corporatists inside the Republican party and that means you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country."

Finally, a sane voice in the Republican Party. Too bad they won't listen to him.

If at First You Don’t Succeed, Hope for Activist Judges

2010-04-01T22:14:00.000-07:00

If at First You Don’t Succeed, Hope for Activist Judges

The attorneys general offer no serious rebuttal to this reality that Congress has sweeping authority to enact economic regulation, and a requirement that all Americans be insured is economic in nature. Instead, they claim that health reform is unconstitutional merely because it is unusual. In the words of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, “at no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service.”

Cuccinelli is not telling the truth. President George Washington signed the Second Militia Act of 1792, which required a significant percentage of the U.S. civilian population to purchase—at their own expense—“a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack” along with various other items they would need if the president ever called them up to serve in the militia. Many of the members of Congress who voted to enact this law were also members of the Philadelphia Convention that wrote the Constitution itself.

Granted that Qadhdhafi is a nutcase, but Arab nationalism just can't work.

2010-03-31T22:42:00.001-07:00

It's time to abolish the Arab League | Muslims Debate

In 2009, Gaddafi stormed out of the Doha Summit after he denounced King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia as a "British product, and [an] American ally." When Shaikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani of Qatar tried to rein him in, the Libyan responded: "I am an international leader, the dean of the Arab rulers, the king of kings of Africa and the imam of Muslims, and my international status does not allow me to descend to a lower level." In Sirte, Gaddafi took aim at the Qatari's weight, declared that Shaikh Hamad was "better than [him] at filling a void," before bursting into laughter. A few years ago, he told summiteers in Algeria that Palestinians and Israelis were "stupid" and that Israel should be invited to join the League. He even coined the term Isratine, Israel and Palestine, in the Oz-like fantasy land he envisaged.

"The Arabs have agreed to disagree." has been attributed to ibn Khaldun. I don't know if the attribution is correct, but the saying is certainly true.

It's about time!

2010-03-02T23:45:00.000-08:00

Pakistan's Army takes control of al-Qaeda cave network on Afghan border - Times Online

Pakistani forces have taken control of a warren of caves that served until recently as the nerve centre of the Taleban and al-Qaeda and sheltered Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second-in-command to Osama bin Laden.

Let's hope this good news can continue!

For those disappointed by Obama - it's 1965 all over again.

2010-02-22T04:41:00.001-08:00

Cyrus Roberts Vance, Lieutenant, United States Navy & Public Official

This, in a nutshell, was the unself-conscious voice of the establishment - the one that Jimmy Carter ran against so vigorously that his campaign manager, Hamilton Jordan, once said: "If, after the inauguration, you find a Cy Vanceas secretary of state and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of national security, then I would say we failed. And I'd quit.''

Mr. Vance was Mr. Carter's first appointee, followed soon after by Mr. Brzezinski. Mr. Jordan did not quit.

I remember that. I learned a big and important lesson about American politics.

If you didn't figure out then that the "outsider" and "independent" candidates are set up, or you weren't born yet, figure it out now. Obama was never the revolutionary (much less the Marxist or Muslim terrorist) the Republican party tried to portray him as.

You can get some change in the system. You can't overthrow the system. Nor should you. Few people really won when the Western Roman Empire fell. Not even most of the barbarians.

You get a choice of two candidates, and some protest votes, in most US elections. You have to choose the lesser evil. Obama was the lesser evil last time, not the second coming. And not the anti-Christ.

If you want to get angry about something, get angry about having your choice revoked.

McCain proffered an insurance mandate with no public option. That's the bogus plan they got in Massachusetts that they are rebelling against.

Obama offered a public option with no mandate.

So what are we about to get if we don't get active? What we voted against.

Anyone else remember 1964? We voted for a candidate who promised not to bomb North Vietnam over a candidate who promised to bomb.

What did we get? Carpet bombing, and a massive antiwar movement, and massive disgust with the government that lasted decades, from the credibility gap to Watergate to today's anti-government militants.

Don't let them take the public option away!! It's too important, not just for itself, but for democracy.

Legislation, smegislation! We need a Constitutional Amendment!

2010-02-18T00:55:00.000-08:00

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision - Yahoo! News

As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.

The poll's findings could enhance the possibility of getting a broad range of support behind a movement in Congress to pass legislation that would offset the Court's decision.

We need a Constitutional Amendment that says corporations are not "persons" in terms of the Constitution, before one decides it's over 35 and runs for president.

When another corporatist Supreme Court invalidated the income tax, people didn't wring their hands and passed legislation. They passed and ratified the 16th Amendment.

What is wrong with Congress that they don't get this? Everyone else seems to.

Finally, the US is really going after the enemy

2010-02-17T22:44:00.000-08:00

Exclusive: Another Taliban Leader Captured in Pakistan - Declassified Blog - Newsweek.com

Another leader of the Afghan Taliban has been captured by authorities in Pakistan working in partnership with U.S. intelligence officials. Taliban sources in the region and a counterterrorism officials in Washington have identified the detained insurgent leader as Mullah Abdul Salam, described as the Taliban movement's "shadow governor" of Afghanistan's Kunduz province.

Harry Shearer: Wait a Minute -- If It's a War, Aren't You Supposed to Kill Them?

2010-02-16T19:37:00.000-08:00

Harry Shearer: Wait a Minute -- If It's a War, Aren't You Supposed to Kill Them?

Last time I looked, if it's a war and you find an enemy on the battlefield, you kill him. That's pretty much the definition of what war is. You detain those who choose to surrender. Opting in the first instance to detain and interrogate someone, on the other hand, is what you're doing if you're running a criminal investigation. Oops.

Isn't it about time we forgot about this false dichotomy? The opposite of war is peace, not law enforcement. The opposite of law enforcement is crime, not war. There are even hybrid categories, like "war crime" and "illegal war" that would be especially appropriate in this instance.

In the struggle against al-Qa'ida there is a place for war and a place for law enforcement. There is even a place to combine them. War crimes should be prosecuted on both sides impartially. If you want to detain someone indefinitely just declare them a PoW. If you want to convict someone and put them in prison, get the evidence and bring them to court. If you want to try them in a military tribunal, declare them a war criminal. In this case we have a choice.

Lawrence O'Donnell Rages On Bush Speechwriter Marc Thiessen: 'Your Administration Invited The First Attack' (VIDEO)

2010-02-12T19:48:00.000-08:00

Anyone else remember "Bin Ladin determined to attack inside the US"? The Bush administration was warned about al-Qa'ida and ignored all warnings. The Republican line was "Wag the Dog", that this was just a phony scare used by the Democrats to distract the nation from the all-important Monica Lewinsky "zippergate" scandal that was so important to them. Now they pretend that torture works.

You know what? The guy that tortured Sayyid Qutb thought he prevented a plot to flood the Nile Delta and kill millions of people.

They guys who tortured Muslim Brothers after the attempted assassination of Nasser thought they prevented plots to kill every Arab leader in the world.

Have these Republicans no sense of shame? Are they really stupid enough to believe their propaganda? Or are they just convinced Americans are that stupid?

Lawrence O'Donnell Rages On Bush Speechwriter Marc Thiessen: 'Your Administration Invited The First Attack' (VIDEO)

How to tell if your Senator reads your letter

2010-02-09T20:43:00.000-08:00

Here's an actual letter, with my actual name, but the Senator's deleted:

Dear Dr. Ph.D.:

Thank you for taking the time to write and share your views with me. Your comments will help me continue to represent you and other Californians to the best of my ability. Be assured that I will keep your views in mind as the Senate considers legislation on this or similar issues.

If you would like additional information about my work in the U.S. Senate, I invite you to visit my website, http://[deleted].senate.gov. From this site, you can send a message to me about current events or pending legislation, access my statements and press releases, request copies of legislation and government reports, and receive detailed information about the many services that I am privileged to provide for my constituents. You may also wish to visit http://thomas.loc.gov to track current and past federal legislation.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I appreciate hearing from you.

Good advice for Dems from Bernie Sanders

2010-01-23T18:18:00.001-08:00

Blueprint for Dems

In my view, the Democrats--including the president--have absurdly continued to stumble along the path of "bipartisanship" at exactly the same time the Republicans have waged the most vigorous partisan and obstructionist strategy in recent history. . . .
§ Perhaps most important, let Obama be Obama. Bring back one of the great inspirational leaders of our time, who is more than capable of taking on the powerful special interests and rallying the American people toward a progressive agenda and a more just society. . . .
§ Pass the strongest healthcare reform legislation as soon as feasible - making it clear that it will be significantly improved in the near future. . . .
§ Pass a major bill that creates millions of new jobs rebuilding our infrastructure and moving our energy system in a different and sustainable direction. . . .
§ Pass legislation allowing workers to have the right to join unions without unfair and illegal opposition from their employers. . . .
§ Boldly address the economic and financial crisis, which has left 17 percent of our workforce unemployed or underemployed. . . .

Should there be a state of emergency in Jos?

2010-01-21T02:59:00.001-08:00

allAfrica.com: Nigeria: Jos - Senate Rejects Motion for State of Emergency

When Senate President David Mark put the question majority of senators voted against it. The Senate however resolved that the Plateau State Government and other relevant security agencies should "Fish out the perpetrators and sponsors of this latest act of violence and bring them to book to serve as deterrent to others with similar tendencies."

Good background on the riots from Al Jazeera English

2010-01-21T02:28:00.000-08:00

Al Jazeera English - Africa - Clashes near Nigerian city of Jos

Charles Dokubo, from the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, told Al Jazeera: "There is more than the religious aspect of it. There are two communities - one that call themselves settlers and one that call themselves indigenous communities.

"The crisis in the north started with the creation a local government."

Dokubo said that Muslim settlers were to manage the government, which was unacceptable to the indigenous Christian community who consider them non-citizens.

"The main cause of the crisis is about administration and the place where people belong."

The only correction I would add is that the indigenes don't consider them non-citizens, rather they consider them strangers or guests (same concept in Africa) and they believe they should have the rights of guests, not of indigenous people, or "sons of the soil" in African terms.

Great post from Juan Cole

2010-01-21T02:19:00.001-08:00

Critics of Obama often charge him with failing to end the Iraq War. But there is no longer an Iraq War. There are US bases in a country where indigenous forces are still fighting a set of low-intensity struggles, with little US involvement. Obama is having his troops leave exactly as quickly as the Iraqi parliament asked him to.

Why is there no left in the United States?

2009-12-05T18:47:00.000-08:00

That's the question.

There is no Socialist, Communist or Labor Party in the United States. Those parties are what pass for left in other countries, and every country that allows them has them. Except the United States. In the US, liberal Democrats are the left. In the UK, or Germany, they are the center. In Japan they are the right, although their policies are little different from those of American liberal Democrats. Even Canada has Liberals in the center, Conservatives on the right, and the Socialist International member New Democratic Party on the left. That's what is meant when it is said that the United States is a Center-Right country. Not that the American left can't take power, but that the American left is anyone else's center.

