Freedom Fry

Never Again.

2006-03-20T14:02:00.000-05:00

In the past two years, janjaweed militias sponsored by the Sundanse government have killed four hundred thousand civilians in Darfur, Sudan. In a March 12 article in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof reports that the genocide is spreading into Chad. [400,000 is is an estimated figure and includes 250,000 deaths by starvation and disease caused indirectly by the militias, as well as 140,000 violent deaths caused directly by the militias.]

If the role of the U.S. is truly to protect other peoples from genocide, then we must act. George W. Bush recently asked Congress to approve $514 million to aid Darfur. It’s a start but, in context, we spend $6 billion a month in Iraq.

Now is a perfect time to redeploy some of our troops from Iraq to Sudan: Now, when 71% of Iraqis view us "mostly as occupiers” (April 2004 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll). Now, when 72% of American troops in Iraq think we should leave within a year (February 2006 Zogby poll). Now, when our actions in Iraq have caused the country to begin to break apart rather than rise up as a unity.

Now, the important thing! What can you do to help? Send a card to the President supporting multinational action in Sudan at www.millionvoicesfordarfur.org. Or check www.genocideintervention.net for more ways to help.

What Would Happen If All the World Were America?

2006-03-03T12:29:00.000-05:00

This seems like another point that no one has raised publicly, or at least loudly: What exactly is America trying to create with Bush's doctrine of creating democratic states in the Middle East? Is his final goal to make a world that is full of little Americas?

This sounds good at first, and this, somehow is how far Bush has gotten in his reasoning: How great would it be if everyone was espousing equality, freedom of speech, the press, and religion, with the Peoples determining their governments. However, what Bush also means by democratizing the world, is a world that is dominated by American consumer culture. For some reason we have not yet divided these two aspects of our culture. And I think that reason is that Bush is a corporate person. He believes in our consumerism. In his understanding, it raises our quality of life.

However this is a very short term answer. This increasing consumer culture would be terrible for the world. Overconsumption is not something to push as a wave of the future, or a way to become wealthy and happy. It comes at the expense of our environment. It also comes at the expense of real human happiness, which arises from self-awareness. This is the spiritual search. The spiritual search comes only after the materialistic search finds nothing. It can perhaps arise on its own, but consumerism definitely will also lead to spiritualism.

Thomas Friedman, in a recent NY Times opinion said, "A majority of Americans, in a gut way, always understood the value of trying to produce a democratizing government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world. That is why there has been no big antiwar movement." If our reporters don't even take the time to reason out what the world would look like eventually if everyone was like America, it is less likely that the American people will reason this out. And it is less likely that we will have an active antiwar movement.

What Does Energy Independence Mean for the Middle East?

2005-10-07T14:15:00.000-04:00

Has anyone thought about this very important question? The more the U.S. and the world become energy independent, or based on non-oil energy sources, the less the Middle East will have wealth:

Iran's exports are 80% petroleum, making up roughly 6% of its GDP. "Iran's economy is marked by a bloated, inefficient state sector, over reliance on the oil sector, and statist policies that create major distortions throughout."
Iraq's exports are 83.9% crude oil, making up roughly 15.5% of its GDP. "Iraq's economy is dominated by the oil sector, which has traditionally provided about 95% of foreign exchange earnings."
In Saudi Arabia, "the petroleum sector accounts for roughly 75% of budget revenues, 45% of GDP, and 90% of export earnings."
"Yemen's...economic fortunes depend mostly on oil."
The wealth of the United Arab Emirates is based on oil and gas output (about 30% of GDP).
In Kuwait, "petroleum accounts for nearly half of GDP, 95% of export revenues, and 80% of government income."

The U.S. imports the most oil in the world. What will become of these people when either the oil dries up or demand for oil goes down significantly? Well they either adapt or die. Yet what are you going to adapt to when you are in a desert? These counties will likely be poor and more resentful of the U.S. This likely means more terrorism.

This is not in our best interests.

How about working with these countries to develop good solar power technology? We will be dependent on them but we will have established relationships with them. We will have helped the environment, and we will have reduced poverty. All the power in the world can't be the U.S.'s. Other countries need to have bargaining chips. Or else they will revolt.

Rebuilding the Fourth Estate

2005-10-07T13:46:00.000-04:00

Some quick thoughts about the media (I included this in a survey I took at MoveOn.org about where I want to focus on our media problems):

What Are the Current Problems Facing Our Media?

