Crazier and crazier

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Tuesday once again charged that the Holocaust was a fantasy concocted for the West to take over the Middle East through Israel, and proclaimed that Israel was on the verge of collapse, the news agency ISNA reported.

I wonder what kind of historical research is permitted in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The government is active in publishing copies of The International Jew by Henry Ford and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and distributing them around the world.

Worst president ever?

You gotta read this article by Sean Wilentz in Rolling Stone magazine:

George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.

From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. For years, these perennial debates have largely focused on the same handful of chief executives whom national polls of historians, from across the ideological and political spectrum, routinely cite as the bottom of the presidential barrel. Was the lousiest James Buchanan, who, confronted with Southern secession in 1860, dithered to a degree that, as his most recent biographer has said, probably amounted to disloyalty -- and who handed to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, a nation already torn asunder? Was it Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, who actively sided with former Confederates and undermined Reconstruction? What about the amiably incompetent Warren G. Harding, whose administration was fabulously corrupt? Or, though he has his defenders, Herbert Hoover, who tried some reforms but remained imprisoned in his own outmoded individualist ethic and collapsed under the weight of the stock-market crash of 1929 and the Depression's onset? The younger historians always put in a word for Richard M. Nixon, the only American president forced to resign from office.

Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies." In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.

They're not even pretending to look for bin Ladin!

This has been going around the news lately. Here's the New York Times take:

C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden

WASHINGTON, July 3 — The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.

The official administration spin is that it doesn't mean anything:

Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.

"The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."

What does the guy who knows most about it have to say?

Michael Scheuer, a former senior C.I.A. official who was the first head of the unit, said the move reflected a view within the agency that Mr. bin Laden was no longer the threat he once was.

Mr. Scheuer said that view was mistaken.

"This will clearly denigrate our operations against Al Qaeda," he said. "These days at the agency, bin Laden and Al Qaeda appear to be treated merely as first among equals."

So why are they really doing this?

In recent years, the war in Iraq has stretched the resources of the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, generating new priorities for American officials.

That's right, the War in Iraq is making it impossible to fight the people who really attacked the United States.

Is George Bush really so stunningly incompetent, or doesn't he want to catch the people who attacked us on September 11th?

That's the real question about almost all of the administration's policies. Stupidity and incompetence, or deliberate sabotage of the United States? Was the Hurricane Katrina response just an incredible foulup, or deliberate ethnic cleansing? The list goes on and on and on and on and . . . .

Let me get this straight

The same people in the American administration who hate the UN, who think it is incompetent and worthless and ought to be scrapped or at least totally overhauled, want it to take over the African Union mission in Darfur?WTF?

What did I tell you?

Everybody's entitled to a day in court.

At least in America.

And I don't care what John Yoo says about it.

Japan subsidizing political thugs in the Gambia

Gambia: Donated Japanese Rice Back in Town

GRTS radio has announced the arrival of a consignment of donated Japanese rice at the port of Banjul. The rice has been coming in consignment since 2004. It is donated to The Gambia by Japanese government, through its agency, JICA, Japanese International Cooperation Agency.

Though the donation is meant for alleviating food poverty in the country, most of the rice is sold to Government civil servants and ruling party militants. The rice that use to come in 25 kg bags, will now come 30 kg ones. The rice which is popular with people here, is to be sold at D250 per bag. Proceeds from "the sales will be paid in a special account said to be meant for meeting costs in the agricultural sector.

There is no famine in the Gambia. The money paid by civil servants and "party militants" (the usual euphemism for political thug is "party stalwart" so I am surprised at the forthrightness of the writer) will go to a special account, but they are buying the rice at a subsidized price and can earn more by selling the rice on the market. Japan is subsidizing political thuggery in Africa.

More:

What really is going on in the Gambia?

from the New York Times:

U.S. Suspends Development Aid to Gambia

By CELIA W. DUGGER
Published: June 17, 2006

The Millennium Challenge Corporation, an American aid agency that provides large grants to well-governed poor countries, suspended Gambia's eligibility, citing a sharp deterioration in press freedom, political rights and anti-corruption efforts. As elections near, the government has barred opposition parties from holding public gatherings and has arrested opposition leaders, according to Freedom House, a research group the aid agency relies on for country evaluations.

Think about that. There are some regimes even the Bush administration won't subsidize but that Japan's Liberal Democrat administration will. What are they getting for their money? A vote on the International Whaling Commission? A contract for Toyota? Support for their permanent UN Security Council Seat?

Here's another story about it:

Gambia: Japan Gives 3814 Tons of Rice to Gambia

The Daily Observer (Banjul) May 24, 2006
Alhagie Jobe

The Japanese government, through the Japanese Food Aid Programme for The Gambia, yesterday handed over 3814 tons of rice to the government of the Gambia at a ceremony held at the Gambia Ports Authority warehouse in Banjul.