"Here's the latest book about it.

I. DEFINITION

The first thing we need to do is define "Socialist" in this context. Just to be fair, even to the crazy wingnuts who insist that liberalism = Socialism = Communism = Naziism, we will take a very broad, multi-definition approach.

1. Any member party of the Socialist International qualifies as Socialist. Any member of such a Party would qualify as a Socialist. That makes everyone from Nelson Mandela to Tony Blair a Socialist. Of course, in the context of the British Labor Party a "Socialist" is something more, but I don't speak British, and you probably don't either. D-Kos certainly isn't written in British.

2. If that's not broad enough for you, let's include anyone who self-identifies as Socialist. That includes Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian Socialism, even though he and his party aren't in the Socialist International. Just to make the wingnuts happy we can even include Hitler here, despite the fact that the German Social Democrats, the real German Socialist Party, was the one and only political party that actually voted against Hitler taking power in Germany. That even includes the Communists, who commonly denounced the Socialists as "Social Fascists" or worse. It's only in the United States that "Socialist" is an epithet instead of a description, and where "Red States" are on the right, not the left.

II. THE REAL AMERICAN SOCIALISTS

Once upon a time, there was a real Socialist Party in the United States. In 1912 they got 6% of the vote for President, elected two Congressional Representatives, and had dozens of mayors from Reading, Pennsylvania to Berkeley, California. This story has to be about what happened to them. They began declining, either in 1912 (when they purged their left wing), or in 1917 (when two Communist Parties split off) or in the 1930s (they had a brief resurgence in the Depression and got 2.2% of the presidential vote in 1932), but by the 1950s, instead of fusing with the Democrats as the Populists had, the Socialists had dwindled into insignificance, and no longer bothered with their presidential campaign. The Party suffered a three way split over the Vietnam War, but remained insignificant and relatively unknown to today. The graveyard of third parties in Jon Stewart's America: A Guide to Democracy Inaction ignores them, though it includes the Anti-Masons, and even the Communists, who never reached anywhere near the size of the Socialists.

III. WHY THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT THE SOCIALISTS (a brief aside):

It should be obvious that the Democrats are not the Socialists by now, if you hadn't figured that out from being a Democrat yourself. However, here's further proof if your wingnut friends and relatives don't get it.

When the Socialists split three ways over the Vietnam War, two of the successor groups, the Social Democrats U.S.A. (SDUSA) and the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC, which later merged with the New American Movement to form the Democratic Socialists of America, DSA) thought the Democratic Party should become the Socialist Party in the United States. They were both attracting some support back in the '80s. Congressman Ron Dellums ("Berkeley's Red Congressman" to the Republicans) joined DSA, while Senator Moynihan of New York would address SDUSA meetings and talk about how we had to take back the word "Socialism" from the Communists. But he never actually joined SDUSA.

Moderate Democrats, led by the then unknown governor of the obscure state of Arkansas, William Jefferson Clinton, were alarmed. They formed an organization you're all familiar with, the Democratic Leadership Council, (DLC) to counter the Socialist argument that the Democrats should move left and declare themselves the Socialist Party in the United States. Clinton rode his DLC and its opposition to Socialism all the way to the White House. The Democratic Socialists are today totally marginalized, and there's a good possibility that the Social Democrats don't even exist. Of course it didn't stop a certain Lush Windbag from calling Clinton a Socialist, but that just shows how marginal the real Socialists are from the American political conversation. I think everyone here knows the DLC, but their former nemeses are largely forgotten. Dems are blue, not red. (Thanks to John Yossarian for reminding us that the DSA still exists. I think most people even here were unaware of them.)

Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont did say, in response to Amy Goodman's direct question on DemocracyNow, that he considered himself a Democratic Socialist, but he runs as an independent, just like Joe Lieberman. The Dems don't run anyone against him because otherwise the Republicans might take his seat. He caucuses with the Democrats, again like Joe Lieberman does, because, hey, who's he gonna caucus with? Himself? But he's not really a Democrat. Just ask him. Or ask the Democrats. Especially the DLC.

V. SO WHAT WAS THIS SOCIALIST PARTY, ANYWAY?

Populists who wouldn’t “fuse”?

A. Yes and no. Some Populists who wouldn't fuse with the Democrats did wind up in the Socialist Party, but others left politics altogether. If it had been the anti-fusion wing of the Populists it would have been stronger in North Carolina, where the Populists were cooperating with the Republicans rather than the Democrats. Although the Socialist Party did have strength among tenant farmers it was more of a working people's party than the Populists, who were basically an agrarian movement.

“Debs for president” movement?

A. Again, yes and no. Debs was a charismatic speaker who attracted strong personal support. Many people say he created and dominated the party the way George Wallace did the American Independent Party or H. Ross Perot the Reform Party. Then without Debs the Socialists collapsed. But there was always more to the Socialist Party than Debs. They didn't even nominate him in 1916 (and went down in the presidential polls). He had to fight with the other tendencies in the party for his own ideas. And Norman Thomas was a famous national figure running as the Socialist Party's presidential candidate for many decades afterwards.

A branch of the German Social Democratic Party?

A. Again, yes and no. The Wisconsin Party, centered in Milwaukee, could well be characterized that way, and the Party had so many German immigrant members that they were vilified as agents of the Kaiser for refusing to support American entry into World War I. But there were many such immigrant language federations in the Socialist Party, not just Germans, and there were significant groups of native-born Americans in it. The Party got its highest percentage of votes for president in 1912 in Oklahoma and Nevada, neither then known for its German immigrant population.

Extreme of Progressive movement?

A. Again, yes and no. The moderate wing of the SP, the so-called "slowcialists", rubbed up against the left wing of the progressive movement. But there were real philosophical differences between them. Walter Lippmann worked on a Socialist campaign in 1912, and wrote a famous letter asking what was the difference between Socialists and Democrats if the party abandoned its ultimate goal of transforming the economy. He never got an answer and switched to the Democrats.

“Wild west” near anarchist miners?

A. Again, yes and no. The left wing of the Socialist Party was the IWW, centered in the west and with a core of hard-rock miners. The IWW itself was split between Socialists and Anarchists so badly they passed a resolution telling political and anti-political activists to shut up during union meetings. The right wing of the Socialist Party decided this was an anarchist takeover of the IWW and used it as an excuse to purge the "Wobblies" from the Party. But the western, nearly anarchist wing of Socialism was still very strong.

different parties in every state?

A. Yeah, I have to go along with that one. It's often said that the United States doesn't have two national parties, only two coalitions of fifty different state parties that get together once every four years to fight. The Socialists were no different. The Oklahoma sodbuster tenant farmers were very different from the brewery workers in Milwaukee. The New York Jewish Socialists were very different from miners in Goldfield Nevada. Once every four years they got together to nominate someone for president, who was usually Gene Debs. But not always.

They were all of the above - and probably more!

V. SO WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS SOCIALIST PARTY, ANYWAY?

1. America's two party system?

Maybe the fact that the presidential system and one seat constituencies forces the American political landscape into two parties caused the Socialists to go the way of every other third party since the Civil War? Canada has a Socialist Party (the New Democrats) but they have a three party system. So do most European countries, with a liberal party, a conservative party and a socialist or labor party.

But why not a two party system with Socialists and Liberals, like Japan had with its 1955 system ? Some people argue that the real question is not the weakness of the American left, but the strength of the right. Without an established church or feudal privilege to defend the US right is unburdened by any of the baggage that helped the left grow in other countries.

The relatively high US standard of living?

Yeah, right, like that's still true. < / sarcasm> Sure, it was once, but that was then. This is now. Besides, the relative gap between classes is greater in the US than in any other developed country. So I can't believe this explanation. I really wonder if I can take it seriously.

Social divisions within the working class?

Americans are divided by religion, race, ethnicity, region, etc. etc. etc. The working class could never unite on a socialist platform because they were more interested in ethnic and other forms of identification, and the ethnic vote is still more important than any class consciousness.

Sure, in relation to European countries and Japan, but what about Australia (where the division between Irish and English settlers over the Republic question is still important) or Brazil, which is even more ethnically diverse than the US is? I don't think this explanation holds water either.

A narrow and weak base in the labor unions?

In most countries with Socialist parties there is a strong relationship between the Socialist party and the labor unions. In Britain the unions set up the Labor Party. In Germany the Social Democratic Party set up the labor unions. In the US there have been many Socialists in the labor movement, but other labor leaders have been downright hostile to Socialism. The first union boss who ever became president of the United States was Ronald Reagan, who got his political start in the Screen Actors' Guild, a union with strong right and left wings.

But what's cause here and what's effect? Is Socialism so weak in the US because unions don't support it, or are so many unions hostile to Socialism because Socialism is so weak in the US, and they don't want to be associated with it?

Foreigners are stupid!

Don't laugh! This is actually proposed as a serious explanation. European workers were illiterate, and had to ask leftist intellectuals to write down their demands for them. The intellectuals added something at the end about socialization of the means of production, and Socialism was born out of this marriage of convenience between illiterate workers and leftist intellectuals. In the US universal primary education was traditional, workers could write their own demands, and demands for socialization of the means of production never occurred to anyone and never entered the workers' demands.

This explanation is so stupid I'm not even going to bother to refute it. But believe it or not, there is another equally stupid explanation that gets around.

Americans are stupid!

I'm not even going to mess with this one. Help yourself in the comments.

VI. CONCLUSION

The brief answer is I don't know either. I do feel strongly that the explanation should not be sought in something about American national character. After all, there was a Socialist Party in the US. It was very American (pragmatic, organized as a coalition of State Parties, and not really some foreign excrescence on the body politic). Maybe they shot themselves in the foot with the purge of the left in 1912, maybe they couldn't overcome corporate power and funding, maybe it's just a coincidence, and why do humans have to find deep meaning in everything?

You tell me. Then we'll write it up and make a fortune.

Obama's Afghan War decision and lesser evilism

2009-12-02T01:15:00.001-08:00

Let's face it, no matter what you think of the president's speech, and the war strategy it defends, the man did not have any good options. There are no ideal solutions to the mess W created in Afghanistan by pursuing the wrong strategy and all but leaving to go after one of Usama bin Ladin's greatest enemies in the Arab world, Saddam Hussein, for reasons still not very clear. The US has to get out of Afghanistan, sooner or later (hopefully sooner) but it also has to prevent al-Qa'ida making more attacks on the US and US embassies and citizens around the world. Let's just hope we can do both. As the president said in his speech:

I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

Let's see what chance President Obama's new strategy has of meeting American goals in the area.

The president is sending 30,000 more troops for 18 months. Limiting their tours, and by implication the US effort in Afghanistan, may be a mistake if it lets al-Qa'ida wait us out.

The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight.