Our media is funded in large part by advertising. That is the main problem. The media is then beholden to the advertisers. If Bush is pro-corporation then the advertisers will be pro-Bush and then the newspapers, T.V., internet sites will be pro-Bush. As it turns out, Bush is pro-corporation.

Now I don't mean to say that I'm anti-corporation. I think that corporations are valuable things and they have built our society as it is today. However, I am against having corporations have identity and allowing them to participate in our governmental process. If you haven't seen "The Corporation" I recommend it. I am also against corporations having as much power as they do (and it is growing). No one should have that much power, even causes I believe in.

How do we then get our media apart from corporate influence?

We need to find ways to fund the media without advertising or with locked in advertising contracts over periods of years (that's a good idea). Would you pay $30 a month for a newspaper that is not advertising based? A magazine? A television network? How 'bout $30 more to get rid of all ads on your cable?

By the way, where is the public newspaper? This should be newspaper without any advertising that is publicly funded. This another pretty good way to ensure unbiased news.

And while we're at it, get rid of the ads that are creeping up NPR and PBS! We need to fund these information sources more. Maybe it's time to make the media an actual fourth estate of government: Congress, the President, the Court, and the Media.

However, I see the value of having media separate from the established government. Then it's free to fight this establishment if it should become corrupt. Best that our news not be corrupt also and a tool of propaganda.

This brings me to my next question, why don't we have any non-profit, private news, T.V. or magazines? I suppose PBS could surely become totally independent of our government.

Now you may think that I'm simply trying to replace a corporate-funded media with a media that is more "left-friendly." I'm not. I'm trying to find ways of getting the actual truth. Actual facts. Actual information that isn't spun to reflect a reality. The actual impressions people have on the ground. I hope this is what everyone in America wants.

Welcome to the Future

2005-10-06T12:23:00.000-04:00

The last two presidential elections exposed the poor state of affairs in the Democratic party. Clearly the party was ill-prepared for an all out ideological and political battle. Ever since Clinton took office, it seemed like the creation of new ideas and the commitment to a disciplined, cohesive party took a back seat. Democrats seemed content to rest on their laurels or else wax poetic about the good ol' days. When the shit hit the fan it was clear that the left had fallen into complete disarray, appearing fractured and split over the smallest issues, let alone the big ones.

Not any more. This excellent article (written by an enthusiastic Democrat) airs some of the new and worthy ideas issuing forth from the Democratic party. In addition to being an excellent read, the article also contains a link to Barack Obama's recent essay on Daily Kos which is critical read. Here's the link just in case.

No Surprises

2005-10-05T10:26:00.000-04:00

Recent elections in Afghanistan have gone "well" according to officials who claim that the peaceful process was proof of victory over the militants. Obviously the officials aren't aware of the outcome of the elections in which a majority of the seats were won by warlords including some with connections to Al-Quaeda. I wonder how the families of fallen soldiers in America feel about that?

In an another unsurprising development the New York Times has revealed that Harriet Miers, President Bush's second pick for the Supreme Court, is an evangelical Christian. No really? Given her lack of experience and clear underqualification for the position what were you expecting as the justification for her candidacy? This guy never lets up does he? Despite the disgusting lack of achievement by this President all he seems to do is repeat the same mistakes, what is he trying to do master the art of screwing up?

Nepotism and Cronyism Part II

2005-10-04T10:06:00.000-04:00

Here we go again. Bush has decided to fall back on his tried and tested method of using fealty as the only measure of worth, in selecting a justice for the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Americans should be outraged. It's insulting to their intelligence when President Bobblehead gets up on the podium to tell the nation he respects an independent judiciary while trying to stuff a poor choice into the Supreme Court. Now, I'm no stranger to history and I know past Presidents have put friends into the Court, but Harriet Miers comes across as nothing more than mediocre when contrasted with some of the past cronies. You can compare their qualifications in this Chicago Tribune article.

It's clear Bush is looking for an easy confirmation process, what with his Hammer getting nailed and no longer being available to bully Congress. That's sad. Bush's proclivity for surrounding himself with loyal friends has never been very good for the country: Tom Ridge, Chertoff, Michael Brown, and Paul Bremer were all buddies who screwed things up royally and lacked the distinguished credentials and experience required to do the job properly.

When will America wake up to see that this President has been consistent in only one regard throughout his Presidency, in taking care of his own while he lets your country, children, and reputation go down the drain.