The Japanese Food Aid Programme aims at ensuring food self-sufficiency which is a key factor for socio-economic development. It also aims at helping Gambians to satisfy their basic needs and improve their living conditions.

The provision of this rice is the result of a grant agreement amounting to 180 million Yen amounting to D450 million between the two countries signed on 25 April 2005 within the framework of a food aid program, which is one of the priority fields of the Japanese cooperation in The Gambia.

Handing over the rice, Mr Hisanobu Hasama, Consular at the Japanese embassy, representing the Japanese Ambassador to The Gambia, said the 3814 tons of rice are offered to The Gambia in order to meet the basic needs of the Gambian people. He said being aware of the difficulties faced by the Gambia government in ensuring food self-sufficiency in the country, the Japanese government has been extending food aid in a regular manner for the purpose of improving the living conditions of the Gambian populations.

Mr Hasama said the government of the Gambia can realise socio-economic projects by utilising the counterpart fund which would be constituted by the Gambian authorities. He expressed hope that the project of the provision of agricultural support service approved by the government of Japan last year shall give the maximum of benefit to the Gambian population.

Mr Hasama then reconfirmed that this food Aid programme is a symbol of solidarity and friendship between the two countries noting that the government of Japan is willing to support as much as possible The Gambia's self-reliance efforts aimed at meeting socio-economic and sustainable development. He expressed hoped that the food aid will promote and strengthen the excellent relations already existing between the two countries and called on the authorities to make sure that the rice is distributed as soon as possible.

In receiving the rice on behalf of the Gambia Government, Yankuba Touray, secretary of state for Agriculture, said the latest gift is the third time that the government and people of Japan are giving such aid under the Kennedy Round (KR) programme, to The Gambia. He said the assistance is welcome owing to the fact that rice is the staple food of this country and always in high demand. He said as agreed with the Japanese government, proceeds from the sale of the rice will be lodged in a seperate account at the Central Bank of The Gambia meant exclusively for counterpart funds for KR 2004 which he said will be seperated from the account of KR 2003.

SoS Touray added that as agreed with the government of Japan, bank statements will be submitted regularly to the government of Japan for confirmation of the deposits of funds in the Central Bank of The Gambia noting that proposals for the utilisation of the counterpart fund have been approved by the embassy of Japan in Dakar and proceeds for the sale of consignments of rice will be utilised for funding the country's ongoing agricultural improvement programmes.

SoS Touray thanked the Government and Japan for the assistance which he said will help the Gambia address the issue of food security at the household level "but concomitantly will allow The Gambia to mitigate the key constraints facing the agricultural sector through the implementation of our agricultural improvement programme." He assured the Japanese government that the rice will reach all Gambian households and the proceeds of the monetisation process will be utilised soley for the intended purpose.

The ceremony was chaired by Badara Loum, permanent secretary at the department of state for Agriculture.

Islamist controls access to Bush!

By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Wanted: Face time with President Bush or top adviser Karl Rove. Suggested donation: $100,000. The middleman: lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Blunt e-mails that connect money and access in Washington show that prominent Republican activist Grover Norquist facilitated some administration contacts for Abramoff's clients while the lobbyist simultaneously solicited those clients for large donations to Norquist's tax-exempt group.

That's right, Islamist Grover Norquist, an avowed enemy of the US government, controls access to President Bush.

No wonder Bush won't go after his family friend, Bin Ladin.

Why Karl Rove isn't being indicted

Didn't he out a CIA agent? Isn't that a federal offense? Not if the president says he authorized declassification of her identity, which, after loud mouthing about how he was going after anyone who leaked the identity in question to "take care" of them, he now claims he did, maybe retroactively. (Doesn't he have to sign and date anything about that?)

So the prosecution can't prove it was illegal for the president's hatchet man to reveal the identity of a US secret operative for political reasons. Does that make it right? Does that mean the public shouldn't be outraged about this?

Why is the media spin all about how the White House is now exonerated because nothing illegal was done, or at least nothing illegal could be proven. As Cicero noted about another threat to another Republic:

O tempora! O mores!

The Cole appointment at Yale

Remember all those right wingers who insist they are for intellectual freedom in the Universities? How they insist that they are only fighting for equal time for conservatives who are discriminated against by a cabal of liberals in academia?

Well, guess what? These same right wing guardians of academic freedom are now all rejoicing about a liberal being turned down for a job he was accepted for by the department that wanted to hire him. That's right, they are bragging about having a qualified professor denied a job that the departments involved agreed he was qualified for. Here's the story from "Inside Higher Education":

A joint appointment in history and sociology had already been approved at the departmental levels. But on Friday, the blog Power Line reported that a senior appointments committee at Yale has overruled those votes,

In other words, historians and sociologists recognized that Cole was the best qualified for the post, but senior administrators, subjected to pressure from anti-intellectual right wing extremists, over-ruled their own faculty members.

So much for the right as defenders of academic freedom.

Zarqawi in al-Akhira

Yes, he's in the afterlife. I am much relieved, and I can't help but be happy about it.