This is the surge strategy that seems to have worked so well in Iraq, but it overlooks some crucial differences between Iraq and Afghanistan, and it doesn't understand why Sunni insurgents switched sides in Iraq.

Iraq has a long secular tradition, and under its Ba'athist government was actively trying to de-emphasize, if not undermine, religious and sectarian differences. True, this was done in the name of a fanatical, arguably fascist form of Arab ultra-nationalism that committed atrocities, if not genocide, against the non-Arab Kurdish minority. But it did have the effect of dampening the enthusiasm for religious fanaticism, by which Iraq is almost surrounded, on the Wahhabi Saudi side and the Khomeiniac Iranian side. Many Sunnis sided with al-Qa'ida in Iraq (as the homegrown extremists renamed themselves after our invasion) only out of expedience, not because they were convinced the fanatics' analysis and theology was correct. When the insurgency proved itself to be a greater evil than the invaders, they (or many of them) gladly switched sides.

This doctrine of lesser evilism is important, for it is a cardinal principle of Islamic law, and must be understood in relation to our war in Afghanistan, as well as the war in Iraq. When confronted with two evils (as anyone often is), it is the moral duty of a good Muslim to choose the lesser evil. This is, of course, a slippery slope, but a reality that Barack Obama has also been faced with. In this case he must choose the lesser evil, just as the people of Afghanistan must. Just as we all must.

Afghanistan does not have the same secular tradition as Iraq. It is not as modern, and it does not have the same history of exposure to western ideas through colonialism. It's people may not decide that the Americans are a lesser evil than al-Qa'ida. Indeed, with their exposure so far to American patrols and to Arabic speaking al-Qa'ida preacher-militants in their villages, they may be far more inclined than Iraqis to convert to the al-Qa'ida doctrine of permanent aggressive jihad against the far enemy (AKA the Crusader-Zionist alliance). So Obama's surge strategy may not work out so well.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

This may or may not work, although there are serious problems with it. The aid strategy, the second core element, is likely to be met with suspicion if not outright hostility, and in any event would require more than 18 months for the US to implement. As for Pakistan, can we really be sure that they will not still target India with any military aid we give them? The government has moved against militants on the border, but the government itself has become unpopular, and one way or another may fall, probably to a coup d'etat. More and more Pakistanis are convinced that the suicide bombings in their country could not be carried out by Muslims, but instead of deciding that the suicide bombers are bad Muslims they decide that the bombings are really being carried out by Blackwater (now Xe) as black propaganda to discredit Muslims. If those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad, God must have decided to destroy Pakistan.

So there you have it. A dangerous and difficult gamble. I would have argued for more attention to bin Ladin and al-Qa'ida and less to the Taliban. You don't want to feed the apocalyptic fantasies of mountain peasants cut off from the world's mass media if you can help it. And you have to remember why we are in Afghanistan.

I'm sceptical, I'm doubtful, but I'm willing to go along with it.

Not that I have much choice.

I hope it works, but I fear it won't.

I hope the president has a good Plan B up his sleeve, just in case.

Just as I always suspected, Bush let bin Ladin get away

2009-11-28T22:12:00.000-08:00

Here's the news story:

Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says.

Here's the report:

It seemed only a matter of time before U.S. troops and their Afghan allies overran the remnants of Al Qaeda hunkered down in the thin, cold air at 14,000 feet.
Bin Laden expected to die. His last will and testament, written on December 14, reflected his fatalism. ‘‘Allah commended to us
that when death approaches any of us that we make a bequest to parents and next of kin and to Muslims as a whole,’’ he wrote, according to a copy of the will that surfaced later and is regarded as authentic. ‘‘Allah bears witness that the love of jihad and death in the cause of Allah has dominated my life and the verses of the sword permeated every cell in my heart, ‘and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together.’ How many times did I wake up to find myself reciting this holy verse!’’ He instructed his wives not to remarry and apologized to his children for devoting himself to jihad.
But the Al Qaeda leader would live to fight another day.

Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

2009-11-27T14:58:00.001-08:00

So in New York we are destroying our environment to get hydrocarbons to release into the environment for global warming.

Meanwhile, just across the Atlantic:

Can we get any crazier than this? Homo sapiens' suicide!

So did somebody disable me on YouTube? or what?

2009-11-21T21:55:00.000-08:00

Comments I mad about the video below just won't come up. WTF? I commented on the guy's other video and that worked OK.

If he'd "just had a little more time"? "You did not die in vain"?

What really happened

"a complex, smart, sensitive, eloquent, and questing figure far different than the stereotypical hardass football jock"

From Pat's brother

From Wikipedia

The video I was trying to comment on:

But then there's good old Red State Update:

Hateful and ignorant? That's it? We get called hateful and ignorant about a hundred times on every video we put up. They might as well send a bunch of YouTube commenters over to give a speech in Egypt.

a must read article on Afghanistan

2009-11-15T19:33:00.000-08:00

By Christopher Booker
Published: 6:47PM GMT 14 Nov 2009

What we are hardly ever told about Afghanistan is that it has been for 300 years the scene of a bitter civil war, between two tribal groups of Pashtuns (formerly known as Pathans). On one side are the Durranis – most of the settled population, farmers, traders, the professional middle class. On the other are the Ghilzai, traditionally nomadic, fiercely fundamentalist in religion, whose tribal homelands stretch across into Pakistan as far as Kashmir.

It may already be the best we can do, to just cut a deal with the Taliban: hand over bin Ladin and his co-conspirators, promise not to attack us, and we'll stop attacking you.

It may already be too late for that. Al-Qa'ida's doctrine of aggressive jihad may have completely won the local hearts and minds away from the more traditional doctrine of defensive jihad. In which case we are stuck, having already taken the tar-baby option.

Obama in Japan, mulling Afghanistan

2009-11-13T00:25:00.000-08:00

This just in from the AP news service:

TOKYO – President Barack Obama aims Friday to shore up relations with a new Japanese government vowing to be more assertive with its U.S. ally, even as he grapples with sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

The good news is that he could be trying to get input from the Japanese, who are important allies of the United States.

The bad news is that the Japanese will not know much. Power behind the throne (very Japanese way of doing things) Ozawa recently said, according to the Japan Times:

Christianity "is an exclusive, self-righteous religion. Western society, whose background is Christianity, has been stuck in a dead end,"

As you can probably imagine, Mr. Ozawa knows even less about Islam than he does about Christianity.

This blog doesn't object to the impolitic nature of his remarks, but it does reject their incorrectness. Bigotry is bigotry, whether directed against Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or Christianity. The really sad part is that bigoted remarks about other peoples are not considered a problem in Japan. When is Japan going to take its international responsibilities seriously enough to learn something about the outside world besides technology and economics?

Japan and the public option

2009-10-22T02:23:00.002-07:00

I'm really tired of hearing all the alarmist nonsense in the US about the public option and the way it will kill American insurance companies and lead to a national takeover of insurance.

Japan has a public option. They also have private plans, union plans, company plans. There are even special plans for foreigners who don't like the Japanese public option but still want insurance. I'm not going to analyze the Japanese system in depth, except to point out that it is a lucrative insurance market that American companies have asked the US government to insist that the Japanese government open to them. Like a lot of other markets in Japan it's protected. This is admittedly out of date, but still significant:

The potential to make money is huge. Shukan Kinyobi once reported that the U.S. government is pressuring Japan to change public health insurance regulations. As it stands, if any part of a patient's treatment involves procedures or medication not covered by public insurance, the entire treatment cannot be covered by public insurance. The U.S. wants to isolate types of treatment so that American insurance companies can sell private insurance to cover treatments not covered by public insurance.

Admittedly, the system in Japan is complex and can be confusing for people who are just getting into it. Such a public option system can be unnerving for people who might move to it. Therefore, US insurance companies, presumably including the same companies begging the US government to get them into the Japanese system, are scaring Americans that the big bad public option is going to take over health insurance.

BULL!

The public option in Japan is what you have to put up with when you can't get insurance through your company or your union. It is the minimum plan to get insurance to people the insurance companies don't want or won't cover. As soon as I could get off it, because I had a regular job, I got off it. You would too. But it is necessary for two reasons:

1. The insurance companies can't, won't, or don't want to cover everyone. They don't now in the US. There has to be an option for people who can't otherwise get insurance. It doesn't have to be compulsory, but it has to be there. It's compulsory in Japan, but it hasn't been enforced, so people who don't want insurance (yes, there are such people) or who don't know about it (and there are too many of those in the foreign community in Japan) won't be on it. But there has to be a public option for even the possibility of universal coverage.

2. Competition with the public option will keep the private companies honest. It won't put them out of business. It just means that if they don't give good value for their money there is an option people can go to. They still make out like bandits.

Personally, I would put up with single payer, but I would prefer the public option.

All right, I'm back!

2009-10-22T02:23:00.001-07:00

I'm going to make this a discipline. And it doesn't matter what I write about. It's just my opinion. I'll do it.

"Does it even matter whether bin Laden is found?"

2009-09-11T23:29:00.000-07:00

from CNN:

Yes, it does. First, there is the matter of justice for the almost 3,000 people who died in the September 11 attacks and for the thousands of other victims of al Qaeda's attacks around the world.

Second, every day that bin Laden remains at liberty is a propaganda victory for al Qaeda.

Third, although bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri aren't managing al Qaeda's operations on a daily basis they guide the overall direction of the jihadist movement around the world, even while they are in hiding.

I shall return

2009-09-09T18:19:00.000-07:00

Honest. But in the meantime I couldn't resist the oxymoron of "liberal communists."

Dead Aid: The Wrong Prescription for Africa

2009-04-02T00:34:00.001-07:00

All foreign aid is in the perceived interest of the donor country. Otherwise it wouldn't be given. Think about Lend-Lease and the Marshall Plan. The US didn't give $billions to the USSR because we thought Joe Stalin was a nice guy who was doing wonderful things for his people. We did it to defeat Hitler. We didn't give $billions to rebuild western Europe after the war because we're nice people. We did it because if we didn't, Joe Stalin was going to march in with tanks and take over.

Why does the west give foreign aid to Africa? During the Cold War we did it to prop up friendly dictators, just like we gave Lend-Lease to Stalin. The USSR did the same thing to their friendly dictators. That's life. It's the lucky African country where the people themselves actually see any results from foreign aid.

Foreign aid is never going to develop Africa. If the west wanted Africa to develop they would open their markets to African manufactures. If Africa wants to develop and the EU, US, and Japan won't open their markets, Africans will have to make their market big enough, by combining into a United States of Africa. It really has little to do with foreign aid one way or the other. That issue is basically a distraction.
About Africa
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Where to go from here?

2009-03-29T16:00:00.000-07:00

I admit I've been away too long. I can't figure out where to take this blog. It started out as a desperate scream in the second term of Bush fils. I was just panicked and angry.