"You Could...Abort Every Black Baby in This Country and Your Crime Rate Would Go Down"

2005-09-30T17:42:00.000-04:00

Bill Bennett, the Education Secretary for Reagan, recently said, "...You could—if that were your sole purpose—abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." He was speaking in his own voice and saying his own opinion.

Blaming blacks for having a higher crime rate than whites is a ridiculous thing. It is like Hitler blaming the Jews for being poor while they were in the ghettoes during late 1930s. It is ignoring the obvious, glaring, and purposeful impoverishment of blacks by whites for 250 years, only 150 years ago. It is ignoring the purposeful mistreatment of blacks for the next 100 years. And it is ignoring the subconscious mistreatment of blacks that continues up to this day. We are getting past racism as a country, but we aren't there yet.

Bill Bennett's statement is not an outright blaming of blacks for higher crime, but it does attribute crime to blacks with no mention of the part whites play in creating the recipe for this situation. Leaving aside that the idea of aborting all babies of any one group (otherwise known as genocide) is a silly thing to mention, even if it were true, the absent-mindedness of Bennett and others in our country is cryable.

The Collapse of the Fourth Estate

2005-09-26T19:05:00.000-04:00

It's finally happened: The disillusionment of Misha Cohen. I now know that our fourth estate, our free press, has totally crumbled.

I just got back from Washington D.C. where as many as 300,000 protesters marched many blocks around the White House, packing the streets. And yet, when I turn on my T.V., open my newspaper, and search Google news for coverage, the day after, I find little about the protest. I find "tens of thousands of protesters in Washington D.C.," in various places. Hmm, tens of thousands. Is that 40,000? 50,000? Two million? I see that the National Park Service no longer releases estimates of crowd size. The press, as a whole, simply accepts this. They don't even feel that it's their duty to do a study of it themselves. How can we not get an accurate, impartial estimate on the number of people in an area? I see various presentations of the numbers: 300,000, 250,000, 150,000, 100,000. The police chief, Charles H. Ramsey, when asked if there were 100,000 protesters, answered, "They probably hit that." However, when asked further if they had gotten 150,000, he said, "That's as good a guess as any." For some reason this latter was not always reported.

Then there's the paucity of photographs, audio, and video of the event. Where is the media? What is the internet good for? Advertising? Why aren't there full, archival mp3 versions of all the speakers who spoke at the rally (including Rep. Maxine Waters [D-Calif.], Rep. Barbara Lee [D-Calif.], Greg Palast, Jessica Lange, Ralph Nader, Cindy Sheehan [who gave a very articulate speech], Al Sharpton, Etan Thomas from the Washington Wizards, and Joan Baez)? Why aren't there videos of all of them? Why aren't there videos of the marching? Why aren't there hundreds of photos of the protest, showing you the scale of the event?

There were helicopters flying overhead all day. Was the media not allowed to photograph the event from the air?

It took hours of searching to find a photo like this (on the San Francisco Chronicle website):

It gives you some idea of the size of the event. Then there was a single video on the Capitol's premier paper, the Washington Post. And that's pretty much it. Most papers included a single, non-enlargeable image along with the article. Usually the image was of an angry mob of protesters. The protest, however, went off peacefully, with only three arrests. It was a time of chanting, determination, and excitement, rather than of violence or even much anger.

Is the media this much owned by the government, that it can no longer publicize—accurately—criticism of the administration? Is it so owned by the advertisers that it must spin reality to suit the desired readership? The answer is, "Yes."

Some of My Photos

Nepotism and Cronyism

2005-09-23T10:25:00.000-04:00

It's nice to know that a large number of people in the Bush administration got their jobs by kissing ass, being related to the Vice President, or sleeping with other, powerful neo-cons. Check this Village Voice article on how Paul Wolfowitz (the architect of the impressive fuck up in Iraq) got his Saudi girlfriend a job in the World Bank which she parlayed into a job with Dick Cheney's daughter in the State Department.

Obviously this gang isn't pulling its weight because Bush's usual bedfellows, the Saudis, are publicly voicing concern over the disintegrating situation in Iraq. This New York Times article details the Sauidi foreign minister's recent criticism of the situation. Apparently the Iraq war could result in war throughout the region, thereby destabilizing the Middle East—quite the opposite of what Wolfowitz planned on. Good thing he's working on poverty eh?