US Military Statement on Zarqawi's Death

You can argue, and I would agree, that without our invading Iraq he might never have joined his group to al-Qa'ida. You can argue that he would have stayed bottled up in some isolated, irrelevant corner of Iraq. And again, I would agree with you. You can even argue, and again I would agree with you, that it would have been better to have captured him instead of just wiping him out with air attacks. But come on, who could NOT be happy, or at least relieved, that the guy is out of the action. Hey, I'm happy.

Now we have to see what effect this will have on the war in Iraq.

People friendly forces?

from the Beeb:

The Nato commander in Afghanistan has pledged to use new tactics to win over the support of disenchanted Afghans.

"Lt Gen David Richards said Nato soldiers would be a "people-friendly force" when they take over security in the south from US forces in July.

So why don't they just get bin Ladin and leave?

Or is that too easy?

another Bush anti-terror fiasco?

Has the feckless Bush administration been meddling in Somalia?

from Somali Net:

Powerful warlords got together last February and announced a new self-appointed ant-terror group called Alliance of Anti-Terror and Peace Restoration. They held a press conference the next day and told the world they are in business of hunting Al-Qaeda members who were suspected of hiding in Mogadishu. This new union surprised almost everyone who is keen to Somalia’s political landscape since these men were at each other’s throat for so long.

So where did this new alliance of warlords come from?

Many analysts agreed that either the Pentagon or the CIA recruited and financed Mogadishu warlords to fight a proxy war against Al-Qaeda or its sympathizers. Unlike US involvement in Somalia in early 1990s, Mogadishu warlords will do the dirty job of hunting US wanted men for a bounty price. The warlords and the US government agreed there are Al-Qaeda affiliates operating out of Mogadishu and unverified but widely believed reports say the US and Ethiopia are heavily involved in the war.

Looks like the Bush administration can't figure out what's going on anywhere, but if you scream "TERRORIST!" You can get a lot of money and guns from them.

And of course they still can't find bin Ladin.

O'Reilly lies to smear US troops

I am not making this up, as Dave Barry would say. It's too outrageous to make up. No one would believe that Bill O'Reilly of Fox News would lie to smear American troops and whitewash Nazis, but he did. He lied and smeared the US military while exonerating the Nazi SS of atrocities. It's so outrageous even I wouldn't believe it without solid evidence.

Here's the video in Quicktime.

Here it is in Windows Media.

Here's the audio.

Here's the transcript.

O'Reilly: "in Malmedy, as you know, US forces captured SS forces who had their hands in the air, and they were unarmed, and they shot them down."

Untrue. That was Nazi SS troops who killed unarmed US prisoners. Confederate troops did the same thing to US troops at the infamous Fort Pillow Massacre, but US troops who do things like that are supposed to be punished for it.

Here are the facts, from Wikipedia, from History.Net, and one with photographs.

This massacre, this Nazi atrocity, is too well known for anyone to doubt it, much less to attribute it to Americans.

Problem is, O'Reilly is a Nazi who thinks he's an American. He's just very confused. Just like anyone who thinks they are getting real information from Faux News, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or any of the other right wing liers.

Unfortunately, you can't legally libel the dead. They can't sue. But everyone should make this as public as possible. O'Reilly has no shame, but maybe pressure can be put on Fox News to replace him. This is outrageous, even by the standards of Fox.

Clinton last freely, democratically elected US president?

From Rolling Stone

something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations. A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states, was discovered shredding Democratic registrations. In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes, malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots. Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.

The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush's victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.

What goes around comes around, I guess. They have pulled this stuff in too many Latin American countries, especially in Central America, and justified it to themselves so often that they have really come to believe that they were doing what was right. Old time political machines did this locally, and just did it for the money. Of course the Republicans, at least the rich ones at the top, are ripping off the US treasury like crazy, but the guys on the bottom really are blinded by Faux News and Ann Coulter screaming that liberals are traitors. What makes it really sad is not just the way the Republicans have been mortgaging the country to the Red Chinese to get money to buy votes with (they call it "tax cuts", but it's not a tax cut when the government is this far in the red). What's really sad is the way they let bin Ladin get away by shifting most of the troops to Iraq. Was it incompetence or deliberate? I don't know. Was the response to Katrina incompetence or deliberate ethnic cleansing? You tell me.

There better be an investigation of this administration. I know we won't have one until after this fall's Congressional elections, if then. If the Democrats don't win it will be a good sign that those elections were fixed to. What to do then?

Searching Congress vs. Searching Citizens.

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

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

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

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

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

Wole Soyinka and Darfur

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read it and weep!

from Wikipedia:

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

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

Iran to require oil payments in euros

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

. . .

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

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

MORE TAX CUTS?!?!?

Let me get this straight:

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

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

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

Whatever happend to countercyclical spending?

Whatever happened to fiscal conservatism?

Legalize "drugs"?!?!?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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