Now where should I take it in the Obama administration? Should I take myself public? Does anyone care? Maybe I should just fold the whole blog and walk away from it. Maybe I'd do better to concentrate on something else. I no longer feel the desperate urgency to scream about the insanity of the government. But there's plenty of other insanity.

I'll think about this, and I hope I won't be too much longer.

Watch this space!

And let me know!

So Obama knows the oath better than the Chief Justice

2009-01-20T14:44:00.000-08:00

Here's the oath, from the Constitution:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Note that the Chief Justice added "So help me God." with a question in his tone, and Obama added it in an affirmation. He could have added "YES WE CAN!" instead if he wanted, but he could have said anything, and I think he wants God's help. I'm sure he can use it. They say God helps those who help themselves.

Maybe Obama should have been Chief Justice. It would be nice if he could appoint the next Chief Justice, but only time will tell.

Here's to the first Professor President since Woodrow Wilson! I'm glad he knows the Constitution as well as he does.

Here's to the next four years of America in the world! Here's to President Barack Hussein Obama and his inauguration.

While the world's been watching Mumbai (Nigeria report)

2008-11-29T17:15:00.000-08:00

Crossposted (without the pictures) at Daily Kos.

It looks like even more people have died in clashes in Jos, Nigeria than died in Mumbai. But those people weren't wealthy and weren't western. Most of those killed by terrorists in Mumbai were either wealthy or western. Many were both. So the western media paid more attention to them. Let's look at what's going on in Jos. But first a little background.

Jos is the Capital of Plateau State. It's a colonial town, started around tin mines during the colonial period. It's on a high plateau (as the name of the state implies). Plateau State calls itself "The Home of Peace and Tourism" in Nigeria, and it is unique in Nigeria for many reasons. As an online travel guide says:

Jos is one of the nicest places to visit in Nigeria. It's the capital of the Plateau State and is located at an elevation of 1300 metres above sea level, which means that it is cooler here than anywhere else in the country most of the time.

The main attraction of the town is the Jos Museum Complex, which consists of four separate museums and a zoo. Skip the Railroad and the Tin Mining Museum and head for the Jos National Museum and the Traditional Nigerian Architecture Museum.

If you are spending a few days here you might consider paying a visit to the Rock Brewery. They have guided tours with an all you can drink buffet for reasonable prices.

Jos is surrounded by beautiful hills, the most welknown being the Shere Hills (1800m). Also the Jarawa hills, the Vom Hills and the Gana Wuri. Many tourists choose Jos for trekking and hiking.

Jos is an unusual city in many ways in Nigeria, not just for being a colonial city, when most of Nigeria's cities, except those established as capitals (e.g. Kaduna and Abuja) were already in existence before colonial times. It is perhaps the only predominately Christian city in the heavily Muslim north of Nigeria. The inhabitants of the plateau were largely minority groups chased into the hills by the expansion of first the Bornu Caliphate, then the Hausa states and the Sokoto Caliphate.

All these factors combined to make Jos a city not dominated by any particular ethnic group or religion (despite the preponderance of Christians, they themselves are more divided than Muslims in Nigeria) and people living there tended to adopt a "live and let live" attitude. It was also a very working class city, and one where most people had ties to rural areas elsewhere.

Only very recently has Jos begun having the clashes that other cities in Nigeria, especially in the north of the country, have had in recent years. Jos used to be a place where Nigerians from surrounding states came to take refuge from the violence. No longer is that the case.

Let's see what happened this time:

It's not easy to get accurate reports, and even much of the Nigerian press is either inflammatory or too politically correct to really say what's been going on in this situation. Let's start with the reports that are not much use. Scroll down to the Nigerian press section if you're pressed for time.

The Voice of America says

Gilbert da Costa has been monitoring developments from Abuja and filed this report for VOA.

Translation? "We don't know what's going on ourselves, but we do have someone in a nearby state (actually in the Federal Capital Territory) who's trying to sort out the rumors." It's like covering riots in Baltimore or Philadelphia from DC.

Agence France Press filed from even further away in Lagos, the financial capital of Nigeria. These people do try to get eyewitness accounts, but without actually going there it is difficult to know what's going on. Heck, even with actually going there it is difficult to know what's going on. Without going there it remains impossible. Al Jazeerah doesn't even provide a dateline.

Sheikh Khalid Abubakar, the imam at the mosque, claimed that more than 400 dead bodies were brought to the mosque.

It is also likely that the bodies of Christians killed in the riots were taken elsewhere, making the total number of dead uncertain.

But then neither does the BBC. At least they have good background and links to previous stories, something no other news source does. They even have a video, though without sound, that has scenes of the carnage.

Bloomberg's reporter covering the story is in Paris. :-(

Reports from Jos itself:

Reuters, the AP, and The NYT all have reports datelined Jos itself. Let's take those reports in order.

Reuters carried a report by a Muslim, with death toll figures from the mosque:

Hundreds of bodies were brought to the town's main mosque in preparation for a mass burial.

"I counted 218 dead bodies at Masalaci Jummaa. There are many other bodies in the streets," said a Red Cross official who asked not to be named.

That death toll did not include hospital figures, victims already buried, or those taken to other places of worship, meaning the final count could be much higher, officials said.

The reporter also spoke to the state government, the Nigerian Army, and "one resident" in compiling the report.

The AP also had a report from a Muslim. (I don't want to imply that these sources are necessarily biased, BTW. After all, in Nigeria almost any source that can write or speak English is either Muslim or Christian. This is just FYI, and in acknowledgment of the fact that we all, [you, me them] have biases.)

Sheikh Khalid Abubakar, the imam at the city's main mosque, said more than 300 dead bodies were brought there on Saturday alone and 183 could be seen laying near the building waiting to be interred.

Those killed in the Christian community would not likely be taken to the city mosque, raising the possibility that the total death toll could be much higher. The city morgue wasn't immediately accessible Saturday.

This reporter also spoke with a police spokesman and gave much important background. The story contained some material (background?) from another reporter in Abuja, the capital.

The New York Times is datelined Jos, but is wire service feed from Reuters, but says "from the Associated Press". Go figure. At least it is a different story from the other two. It seems the international news media is floundering.

What about the Nigeria press?!?!?

OK, OK, I'm getting to that.

The Nigerian press has traditionally been the freest in Africa. During periods of relative repression in Nigeria they have competition for that title, but even then they remain one of the freest presses on the continent of Africa.

But remember that free press only means market regulated press. You didn't find any Nigerian newspapers defending South Africa during the apartheid era, because such newspapers wouldn't have sold. What does sell in Nigeria? Sensationalism, scandal, sports, wild charges (sometimes one wonders if they even have libel laws in Nigeria.) The Nigerian press is generally the kind of press that gives yellow journalism a bad name. William Randolph Hearst could have taken lessons. As a matter of fact, Nigeria had its own W. R. Hearst in the person of Chief M.K.O. Abiola, the Pillar of Sports in Africa and last holder of the cursed title, Are Ona Kakonfa. You may know him as the winner of the June 12 presidential elections in Nigeria, who was placed under house arrest for declaring himself president.

But I digress. Just a little background before delving into the Nigerian press.

This Day actually admits its that reports are unconfirmed. They have two reporters, one in Jos and the other in Abuja. Their names are not clearly Christian or Muslim.

Eyewitnesses said supporters of the All Nigerian People’s Party (ANPP) allegedly became violent following speculations that their candidate, whom they said was leading the PDP candidate, was about to be “declared the loser.”
The ANPP protesters said they were not fighting people but fighting government “because of their action.” The results of the elections were still being collated when the crisis broke out.

The ANPP (in Jos at least) is the party of the Muslim Hausa, mostly from farther north, while the PDP is the party of the mostly Christian minority groups. Finally we find out what the clashes are actually about.

The Punch, a popular Lagos paper, has more information also from Jos:

Our correspondent gathered that trouble started when an agent of one of the political parties was killed at Kabong, where all the results for Jos North were being collated. The supporters of the All Nigeria Peoples Party candidate for Jos North Local Government, Mr. Aminu Baba, said they suspected that the election was about to be rigged in favour of the Peoples Democratic Party candidate, Mr. Timothy Buba.

According to the ANPP supporters, their candidate was said to be leading by about 57, 000 votes and the PDP was only expecting 10, 000 votes from the remaining areas where the votes had not been counted. As early as 5.30a.m. the ANPP supporters had allegedly poured into the streets, chanting war songs. In the ensuing confusion, churches were burnt around Sarkin Mangu, close to the old Jos North Local Government secretariat.

Reprisal attacks from the supporters of other political parties then spread to other areas. It first started in Gada Biu, a predominantly Christian settlement.

No sooner than this happened that the riot assumed a sectarian dimension as churches and mosques were being torched all over the city. Indeed, no fewer than five churches and five mosques were burnt in the ensuing melee, according to the police. Sporadic shots rented the air as street urchins, a.k.a almajiri, took over major streets.

Almajiri (singular, the plural is almajirai) are street youths who beg for a living. Technically they are supposed to be studying in Qur'anic schools, but the system has been much abused in recent decades, and many of them are only being exploited by their teachers, who live off the proceeds of their begging. The situation of these almajirai became really desperate under the Abacha government, but became much approved since democratic government has returned.

The Guardian, one of Nigeria's more respectable newspapers, also has two reporters contributing, one in Jos and another in Abuja. Like other Nigerian papers it is careful to point out that its sources remain questionable. It even quotes the international wire service reports above. But its more important information may be the actual words of the state governor imposing curfew:

Meanwhile, the Governor of Plateau State, Jonah Jang, while imposing the curfew in his broadcast, said:

"A few hours after close of election, a group of thugs took the law into their hands by attacking residences and destroying houses and property in some parts of Jos.

"The state security council met this morning and directed the police to respond accordingly.

"Unfortunately, reports got to me early this morning regarding the eruption of violence emanating from Ali Kazaure Street of Jos. I want all to note that this problem is restricted to Jos City only.
"I immediately summoned a Security Council meeting again this morning to appraise the situation. Preliminary reports indicated that the crisis was pre-planned, particularly as election results have not been announced."

He added: "Government, therefore, wishes to warn that any further disruption of the peace will be met with drastic action. The security details are under instruction to return fire- for-fire from any person/group disrupting the peace. Government will not allow a repeat of the disruption of peace witnessed in the state some years back.

"All law abiding citizens are assured that government is on top of the situation and should go about their normal lives.

"Government is, therefore, imposing a curfew in Jos, Bukuru and environs from 6 pm to 6 am. Government wishes to advise against any further attempt to test its will to maintain peace on the Plateau."

The Vanguard, another important Nigerian newspaper, has a four page story with comments below.

Two serving army generals, Maj. Gen. U. J. Uwuigbe and Nick Agbogun escaped death by the whiskers as they were shot by hoodlums while returning from Chief of Army Staff conference in Bauchi.

They were injured along with the driver of the Bauchi State Government vehicle detailed to take them to the Jos Airport and were rushed to the Jos University Teaching Hospital for treatment.