Since we're on the topic of scams, (neo) con men, and cronyism here's a link to the truth behind the oil-for-food scandal. While the Bush administration wanted you to believe that the scandal was the result of corruption within the UN, this Harper's article illuminates the real motivation for the way the issue was handled.

What Would I Do about Iraq?

2005-09-23T02:02:00.000-04:00

On the eve of going to Washington D.C. to march to end the war in Iraq, I had to ask myself, "What do I really want to happen in Iraq? Is it better for us to pull out now, over a gradual time, or to wait until the war is won? What would I do if I were President? "

First of all I would totally end U.S. benefits from the occupation of Iraq. That is, U.S. construction contracts, ideas about making Iraq a free market, getting U.S. companies into Iraq (see this amazing article by Naomi Klein).

Second of all, I would create a PR campaign explaining to all Iraqis and the Middle East what the U.S. is doing: We are spending billions of dollars to help the Iraqis become democratic, free, and equal; we want to help make the world more peaceful; finally, we want to have better access to oil, if Iraq allows us this access. The fact is, that for this to work we would actually have to be doing things selflessly, for the benefit of Iraqis. We would also have to change U.S. policy around the world, and cut back on our consumerism and embrace equal rights for all people (including gay people) at home in order for it to be believable.

This would not be a propaganda campaign, but an honest campaign to let Iraqis know what we are doing.

Third of all, and most importantly, I would organize a huge, Iraq-wide poll of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens asking what they want us to do. Do they want us to leave or not? If they want us to leave is there anything that we could do differently to make them change their minds?

The answer to this, so far, is pretty clear: In the latest poll of Iraqis, 57% said that they wanted the U.S. and Britain to leave Iraq "immediately, say in the next few months." 36% said they thought the U.S. and British forces should stay in Iraq for "a longer period of time."

When asked, "At the time of the invasion last spring, did you, personally think of the Coalition forces mostly as occupiers or mostly as liberators?" 43% answered "mostly as occupiers." 43% answerd "mostly as liberators."

When asked how they thought of us now, 71% of Iraqis thought of us "mostly as occupiers." 19% thought of us "mostly as liberators."

This was in April of 2004.

That is a clear vote for us to leave. This is what the Iraqi people wanted.

If this is still what the Iraqis wanted, in a current poll, and there was nothing we could do to change their minds, then my decision would be to leave Iraq immediately. Of course, if the other questions in the poll pointed to things we could do to make us liked, then I would see if I could do those things and perhaps re-poll in a few months.

If the people overwhelmingly wanted us to stay, I would stay until they wanted us to leave.

The fact is that I want what's best for Iraq. I am not against our war in Iraq because of the death toll on U.S. troops. I am against the war in Iraq because the death toll on U.S. troops is not helping Iraqis. If it were helping Iraqis then I would support continued involvement in helping Iraq, or any country, set up a democracy. I think democracy (and freedom of speech, press, religion, and equality of all people) is a good thing for any country. But again, setting it up has to help the people. If the people think you are not helping them, then you will have an insurgency.

I think it is important to note that I am not currently, personally willing to die for Iraq. I don't think that I would currently be willing to die for Iraq even if 100% of the Iraqis wanted us there. If U.S. soldiers are willing to die helping Iraqis (and it's actually helping) then I support them. I wonder if Bush is personally willing to die for Iraq.

If it were the case that a large majority of Iraqis wanted us to stay, then I would examine the other questions in the poll: how can we make the country better, what would you like our role to be, what kind of country would you like to have. I would then create a uniform voting system in Iraq. I would educate the people via radio, TV, and newspaper about voting. I would fund public campaigns to run for office, locally and then federally. I would then hold another election. I would inform the people about every move we were making and what it meant. I would have a transparent government. I would then see about reconstruction: I would give the newly elected Iraqi government money to rebuild.

The more important question is, what if an equal number of Iraqis wanted us to stay as to leave? This is a fairly likely outcome of a current poll. I do think that in order to justify our continued occupation of Iraq a significant majority of Iraqis must be actively supporting us. Thus, I think we would need to get out, or seriously change how we are operating there even if 50% of Iraqis supported our occupation (and 50% did not). If, in establishing a democracy, you can't get a majority of the people to support your efforts to establish the democracy, then they have spoken, democratically. To establish a democracy, the people must establish it themselves. I am not willing to have U.S. troops die to support a war that only half the population supports.

At this point, with the information I have at my disposal, I am going to Washington, D.C. because I think that we are doing more harm than good by staying in Iraq. If we want to simply set up a rough timeline, for at most two years, for when we think we will leave, and broadcast this to Iraqis and the rest of the Middle East, that would be acceptable to me. An undefined occupation is not a good thing. If we need to fudge the numbers a little bit at the end of the timeline to give us more time, then so be it. However at least we are working towards something. If Iran suddenly invades Iraq then we can certainly extend our occupation.

I feel we are like a bull in a china shop, sitting on the floor trying to repair the china. And all the while the proprietor is yelling, "Get out! Get out! Pay for it later, we can fix it ourselves!"

This is a trite analogy. I do think that if we were to leave there might well be civil war. The Iraqi government might well not be able to defeat insurgents. The government might well crumble. The people might then hold another election. They might also just have a new dictator. They might have a theocracy with a cleric. They might plead with us to return to help them. Iran might invade and take over.

Of course it might also decrease the insurgency and the people might decide to work together to create a nation, now that Saddam is gone. They might then kick out the terrorists. And of course we could re-invade if something horrible happened and the Iraqis asked for our help en masse.

Bush Suspends "Prevailing Wages" Requirement in Katrina Areas

2005-09-22T14:36:00.000-04:00

This is old news to some extent, but on September 8, Bush temporarily suspended the 1931 "Davis-Bacon Act" that requires federal contractors to pay a prevailing wage (in New Orleans this would be $10.40 an hour). Great, exploitation.

Demand that Bush rescind this order (an email campaign by FaithfulAmerica.org)!

John Roberts, What is a Neocon?, Poll on Creation Science, E.L. Doctorow

2005-09-21T15:41:00.000-04:00

Just a few articles and petitions (I hope they listen to them):

John Roberts

Ask John Roberts to release various documents about his work under Bush I, so that the Senators can make an informed decision about if they think he's liberal or conservative. Actually, at this point, I think that everyone should realize that he's conservative. Based on that, and based on the fact that conservatives are, by and large,

against Roe v. Wade
pro-death penalty
pro-neocon agenda (world leadership by force if necessary)
pro-Iraq War
anti-gay rights
occasionally pro-"creation science"
sometimes anti-global warming research

which are all obviously immoral or ignorant stances, anyone who is liberal should vote against him.

What is a Neocon?

Regarding the Neocon agenda: The Neocon website is newamericancentury.org. It says, "We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." It also says, "We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.... The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership." That is a Neocon. It is signed by Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Steve Forbes, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.

How Many People Believe in Creation Science?

The Pew Research Center came out with a poll on Creation Science and religion. It mentions, among other things that 42% of Americans think that life on Earth has existed in its present form since the beginning of time. 48% believe that it evolved over time. Wow. Oh yeah. 64% of Americans say they are open to the idea of teaching creationism along with evolution in the public schools, and 38% favor replacing evolution with creationism in public school curricula. Hello? 2005? The 1850s called; it wants its ideals back.

Shirking Our Responsibilities

Nice article in the New York Times about Katrina and "black folks" by Frank Rich. If it expires you can likely search out the first few words of the article to see if anyone else has posted it.

The Unfeeling President Bush

Essay by E.L. Doctorow on the unfeeling president.

Concluding Thought

Remember when we all stood as one against corrupt government officials and they worked for us, instead of supporting the corruption in your party because it's your party? Let's get back to that. Truth over parties.

Poverty and Tax Cuts

2005-09-19T13:16:00.000-04:00

Remember when Bush was force-feeding the American public lame justifications for pushing through his tax cuts: It would give the lower and middle income groups much needed money which they would inject into the economy, and it was the right thing to do? Quite meekly, the Democrats mumbled about how this was a tax cut for the rich, how it would only benefit a small population who didn't need it anyway. Now one of them has spoken up and highlighted some important problems with the tax cuts; namely the fact that they make Americans reliant on foreign aid in order to finance their wars. The talking head is Clinton and he went to town this week on CNN.

Here's a great piece on poverty, from the Chicago Tribune.

Remember Iraq? Well while our attention was and continues to be directed towards the aftermath of Katarina civil war seems to be drawing closer every day.

You've Got to Be Kidding...