The Saturday Tribune carries a story from a reporter in Jos with an obviously Christian name (Nigerian names are often ambiguous.)

THE crisis over the local government election in Plateau state has assumed a religious dimension with several places of worship burnt down by protesters, including personal houses and vehicles while over thirty people were allegedly killed, including one policeman and a soldier.
Meanwhile, the state government has appealed for calm and imposed a curfew in Jos, Bukuru and environs from 6am to 6pm.

The unfortunate crisis started in the early hour of Friday when information filtered out that a particular political party had won in Jos North local government contrary to the expectation of supporters of opposing party.

It was learnt that as early as 5: 30 AM on Friday the inhabitants of the local government mobilised and trooped to the streets to protest the election accusing the state government and the State Independent Electoral Commission of rigging the election in favour of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

The protest suddenly turned violent at about 7:30 when the protesters armed with dangerous weapons started smashing vehicles, setting houses ablaze.

At about 9.30am, the crisis had engulfed the whole city of Jos and assumed religious dimension with reprisal attacks in various parts of the city. As at the last count, no fewer than 10 places of worship had been razed in various parts of Jos.

More details are in the article.

Let me know what else you can find out. I have friends in Jos and I am following this story in part because I am worried about them.

The next wacky Republican charge against Obama

2008-11-01T02:51:00.000-07:00

The real reason Barack Hussein Obama wants to get into the White is because he's an Islamic suicide bomber who intends to get into the White House so that, after he is inaugurated, he can blow himself up, thus ASSASSINATING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Well, it's no nuttier than any of the other stuff they come up with.

Socialist? Hey, the Labour Party in the UK is Socialist. Remember them, the best friend of Bush when he invaded Iraq to look for WMDs? When the financial crisis hit they just nationalized the banks. Unlike the Republicans who just wanted to hand hundreds of billions of $$$ (borrowed from China) to their Wall Street buddies.

The other charges? He's a Muslim. He's a radical Marxist. He's a black nationalist. He's a liberation theology Christian. He's . . .

PEOPLE! MAKE UP YOUR &%$#! MINDS!!! If you don't keep to one smear, NO ONE is going to believe you.

I sure don't.

Sarah Palin's real gaffe

2008-09-11T17:38:00.000-07:00

Which was the biggest gaffe, in her ABC interview and elsewhere?

"Trip of a lifetime" to visit troops in Germany? Well, she certainly doesn't need to be president if that was the trip of her lifetime. She's definitely not ready.

Forgetting how to pronounce "nuclear" correctly? I wonder if Republicans will turn this into a shibboleth.

Was it her still thinking that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Even Bush had never said that.

Was it not having any idea what the "Bush doctrine" was? You're getting warm.

I think it was not realizing that the Constitution gives any state, even Alaska, the right to pre-emptive attacks on foreign countries. From the Constitution Center:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Did you get that? Let me quote the relevant part again:

or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

In other words, if Russia was massing an invasion force across the Bering Strait, Alaska would have the Constitutional right to take them out, without waiting for a permission slip from Congress.

Why do I bring this up? Not because I think Alaska should do this. We have telephones today, which they didn't in 1787 when the Constitution was written. I bring it up because Governor Palin of Alaska doesn't seem to have much grasp of the United States Constitution. That is shown by her belief that the United States is on a mission from God in Iraq. The Constitution was ordained and established by "We the People" for six specific reasons. It was not set up by "I, God Jehovah" to take out Islam.

I've met people in the service who have taken oaths to defend and protect the Constitution, but who haven't read it. They tried to convince me that God had created the United States to take out Islam. That's what they thought they were doing on their tours in Iraq. Personally, I wish God would make up his mind. I remember when He had supposedly created us to defeat Communism and the Muslims were helping us, because they believed in the same God. Before that, God had supposedly created us to destroy the Nazis and their Axis allies. The Communists were helping us in that.

It really goes back to the War of 1812, when our getting out intact seemed miraculous, but I don't have time for a lecture on that.

My point here is that Sarah Palin doesn't even know her powers as a state governor under the United States Constitution. The possibility of her becoming Commander in Chief and Chief Executive in charge of defending the Constitution that she doesn't understand is frightening. I urge everyone to make a Constitutional law professor president. We need someone who loves the Constitution enough to find out what it actually means to become president, especially after the last eight years.

Republicans attack Charlie Rangel!

2008-09-09T18:51:00.000-07:00

Some of us remember that decorated Korean War veteran (Purple Heart, Bronze Star with Valor) Charlie Rangel was one of the first politicians to endorse General Clark for President. Republicans have never forgiven him for being as effective and outspoken a Democrat as he has been, and they are going after him again, this time for allegedly failing to report $100,000 in income from a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic. [Reuters]

Republicans are already out on the Internet commenting on this. Congressional Democrats are already hitting back on this. We need to help a friend of Wes when he needs it most. Please get out there and help someone who is not only a great Democrat but was an important supporter of Wes Clark for President in the 2004 race. Here's the Google News link for the story.

This doesn't surprise me

2008-08-16T20:31:00.000-07:00

It's disturbing to me how many service members have not read the Constitution. I'm not just talking about the 1st Amendment here. The body of the Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3:

no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Before someone signs a legally binding contract sworn by an oath they should read it.

I'll have more to say about this later.

The difference is clear!

2008-08-16T03:41:00.000-07:00

It was one thing to drop the bombs in 1945, when nobody really knew what they would do, but today, now that their effects are known, there is no excuse for anyone wanting to own such weapons. That's why the very clear difference between Obama and McCain about this issue is very important.

OBAMA:

Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.

MCCAIN:

John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses. Effective missile defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran that threaten American forces and American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China. Effective missile defenses are also necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary.

N.B. North Korea certainly does NOT "possess the capability to target America with intercontinental ballistic missiles" but they rather possess the ability to hit Japan and South Korea, as well as Vladivostok and parts of China.

And there are reports (I'm having trouble googling them just now) that the US military no longer wants nuclear weapons. They are too dangerous and serve no purpose. Nobody wants nuclear weapons detail, after that little incident of the lost nukes especially.

63 years and counting!

2008-08-09T03:05:00.000-07:00

That's how long it's been since an atomic bomb has been dropped on human beings. Everyone seems to notice Hiroshima Day, and the first bomb. Few people seem to notice Nagasaki Day, the anniversary of the last atomic bomb ever dropped on human beings.

Here are some people who did:

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan marked the 63rd anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki with a solemn ceremony on Saturday and a call for world powers to abandon their nuclear weapons.

Thousands of children, elderly survivors and dignitaries in the city's Peace Park bowed their heads in a minute of silence at 11:02 a.m. (3:02 a.m. British time), the time the bomb was dropped, to remember the tens of thousands who ultimately died from the blast.

"The United States and Russia must take the lead in striving to abolish nuclear weapons," Nagasaki mayor Tomihisa Taue said at the gathering, which included Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda.

Chris Lugo:

On August 9th, 1945 at 11:01am the United States of America dropped a nuclear bomb on a pre-designated city in Japan killing 80,000 people in the second of two nuclear attacks. This attack was the only time that nuclear weapons have been used as an instrument of war, and it could be the last, if we generate the political will to dismantle our weapons of mass destruction, abide by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and create a federal level department of peace.

The Mainichi Daily News:

NAGASAKI -- Thousands of people including atomic bomb survivors gathered in Nagasaki on Saturday in a ceremony to mark the 63rd anniversary of the Aug. 9, 1945 atomic bomb attack on the city.

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Takashi Nagai (1908-1951), a physician who cared for wounded survivors, or hibakusha, in spite of his own injures. In a Peace Declaration during the ceremony at Nagasaki Peace Park, near ground zero, Nagasaki Mayor Tomihisa Taue quoted Nagai, saying, "There is no winning or losing in war; there is only ruin."

. . .

In a Peace Declaration read out at the ceremony Taue mentioned that people including former U.S. secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Schulz had submitted an article on steps toward a nuclear free world, adding that the authors were promoting the United States ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The declaration pointed out that Russia and the United States are said to together possess 95 percent of the world's nuclear warheads and said these two countries "should begin implementing broad reductions of nuclear weapons."

Is there still a chance to get Wes for Veep?

2008-08-01T23:16:00.000-07:00

Is there still a chance to get Wes for Veep?

Sign the petition!

Go do Daily Kos and recommend the diaries! HERE! HERE! and HERE!

Then write to the Obama campaign!

Tell your friends and neighbors who think Clark questioned McCain's service that anyone who thinks being shot down is a qualification for president must logically think that President Bush should be shot down, to make him a better president.

I sound too much like Barack Obama Sr.

2008-07-25T03:48:00.000-07:00

"He was a brilliant guy," Obama told biographer David Mendell, "but in so many ways his life was a mess."

Despite his ambition and talent, the elder Obama's career disintegrated amid external forces and personal weaknesses, including the alcohol problem, which led to a string of car accidents. A crash in 1982 took his life.

Friends and family say his career imploded in part because of his brash personality and an idealistic belief, nurtured in America, that the best ideas and smartest people would always rise to the top. Confronted with the reality of corruption and cronyism in Kenya, Obama sank into disillusionment and despair.

All I can say is I don't drink and drive, and I try to take better care of myself than that guy did. He should have gone back to America and been an immigrant. I wouldn't mind going back there myself.

More here.

I'm losing TR status on D-Kos

2008-07-19T18:40:00.000-07:00

over this? WTF? Too many responders don't bother to read what I said, they just react. Is that being reactionary?

To prosecute or not to prosecute?

2008-07-12T19:36:00.000-07:00

President Bashir of Sudan is facing potential charges before the International Criminal Court. His government doesn't recognize the ICC's jurisdiction, but that doesn't seem to make a difference to the ICC. Does this remind you of a certain other head of state who's alleged to be guilty of war crimes but who doesn't recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC? It should.

Some say that would not be politic at the present moment in Sudan. I respect Alex de Waal very much for his knowledge of the area and his writings about it. Here's what Alex and Julie Flint said about it recently:

The chief prosecutor's timing could not be worse. There has been more movement on the north-south Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which provides a blueprint for the democratisation of Sudan, in the past two months than in the past three and a half years; a deal has been signed to end a dispute over the flashpoint oil-rich region of Abyei; and an election law has been passed. In the interests of the people of Sudan, Ocampo should reconsider. It is not too late.

Others are weighing in for various reasons. The AU

expressed its strong conviction that the search for justice should be pursued in a way that does not impede or jeopardise efforts aimed at promoting lasting peace"

but then they also

reiterated the AU's concern with the misuse of indictments against African leaders

so they could be dismissed as just another dictators' trade union, like the OAU.