2005-09-12T11:42:00.000-04:00

I damn near blew a gasket this morning after I read about GOP concerns about the cost of disaster relief. According to this Chicago Tribune article some Republicans are against adding the cost of disaster relief to the federal deficit for future generations to pay. Excuse me? Apparently it's okay for the President to rope future generations into paying billions every year for Iraq's infrastructure (which to date is frail at best), but helping the poor in New Orleans is unacceptable. Where do they find this pond scum purporting to be human? These guys are beginning to sound more like a bunch of drunken yahoos who only care about citizens with fundraising capability.

In stark contrast, we have the junior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Barak Obama, who has put forward an articulate interpretation of the Administration's attitude towards this entire affair. If Kanye had more common sense than fashion sense, he would have put it the way Obama did on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. You can read the quote here.

Now, back to the absurd. Is there anything more slimy and disconcerting than Pat Robertson? If you don't think so perhaps you should read this article. In it you will find that even in moments of dire need and immense tragedy the GOP and people like Robertson continue to try to create publicity and wealth for themselves. This is pathetic—worse than even his diamond scamming days—and should be exposed, and shouted from the rooftops. Pat Robertson is the devil, and he ain't even disguised.

On a lighter note, I was happy to read that the town of Fucking, Austria has finally managed to solve the problem of stolen signs. You can read the article here.

Since I'm feeling generous today, I'll throw in this neat article about the breakdown of the Bush spin machine. Enjoy!

"George Bush Doesn't Care about Black People"

2005-09-08T11:17:00.000-04:00

Kanye West, they say, spoke from his heart; but his head knew what it was doing. His comments have raised hackles, eyebrows, and the flag of racism. On the one hand, people are disgusted by partisan politics creeping into the relief effort. On the other, people are disgusted by the lack of effort going into addressing the real issue.

This is the 21st century, and Americans have been pinched awake from the so-called success of the Clinton era. Suddenly, America has realized it isn't any different from any other place on the globe. Remember the huddled masses, the poor and the oppressed? They never went anywhere. Cities hid them from tourists and their own inhabitants, and it took a Category 5 storm to wash out the secret society that blue and red state Americans have ignored.

People who say this isn't a racial issue are trying, admirably, to walk the middle path. I agree, "playing the race card" should be avoided at all costs, but that isn't possible in this case. The victims were predominantly black and poor. In the words of one Astrodome refugee: "We had nothing before the hurricane. Now we have less than nothing."

The fact is that Katarina has revealed how empty the idea of "compassionate conservatism" is. The compassion it touts as essential to its ideology is merely code used to harness the power of an electoral bloc. You can read more about the death of compassionate conservatism here.

Bush and his team of merry pranksters have clearly proven that they have no idea of how to respond to any kind of emergency. As with 9-11, our "pet goat" President is content dishing out nifty one-liners from behind a bullhorn, rather than doing what Oprah did and getting out there. Unlike the tireless reporters who have brought the full-extent of this damage to light, Bush has allowed himself to be guided by the black hand of Rove-ian politicking—sticking to his "image" rather than backing it up with anything substantial.

If you found yourself in disagreement with the idea that Bush doesn't care about black people, here is an excellent Slate article that tackles the accusation. Yes, he gave more money than Clinton to Africa, but he never left the airport in New Orleans....

Finally, it should be noted that race is a large part of the reason why things transpired as they did. However, useless comments by people like Jesse Jackson regarding the inherent "racism" in the word "refugee" are uncalled for and immature. People seeking refuge are refugees. People who don't use dictionaries are idiots.

Did Iraq Destroy New Orleans?

2005-09-02T15:20:00.000-04:00

Every day the news from Louisiana seems to get worse. Survivors are still without water, medical help, food and most of all security. The scourge of rape, murder, and looting continues much to my horror. As we all watch helplessly I keep asking myself one question. What is the federal government doing? The general sense is that things are moving too slowly. The preparedness of the federal government has been shown to be what it is: lacking. Clearly the Department of Homeland Security is not expecting kudos for the way this has been handled.

What if the flooding of New Orleans had been due to a terrorist attack on the levees? Is this the kind of response billions of dollars have been spent on? As this Slate article notes, Homeland Security has failed its first test. A lot more work and a lot more answers need to be forthcoming over the next few weeks.

Despite my hesitance in criticizing and playing the "blame game," I feel compelled to say that the lack of resources—namely financial and in personnel—seems to be directly related to the war effort in Iraq. As this Village Voice article notes, most, if not all of the states hit badly by Katarina had been requesting increases in funding for flood prevention and disaster relief. Unfortunately, the Bush administration had cut these funds and diverted them to other ends.

Bush was not expected to prevent Katarina, but his decisions have ultimately contributed to the mismanagement of this relief effort and may have made Katrina worse.

History

2005-08-31T11:30:00.000-04:00

Remember when George Bush dropped his, "History, we don’t know. We’ll all be dead," quote, when asked how History will remember his Iraq war? I do. I had to roll my tongue back into my mouth. It was, for me, the most ridiculous statement I had ever heard come from a man who claimed to believe in a higher power.

You see, I conceive of History as more than a series of grand events. I see it as the gradual evolution of large events, driven by the minutiae of daily life. So when someone, a world leader no less, comes out, looking earnest, and says something like that, I think only one thing: That they don't care about the small stuff.

Imortant decisions, for Bush, are only about "big" things. Follow that logic and you will have a pretty good sense of why things are turning out the way they are for a man who is about to become the most unpopular president in US history. George W. Bush has none of the patience or resolve he talks about. If he did, he would have built his case for his war and his policies from the bottom up, as a result of introspection and intellectual debate. He did not and that is why all he can do is spout lines and tell you "It's good for you," even when it isn't.

His lack of familiarity, now reduced to "Bushisms," is proof that he doesn't seem to comprehend what he is saying at its very core. It's just something someone told him. I'm not trying to belittle the guy—not anymore—I think he's doing a good job showing people he's nothing special. That's fine if he's a farmer somewhere, content with being the way he is. This man, however, controls the daily lives of close to 300 million people! Not to mention, he affects the lives of billions more.

He should vacation less, learn more, meet every damn Mother who lost her kids to a bullet in a desert where there is nothing—no WMD, no noble cause, and very little freedom—and tell them he is personally sorry for having screwed it up and for continuing to drag out the lie.

Political Hotlinks!

Francis Fukuyama, in the NYTimes writes an eloquent rebuke of the prevailing ideology in this administration. A Must read.

Great article from Asia Times Online on the Iraqi Constitution and the American influence on it.

Excellent article from Foreign Affairs about Democracy as the solution to Terrorism. Is it?

US Kills 9,200 Civilians, 27 Dead Detainees, What is Al Qaeda?

2005-08-19T13:25:00.000-04:00

Iraqbodycount.net came out with a study on all the civilian deaths in Iraq in the past two years:

24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years of the Iraq War
US-led forces killed 9,270 civilians
Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 2,353 civilians
The Iraqi Ministry of Health (MoH) reports that terrorist action by anti-occupation forces accounts for only 318 civilian deaths
Criminal violence caused 8,935 civilian deaths
21,171 of the 42,500 civilian injuries were caused by US-led forces
3,488 injuries were caused by (according to the MoH) terrorist attacks

These really put things in perspective. We are attempting to stop deaths of civilians and have caused 9,270 of them. The terrorists in Iraq, conversely have only caused 318 civilian deaths. What a bunch of hype. We are led to believe the terrorists really are the cause of the brunt of the damage in Iraq. They are not. Not to mention that the US-led forces have also killed many thousands of Iraqi soldiers and anti-occupation forces. Iraqbodycount.net does not keep track of these deaths. Neither does the US government, at least publicly.

What is Al Qaeda?

This article discusses what Al Qaeda is really (requires free subscription). Is it a shadowy, hyped enemy or a real organization?

US Torture of Enemy Combatants

The US has killed 27 detainees in the last two years. Did you know that? At least 16 of the deaths are due to murder or negligent homicide. Another 4 deaths are in the trial stage with charges of murder.

A military translator says the systemic, purposely loose interrogation techniques in Guantanamo are the cause of confusion and mistreatment of prisoners, in this interview.

The Radical Right

2005-07-07T21:35:00.000-04:00

Imagine you live in a small town in the rural Midwest. You believe in God, family, and traditional values. You mind your business and work hard at your family-owned store.

You believe in the Bible. You belive that women should stay at home and that homosexuals are an abomination. You think that premarital sex is a sin. Kids should be seen and not heard and should respect their elders. You are strict, but kind and compassionate and you give 10% of your income to your church. There is very little violence or crime in your little community and everyone knows everyone else.

One day, bombs explode nearby. It's the terrorists! You rush home and turn on the T.V. The terrorists are attacking. There have been explosions all over the country. It's unreal. It really is true that they want to spread their religion all over the world, their culture, their fascism.