Even worse, Bashir has asked the Arab League for support. Playing the ethnic card, effectively asking the Arab League to certify that genocide is OK (at least if Arabs do it - don't expect them to OK anything Israel does to the Palestinians) is a new low even for the Bashir regime. But since when has the Arab League even done anything about Moroccan occupation of the Western Sahara? Arab on Arab oppression they are silent about, Ajam (non-Arab) oppression of Arabs they can't stop talking about, but when Arabs oppress some other people? They're all for that! That's what the Arab League is all about, Arab ethnic nationalism, what other African peoples call "tribalism" - a sentiment that should have been left behind in the 20th century.

I would like to propose something that is uncharacteristically politic for me. I would like to propose dual indictments. If Bashir is guilty of breaking International Law, so is Bush. Bush doesn't recognize the ICC, but then neither does Bashir, so they're equally outlaw regimes. There should be dual indictments handed down. There is certainly growing support in the US for indicting Bush. It would put pressure on his domestic opposition to finally do something about him instead of just waiting out his term. This would take care of the Arab charge of double standard and conspiracy against the mythical Arab nation. It would end the charge of hypocrisy. It would kill two birds with one stone. And it might create a precedent for justice in the world. Not victors' justice, the complaint about Nuremburg. Not losers' justice, which has been slow in coming to the victims of the Bosnian Civil War. But justice for all. Which I always pledged allegiance to.

Why can't more people stand up for General Clark?

2008-07-07T22:39:00.000-07:00

This was from someone who's known him for decades:

Europeans are startled that a man of such great distinction, who they know and worked with, would be left in the lurch by those who should be standing behind him. They see it as a character weakness on the part of Democrats that he is not being publicly supported, especially by those who aspire to positions of high leadership. "I find it a distressing sign of weakness that he was not supported by Senators Obama and Clinton, or by any leading Democrat for that matter," a European foreign minister said to me.

An appropriate response to his comments on McCain would have been: Clark has served our country for 45 years. He is a man with experience, with great character. Clark called McCain a great war hero -- a man to whom he and millions of soldiers look up to. I agree with Clark that McCain is a great war hero. I also agree that he does not have executive experience. Questioning McCain's executive experience does not diminish his war record. It is an appropriate question that should be asked. I stand by Clark, who has served our country with distinction.

If the Democrats won't stand by Clark, why should anyone stand by them?

Bush is NOT sending MORE troops to Afghanistan!

2008-07-04T16:35:00.000-07:00

Read this crap:

Bush says US to send more troops to Afghanistan

He's extending the tours of American troops who are already there. Here's the real story:

Pentagon extends tour of Marines in Afghanistan

Instead of trying to get more troops, he's taking a military strained to the breaking point, and pushing them over the edge.

Why I love General Clark

2008-07-02T22:16:00.000-07:00

He was wont to speak plain and to the purpose, like an honest man and a soldier;

He just said the truth, and despite all the shouting in the right wing blogosphere, General Clark spoke the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

He is the most impolitic, but correct, politician I can think of. Impolitically Correct salutes him.

Listen to this garbage:

Then go down and see what Clark really said.

Clark clarifies

2008-07-01T00:21:00.001-07:00

It's so sad that the remark was taken out of context.

Talk about impolitically correct!

2008-06-30T02:42:00.001-07:00

I have to hand it to General Clark. Again. He's just saying the truth. How the media spin it is up to them, but what he said was just the truth.

He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron. I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.

Why Mugabe still has support and how to deal with him

2008-06-27T18:25:00.000-07:00

(crossposted at Daily Kos)

Mugabe may be running one of the less effective dictatorships in the world today, but he does have more support among Zimbabweans today than Bush does among Americans. No, this is not some troll diary arguing that we shouldn't really oppose Mugabe because of all the things he and ZANU-PF did to liberate their country or because he is facing a western imperialist conspiracy against the African people. It's not an argument in favor of Mugabe at all. It's just an attempt to explain why he does still have support in Zimbabwe, who his supporters are, and how well-informed policy could more effectively remove him than the kind of ignorant, "speak loudly but carry a small stick" policy currently favored in Washington could. If you're interested in a little reality based background, read on.

Mugabe certainly gets some backing because of his role as leader of the major guerrilla group in the Chimurenga, the war for independence. That support has been eroded by the failure of his recent economic policies, of course, but why doesn't he change them, what is he getting at, and why do a minority of Zimbabweans continue to support him? That was then, this is now, and why does he seem to be such a different person?

First, you have to understand that the Chimurenga war against the Ian Smith led white oligarchy was not fought so much for independence or even an end to racial discrimination as it was fought over the land. Land is a sacred issue to many Africans, the Shona and Ndebele of Zimbabwe included. If you're Irish you may understand that. The Irish didn't have a concept of private land ownership, but they gave up everything (language, culture, everything that constitutes national identity to most nations) to take back their land. The Shona and the Ndebele felt and feel the same way. They may not have had to give up as much, or fight as long as the Irish did, but they still had to fight. Indeed, they were fighting among themselves over the land when Cecil Rhodes came in and changed its name to Southern Rhodesia.

Joshua Nkomo, head of ZAPU, the Zimbabwe African People's Union, who joined with Mugabe during the Chimurenga but fell out with him later, was once asked by a reporter if he intended to nationalize the land. He said that land belonged to society and everyone has a right to land. Confused, the reporter asked if that meant that he did intend to nationalize land. Nkomo replied (quoting from memory here)

You may call it "nationalization" if you wish, but land will be normalized.

Had he been asked the same question, Mugabe would probably have replied "Yes, we are Marxist-Leninist Communists and we intend to nationalize land." I remember watching an official ZANU-PF representative introducing a documentary about the Tanzam Railway to a Maoist group. He finished his introduction by claiming that "We also had this Marxism Leninism Mao Tse-Tung Thought before the Europeans came." I asked him later if he meant that the Shona way of life was based on principles of Dialectical Materialism. The ZANU-PF representative laughed at my question, which was more Socratic than serious, but he did say that the attitude toward land ownership was the same, that land should be the collective property of the community.

Why had I used the term "Shona way of life" in asking the question?

Because even Jesuit missionaries had trouble figuring out Shona religion, and reverted to teaching them "natural religion" before trying to convert them, it is common to refer to "the Shona way of life" rather than "Shona traditional religion."

from an art site:

The Shona way of life centers on the family and reflects profoundly spiritual and humanistic values.

from a religious site:

The Shona in large part do not display a sense of being overwhelmed by evil. They do not spend their time calculating the degree of evil in creation nor do they express anger at spiritual forces for permitting the world to crush them so. Rather they have developed a society that is based on values so foreign to our own Western thought that it raises the important issue of whether our Western based theodicies are irretrievably culture-bound. Where I began the study focusing on the inability of Western theodicies to account for the high incidence of evil in the third world, my focus was now changed to look at the irrelevance and incongruence of the values of Western theodicies in relation to the traditional cultures of southern Africa.

If you want to understand how people there feel about it, give up everything you thought you knew and try to look through other people's eyes. This is not a rational fight over economic policy. It is a sacred struggle over land. Mugabe and his backers still care about that, even if Tsvangirai and his mostly modern, urban, working class followers don't.

ZANU-PF was allied with Maoist China during the Chimurenga, and they were armed by the Chinese. This was partly convenience, but partly ideological, since both were peasant based movements. ZANU-PF had an ethnic base among the Shona, while ZAPU had an ethnic base in the Ndebele. Ethnicity is never the whole story in politics, Zimbabwean or American or elsewhere, but it can't be ignored anywhere, either. ZANU-PF was also peasant based, while ZAPU had a strong base in the urban proletariat. Joshua Nkomo was an old union leader of railway workers, and continued to get strong support from the working class, as well as arms and support from the Soviet Union.

Note to anyone who thinks that ZANU-PF was "pro-Chinese" while ZAPU was "pro-Soviet": you have it backwards. The Soviets were backing ZAPU while the Chinese were backing ZANU-PF. The Chimurenga wasn't started by outside Communist agitators. It was started by Africans for their own purposes.

ZANU-PF in power continued to be a peasant based party concerned primarily with the land issue. They ran the country well for the first several years of their rule, and the country developed so rapidly it was held out as proof that an African country didn't immediately collapse or stagnate just because Africans took over the government. Because of that the example of Zimbabwe was important in convincing the South African government to release Nelson Mandela from prison and negotiating an end to apartheid with him. Mandela has spoken out against what has been going on recently but he is refraining from criticizing Mugabe by name, and some interpret his remarks as even-handed criticism of both sides.

Mugabe's very success changed the political ground from under him. Mugabe and ZANU-PF's continued insistence on the centrality of the land issue and the confiscation of white farms was increasingly irrelevant to the urban proletariat that his successful development policies were creating. They didn't care about the land issue any more. They were more modern than that. Once again, Mugabe's main opponent was someone who came out of the union movement, in this case the miners' union. It has been from the working class that most of the support for his Movement for Democratic Change has come.

Mugabe's support still comes in strong in the villages. His party is well organized there and he has support from traditional rulers. Few people there care about the decline of the Zimbabwean dollar as long as they can feed themselves from the land, and international standards of democracy matter less than the Shona way of life that they see Mr. Mugabe defending. Things look very different than they do to a wage worker in a mine or a city. Wage workers in the cities, on the mines and in factories have a more modern, less traditional outlook. They are the ones feeling the brunt of Mugabe's repression and economic mismanagement and they are the ones who most desperately want to get rid of him.

I have read all kinds of conspiracy theories. One was that the Zimbabwe military is led by white generals who are afraid of war crimes trials for their actions during the Chimurenga wars and that they are holding Mugabe hostage. Others usually center around western plots to hold onto stolen land. Neither kind of conspiracy theory is convincing. What's obviously happening here, the simplest possible explanation, is that Zimbabwe is changing too fast for Mugabe and his aging Chimurenga leaders to comprehend. Those who were once tomorrow's people have become yesterday's.

I think it was President Kennedy who said that when we make non-violent change impossible we make violent change inevitable. That's what Mugabe has done, tried to prevent the normal processes of history from working the way they are supposed to. That's why he and his group, formerly progressive but now reactionary, will be swept aside by the forces of history. Marx (or at least the Marxists) may have been wrong about the proletariat bringing socialism, but he was certainly right that the process of economic development creates this working class that then becomes the dominant force in society.

But that sweeping aside of the old peasant-based ZANU-PF rule must not only be done by the Zimbabweans themselves, it must be SEEN to be done by the Zimbabweans themselves, not by Western or other international intervention. Not that the US military is in much condition to intervene anywhere right now. Not that Bush really cares about Zimbabwe any more than he cares about Darfur or Myanmar. They don't have enough oil and no one there tried to kill his daddy. Sanctions have done what they can, but where sanctions served notice on apartheid South Africa that it couldn't expect support from the west, they only convince Mugabe that the west never would let him take back land from the settlers. It seems only a political revolution can bring change to Zimbabwe. It can only be led by the working class. Only the working class has the power and the interest in bringing democracy to Zimbabwe. Only the people themselves can create democracy in a country. We couldn't export it to them even if we wanted to. Democracy by its very nature cannot be imposed on a people. It must be learned.

Well, why shouldn't the working class lead the struggle against dictatorship in Zimbabwe? The working class led the collapse of Communism. It is unions that are taking the lead in toppling Mugabe. They have already taken the lead in seeing that he couldn't get more arms from China.

All praise to the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union, which for four days refused to unload a shipment of Chinese arms destined for landlocked Zimbabwe. That was long enough for a South African court to issue a judgment refusing to let the 77 tons of weapons be shipped across the country to Zimbabwe, despite the South African government’s unwillingness to intervene.

I almost forgot. There was a discussion on DemocracyNow.org you should consider. I particularly recommend the views of Horace Campbell in the discussion.

update on the DOJ scandal

2008-06-27T00:18:00.000-07:00

from Veracifier:

When will this administration be called to account for its crimes?

2008-06-25T01:37:00.000-07:00

from The Los Angeles Times:

Probe finds illegal hiring at Justice Department
Promising lawyers and law students were rejected because of their political and ideological views, internal investigators say.
By Richard B. Schmitt, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 25, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Scores of highly credentialed young lawyers and law students were denied interviews for coveted positions at the Justice Department because of an illegal screening process that took political and ideological views and affiliations into account rather than merit, Justice Department investigators concluded in a report released Tuesday.

In 2006, some applicants for sought-after jobs in the department's honors and summer intern programs were rejected because they were members of the American Constitution Society or Planned Parenthood or because they expressed concern about gender discrimination in the military, the report says.

The Supreme Court and the Constitution

2008-06-13T19:42:00.000-07:00

Finley Peter Dunne's Mr. Dooley famously noted that "No matter whether the country follows the flag or not, the Supreme Court follows the election returns." Well, Mr. Dooley never lived long enough to witness the Florida 2000 election. Furthermore, the public hasn't spoken yet about the detention of the prisoners called "unlawful enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We may hear from them in the next presidential election, though.

What's the issue here? The recent Supreme Court decision affirming that the Guantanamo detainees are entitled to petition for a writ of habeas corpus in civilian courts. Personally I can't even figure out why this is an uncertain point. The Constitution is quite specific about habeas corpus, even mentioning it before the Bill of Rights was added:

the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.

Article I Section 9

There's no rebellion. There hasn't been one, AFAIK, since the Green Corn Rebellion in 1917. There's no invasion either.

SO WTF? How do almost half of the SCOTUS justices justify suspending habeas corpus?

Well, former Attorney General Gonzales said it's a privilege, not a right. OK, that word "privilege" is the word used in the Constitution, but to distinguish privileges from rights is anachronistic. They didn't make that distinction in 1787, and we shouldn't read it back into the Constitution they wrote then. And AAMOF, the SCOTUS doesn't fall for that line of argument.

The dissenting court judges take a different tack. Roberts said it should be left to the legislature and executive. So why do we need courts at all? Scalia said the decision "breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad" as if either aliens have no rights or Guantanamo isn't under US control. Either position is risible. He also says that the ruling places undue burdens on the Commander in Chief, and that it will cause the death of more Americans.

In the decision, Justice Kennedy said:

Our opinion does not undermine the executive's powers as commander in chief. On the contrary, the exercise of those powers is vindicated, not eroded, when confirmed by the judicial branch. Within the Constitution's separation-of-powers structure, few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the executive to imprison a person.

I don't say the detainees should necessarily go free, but I do say that if there is a reason to hold them it should be produced in public so that we can all see it. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. I'm not saying that these people are necessarily innocent, much less that they are good guys. I am saying that they are entitled to a day in court. Civilian courts are not supposed to be suspended unless they are unable to operate.

If the Commonwealth of Virginia could give Nat Turner his day in court, with a lawyer, the United States can give the Guantanamo detainees their days in court, too. The slavocrats of southeast Virginia were surrounded and outnumbered by slaves who wanted to kill them. They had far more reason than we do to fear for their safety. If they didn't abandon the Constitution when it was only 50 years old, we have no reason to abandon it when it is over 200 years old.

Remember, this is not the Supreme Court that appointed Bush, it is that court amended by several justices whom Bush has appointed. If even this court rejects his arguments, I don't think they should be taken very seriously.

The Obama Veepwatch, Vol. 3: Wesley Clark

2008-06-10T01:16:00.000-07:00

From Newsweek:

Odds: Strong--precisely because he's a Clinton loyalist. Actually, on paper Clark may be the only veep candidate who meets every single one of Obama's requirements--*UPDATE: or at least what experts say Obama needs, politically-speaking, in a second fiddle.* He's white. Check. He's Southern. Check. And he has the two kinds of experience Obama most desperately lacks: military and executive. A Vietnam war hero, McCain will hammer his Democratic rival on national security and insist that the Illinois senator, whose foreign policy resume is painfully short, doesn't have necessary gravitas to serve as Commander in Chief; Clark, who served for 34 years at the Department of Defense and retired as Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, provides Obama with an effective counterargument. What's more, while McCain fought in a war (and legislated his way through others), Clark boasts what some voters might see as a more relevant resume point given our current situation in Iraq: he actually ran one. (See: the highly effective U.S. intervention in Kosovo--not to mention the fact the Clark, a Rhodes Scholar, finished first in his class at West Point, and McCain finished fifth from last in his class at Annapolis.) In short, Clark would not only help Obama blunt McCain's major line of attack but also give him a leg up on some key military matters (while adding a dash of administrative competence to boot). And like Obama, Clark was against the Iraq war from the start.

Clark for VEEP!

2008-06-09T01:38:00.000-07:00

Wesley Clark is leading Jim Webb on the D-Kos poll!

Now, it's no secret that I'm a fan of Wes Clark, but why would he be a better choice?

Not just that he would be a better Veep, who could give Obama the kind of serious, useful foreign policy and military expertise that he needs and that General Clark gave Hillary when he was advising her. But because we can't afford to lose that Virginia Senate seat. We only just barely picked it up from Senator Macaca in 2006, when the entire Republican Party seemed to be in free fall. It was a cliff hanger of an election, only decided by overseas votes (which have finally become Democratic. It will likely go Republican again without Jim Webb to defend it. Obama doesn't need to start his first term losing that Senate seat.

Wes Clark's not doing anything that's not indispensable, or that someone else couldn't do just as well. Other than campaigning, that is, and he could do a lot more of that a lot better as a Vice Presidential Candidate. He was also early identified with Hillary and actively campaigned for her. His being on the ticket would not only bring the moderate Democrats and Republicans that Obama needs, it could help reconcile Hillary's supporters to her losing the nomination.

Wes Clark is the no-brainer choice for Obama's running mate. I hope he picks him.

The importance of the Vice Presidency, 2008

2008-06-07T00:15:00.000-07:00

One of FDR's Vice Presidents, John Nance Garner, likened the Vice Presidency to a warm bucket of spit. It's not always the one way ticket to oblivion it is for most of those who've held the office, though. John Adams and George H. W. Bush rode it into the White House in the next election. Millard Fillmore, John Tyler, Calvin Coolidge, Theodore Roosevelt, Andrew Johnson, and Lyndon Johnson (among others) rode their own Vice Presidencies straight to the White House without an intervening election. You never know what's going to happen.

But you can guess. Especially this time.

John McCain will be the oldest president ever inaugurated if he wins. The current holder of that title, Ronald Reagan, got through on a lot of sleep and a "hands off" attitude. One joke from the time went that Jimmy Carter proved anyone could be president and Ronald Reagan proved you didn't really need a president. John McCain isn't like that. He's hyper. He could drop dead or have a stroke any day, even during the campaign. It is unlikely that he could survive a four year term with two wars going on, a fractious country and Congress, and the mess that Bush has made of the world. John McCain's Vice President can't be impeachment insurance, the way Dan Quayle and Spiro Agnew were for George H. W. Bush or Richard Nixon respectively.

What about Obama? He's young, he's healthy, the contrast couldn't be clearer in terms of their likely ability to survive naturally for the next four or eight years. I'm not worried about his suddenly dropping dead in office as much as I am worried about his finding nothing to do after his presidency ends. And I'm even more worried, much more worried, about his not surviving because someone will assassinate him. Maybe I was just too traumatized by the assassinations of the 1960s, but it's always a possibility that any president will be assassinated, and an even greater possibility for the first black president of the United States. Obama's Vice Presidential running mate will be as serious and as important a choice as McCain's.

Back to the blogosphere!

2008-06-04T00:46:00.000-07:00

I didn't realize things had gotten so crazy here. I go on the Clark Community Network and I get flamed as an alleged Obama troll. Now that he has the nomination I'll think about going back. Meanwhile, it's sad that some people have lost all perspective.

Meanwhile back on D-Kos, where there are a lot more people (and a lot more Obama supporters) than there are at the Clark Community, I get myself flamed as racist, but not before being told that I was "offensive" and "arrogant" and several other such epithets by someone who totally lost it. Well, he had reason to be upset, but that's an explanation, not an excuse. I really don't like being misrepresented. Not that he took much time to read what I had written before losing it totally. Oh, well. At least I have my TU status back.

I met these guys a long time ago.

2008-05-29T02:26:00.000-07:00

and I think the world of both of them, but I never knew they were connected until now.

Ammon Hennacy and Utah Phillips

Ammon was a saint. My parents introduced me to him when I was too young to know who he was, but I could tell he was important by the way all the grownups revered him. Later I read some of his books and was very impressed by the way he thought and the way he really tried to put his ideals into practice.

I met Utah Phillips much later, through the Wobblies. Or was it at a demonstration in DC? I think it was both because I kept running into him all over the place. I loved his music even more than his politics. I'll miss him a lot.

If you never knew either of these fine gentlemen, I feel sorry for you. The world is poorer without them.

“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

2008-05-23T20:13:00.000-07:00

Well, Hillary Clinton (and I) do remember. But a lot of Americans don't. Especially the ones who are voting for Hillary's opponent in the Democratic race.

Which highlights something about this race I haven't seen dealt with on the Internet.

Hillary is the last Baby Boomer standing. After 16 years of Baby Boomer hegemony half the people (all the non boomers?) are sick of Boomer rule. They're thinking either "hand it back to the grownups", or "move on to the next generation."

Our parents said boomers were only interested in three things: sex, drugs and rock & roll.

First we had the sex addict boomer president, who couldn't keep his pants zipped up.

Then we had the crackhead president, who kept hallucinating weapons of mass destruction and hearing voices.

I was hoping that we would get the Rock & Roll president next. But I'm not even sure which candidate that would have been.

If I can say anything here in defense of the baby boomers it would be that America's Greatest Generation was a hard act to follow. I just hope we won't go down in history as another "blundering generation".

Hood uh thunk it?

2008-05-23T18:04:00.000-07:00

Remember when people were afraid that South African blacks would take revenge on the whites when they took power? Looks like they needn't have worried. Seems the black South Africans hate other African blacks more than they hate the whites in their own country.

Immigrants flee hate killings in South Africa

It seems race is less important than nationality here, and even ethnicity is less important than class in causing social conflicts. There are a lot of ways to analyze this, but those who believe in race warfare, or who think that race is the main factor dividing humans, should think long and hard about what's happening here.

That "quaint" Geneva Convention

2008-05-22T17:32:00.000-07:00

Anyone who thinks Guantanamo,Abu Ghraib, etc. are not a break with American tradition should see this film. Abu Ghraib made Stalag 17 look like a Boy Scout Camp. We executed people after World War II for less than has been going on, and is still going on, in the United States' name today.

The two Democratic Parties

2008-05-19T03:14:00.000-07:00

The Democratic Party has never been a coherent political party, at least not for long. It started out as an Andrew Jackson fan club, but couldn't hold together long after he died. That's how the Republican Party got the chance to elect Abe Lincoln. And the Democrats have had their share of splits since. 1968 wasn't the only time the police were called out on the floor of the national convention. 1924 had plenty of fights, too. Seems half the party couldn't reconcile themselves to the Catholic (Al Smith) that the other half of the party wanted to nominate. So they fell apart again until FDR put them back together, at least for a while. You get the idea. Falling apart over Civil Rights in the 1960s wasn't an aberration, it was par for the course.

The most interesting statistic about the 1994 election, when the Republicans took control of Congress back from the Democrats, is that people with high school or college educations were more likely to vote Republican. People who had less than a high school or more than a college education (i.e. advanced degrees) voted Democrat. Nearly half of the country was Democratic, but the two halves of the party couldn't, literally couldn't, talk to each other. They mostly never ran into each other in life.

This division is now reflected in the primary election results. Ironically, the candidate of the better educated is an African-American raised by a single mother, while the candidate who appeals to the less well educated is a conspicuously wealthy multi-millionaire. They both have plenty of education, though.

What's my take on all this? Heh! I'm in the 5% of Democrats who really doesn't care. All I care about is that the party gets its act together in time for the election. The only thing that scares me now is another Republican in the White House. Even John McCain. If there's any way to prevent that, I want to be part of it. I've had it with the Republican Party. Even John McCain. Would an Obama-Clinton ticket do it? I'd vote for it!

Where was I?

2008-05-19T03:07:00.000-07:00

Don't ask. Workplace issues, family issues, another part-time job on top of the one I've already got. I even joined several of those high IQ societies. I know, I know. Believe me I know. High IQ societies are just for losers who have big brains, no real accomplishments and nothing better to do. I guess that's me. I also found out that a friend who keeps one of these things that he's a compulsive writer. I'm not. I am a compulsive reader, which keeps me well informed (I'd like to think) but writing doesn't come so easily to me. I'll try to keep this up better from now on, though.

It's more than just the other things keeping me busy, though. I've been depressed about the constant fighting among Democrats, and that McCain, who used to be my favorite Republican, has completely capitulated to the Bush line on just about everything from Social Security to National Security. America is going to hell, and it would be nice if we could all ride in a handbasket. More comfortable than the ride we're going to get, I'm afraid.

Now let me post something real.

Let's all support Joe Biden!

2008-01-08T15:11:00.000-08:00

[crossposted at D-Kos]

I know he's not in the race for president anymore. As a big fan of his I'm happy about that. Joe is the chairperson of the very important Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, one of the most important jobs in the US government, especially now. The Senate of the United States has a special role in foreign policy, approving all treaties and ambassadors, and the Chair of the Committee on Foreign Relations, whether it is occupied by J. William Fulbright or Jesse Helms, has an important voice in foreign policy.

Joe Biden has that voice now. He is the most qualified American, not just the most qualified Democrat, to use it for good. Let's all encourage him to do it. Specific reasons and suggestions are welcomed in comments.

1. We need Fulbright hearings

Public opinion about the Vietnam War was heavily influenced by the informative hearings that Senator J. William Fulbright held into American foreign policy in southeast Asia. As Senator Fulbright himself said about the hearings he held:

Under our system Congress, and especially the Senate, shares responsibility with the President for making our Nation's foreign policy. This war, however, started and continues as a Presidential war in which the Congress, since the fraudulent Gulf of Tonkin episode, has not played a significant role. [...] The purpose of these hearings is to develop the best advice and greater public understanding of the policy alternatives available and positive congressional action to end American participation in the war.

If that was true about the Vietnam War, it is true exponentially now, during the even more fraudulent Iraq War, a war that has been even more damaging to American national interests than the Vietnam War ever could have been.

2. We were promised hearings

OK, OK, much as I support impeachment, I do remember that the Democrats who took over Congress in the last national elections did say that impeachment was "off the table." I can understand and respect that they want to keep their promise to the American public. It may be unusual in a politician, but it is not less, and probably more, laudable for being unusual.

I also remember that the Democrats who took over Congress promised us hearings. I thought that was OK, because I figured that if the truth came out about the W. Bush administration's lies and incompetence, then the American public would demand that W. Bush be impeached.

That didn't happen, because enough hearings weren't held. I do know that some hearings were held, but not enough to make an impact on public opinion. Most Americans didn't learn from Congress that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, because Congress didn't hold enough hearings. They learned about it because a reporter asked Bush, shortly before the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, what Iraq had to do with the attacks. "Nothing." Bush said, seemingly startled, perhaps because he had never said that Iraq did have anything to do with 9/11. Of course, when Helen Thomas asked Bush why we did invade Iraq he didn't have a coherent answer. However, the fact that Congressional hearings didn't inform the US public merits condemnation of Congress for dereliction of duty.

Isn't it about time that Congress ask why we invaded Iraq? Isn't it about time that Congress ask why our Middle East policy, indeed the entire foreign policy of the United States, is such a train wreck? The Annapolis peace process isn't even a policy, it's a Hail Mary pass. The Congress has subpoena powers. The Senate has a special role in foreign policy. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is the obvious committee to ask the hard questions that need to be asked so that the American people can finally find out and understand how our foreign policy became this balled up. We need to insist that they hold these hearings. Joe Biden is the person who must hold those hearings.

3. This is Joe Biden's real job

Joe Biden in the chairperson of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Nobody else has that job. No one else has responsibility for Congressional oversight of foreign relations, except the corresponding chairperson of the House Committee, and the House does not have the powers in foreign affairs that the Senate of the United States does. It is Joe Biden's responsibility to hold these hearings. No one else can hold these hearings. If Joe Biden doesn't or can't see that we have to make him see it.

4. restore Constitutional balance

I know a lot of people here wanted Joe Biden to be president. Now some of them are saying he should be Secretary of State. I'm not saying he wouldn't be good in those positions, but putting him into the executive branch of government doesn't solve one of the most serious problems of the Bush administration: the growth of power of the "unitary executive" branch, and the damage it has done to the traditional American balance of powers.

This administration has concentrated too much power in the executive branch, going farther than Nixon did during Watergate toward a dictatorship, ignoring Congress and running the government by secrecy and signing statements. Even if the Democrats take over the executive branch that dangerous imbalance could persiste, and will persist unless the Congress itself acts to restore the balance. Impeachments would be a good way to start that, but impeachments are "off the table" according to Congressional leaders. The only alternative offered is investigations. Demand an investigation into Bush foreign policy. How did it go wrong and how can it be fixed. Such hearings will prove invaluable to whichever Democrat takes over the presidency next year. Even if some Republican takes the presidency (heaven forfend!) they will find it hard to ignore these hearings.

5. DEMAND HEARINGS NOW!

Please, everyone, write to Joe Biden and demand that he hold Fulbright style hearings about the train wreck of a foreign policy that got us into this counterproductive war in Iraq and which has poisoned our relations with nearly every other country on earth.

No one is as qualified as Joe Biden to hold those hearings. No one else is chairperson of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, so no one else can hold those hearings. It's Joe Biden's job to hold those hearings. It is his destiny to become one of the greatest chairpersons of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in American history. If he can't see it we have to make him see it.

We were promised investigations in the 2006 elections. Joe Biden must hold those investigations. Please write him and convince him that he has to do it. He could be the greatest chairperson of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since Fulbright himself. Now he's no longer distracted by his Quixotic campaign for president, so that he can fulfill his destiny as one of the all time great senators of US history.

Please write and call Joe Biden at:

Senator Joseph Biden, Delaware, (Chairperson)
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6225

Phone: (202) 224-4651

Bhutto: two assassination plots?

2008-01-02T16:08:00.000-08:00

Benazir Bhutto had no shortage of enemies. The strange nature of the assassination attempt(s) that succeeded suggest to me that there may have been two separate plots, either of which might have succeeded, at least one of which certainly did.

Look at this video. "Look, these are the three shots fired, and this is then the blast."

There is a gunman wearing sunglasses who shoots her, and a suicide bomber who then blows everyone up. Were their plots even related? Possibly but I doubt it. The MOs are too different. But maybe the bomber was just covering for the gunman. The whole thing should be investigated by some neutral body, whether Pakistani or international.

Meanwhile let's not forget that Pakistani Islamists blew up a suicide bomb and killed at least 48 people who were praying in a mosque on the Id festival. I don't usually make claims about who are really Muslims (I'll leave it to Muslims to argue about that) but I'll make an exception in this case. If praying in a mosque on the Id day is unbelief, what is Islam? These maniac Islamists cannot claim to be Muslims any more.

WTF time, religion

2007-12-07T20:13:00.000-08:00

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!

2007-10-21T02:06:00.000-07:00

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

2007-10-20T18:37:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-10-10T04:44:00.000-07:00

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

2007-09-21T21:16:00.000-07:00

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

2007-09-16T20:00:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-18T03:28:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-08-11T23:57:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-02T01:10:00.001-07:00

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!

2007-07-28T16:53:00.000-07:00

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

2007-07-20T17:06:00.001-07:00

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?

2007-07-13T19:49:00.000-07:00

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

2007-07-02T07:00:00.000-07:00

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?

2007-05-12T21:07:00.000-07:00

"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?"

2007-05-05T17:45:00.000-07:00

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

2007-04-27T20:25:00.000-07:00

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

2007-04-23T03:24:00.000-07:00

I couldn't put it better myself.

racial progress?

2007-04-12T19:15:00.000-07:00

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

2007-04-07T01:46:00.000-07:00

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

2007-04-01T19:04:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-26T16:33:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-25T15:54:00.000-07:00

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?

2007-03-23T20:56:00.000-07:00

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?

2007-03-06T01:54:00.000-08:00

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

2007-03-05T01:11:00.000-08:00

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

2007-03-03T19:04:00.000-08:00

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

2007-03-02T17:45:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-15T16:23:00.000-08:00

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"

2007-02-10T15:46:00.000-08:00

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!

2007-02-08T00:14:00.000-08:00

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?

2007-02-07T05:59:00.000-08:00

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.