You run home and grab your gun. You and your neighbors fight back. As more and more of your friends and family are killed, your rage grows. Soon all you know is that you hate the terrorists and they all deserve to die. You have ample examples of the atrocities they have committed.

Is this some vision of a world to come? No. This is present day Iraq. How can you have peace if you don't understand the other point of view.

Detached from Reality

2005-06-29T12:41:00.000-04:00

So the Boy Prince went on air last night with another one-dimensional, sound-byte-driven speech asking Americans to stay the course. Of course the fact that Americans will stay the course is moot. What most Americans seem to be asking is if this team of neo-cons have any idea of what they're doing.

The evidence in favor is spotty at best: Continued aggression in Iraq and the absence of a cogent response from an Iraqi leader, seriously undermine the administration's claims that the elections were anything more than a publicity stunt. The ill-prepared Iraqi armed forces continue to be slaughtered as the insurgency—still in its last throes—continues to swat soldiers like flies. Can anyone else see the disconnect between the speeches and the realities? Here's another one: When the Taliban were in control of Afghanistan, drug use and cultivation were nearly zero; now, according to this report, Afghanistan is back as one of the major suppliers of drugs worldwide! In addition to this, the Taliban continues to be active, recently taking the lives of 17 serviceman. Also, warlords continue to dominate regional politics. Is this what George W. Bush wants America to sacrifice for?

Political Hotlinks

A great article on the West's role in the disintegration of the Russian state, from Alternet.

The State Department recently declassified certain documents from the Nixon-Kissinger era and though they cover old ground there are lessons in there about US Foreign Policy and how it is created. In this excellent Asia Times article, the author presents a chiling account of how Nixon and Kissinger attempted to protect the government of Pakistan as it slaughtered its own population. To all those who believe American foreign policy always "does the right thing" this is a must-read.

The Big Game

2005-06-29T01:40:00.000-04:00

In the beginning there was Afghanistan. It is the land known as the "graveyard of civilizations," because, it is said, its soil is rich with the bodies of endless invaders who failed in their attempts to control a highly independent and proud people.

Somehow though, that pride and independence succumbed to the cunning and guile of two adversaries: America and Pakistan. I know, in the papers we read continually of the strong alliance forged by the two nations in an effort to eliminate terrorism. If you believe that pile of steaming doo, you'll believe anything. It's no secret (anymore) that both nations—Pakistan and America—entered the alliance with their own intentions and ambitions. The common theme, however, is the obviously political aspect to the designs. America, and the Bush administration, needed bin Laden in the 9/11 aftermath. It was clear that the Taliban and its cohorts were being supported by the Pakistani intelligence and Pakistan could feel the wrath of the superpower building. Since it had spent all this time and energy crafting a boisterous and highly successful jihadi movement (in fact, a de facto army to which it could plausibly deny any connection if need be) though, Pakistan wasn't willing to give up its designs on this militia or Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a key in distributing natural gas and oil in Central Asia (have you noticed how everyone wants to build a pipeline through or in Afghanistan these days?). So, for the last four years we've seen both America and Pakistan fart around looking like they're doing something, without doing a damn thing. In the end it looks like the Pakistani government was far more visionary, as they have managed to stay the course in terms of their own agenda which has, in fact, stymied the efforts of the United States. America will never see bin Laden until Pakistan allows them to. Ask Porter Goss. In this Asia Times article. The quiet withdrawal of the US and the emasculation of the Karzai government documented in it speak volumes about Pakistan's commitment to fundamentalism and the pitfalls of Bush's preemptive, deal-with-the-aftermath-later attitude. In the end, all that America will have succeeded in doing in Afghanistan is giving the Taliban time to regroup.

Political Hotlinks

As the Live 8 concerts draw closer, Africa is capturing more of the attention she needs. This excellent Utne article not only reads well, it's got some excellent links to other great articles on Africa and debt relief.

And here's an excellent article from Mother Jones that answers a question I've had for a while: why do the people who have the most to lose from Bush's policies seem to support him the most?

Finally, a brilliant article by Michael Ignatieff about America and its commitment to the proliferation of freedom. A must read!

War on Terror for Dummies

2005-06-17T09:47:00.000-04:00

In the last couple of days the BBC, New York Times, CNN, Time Magazine, and Asia Times online have been giving increasing coverage to an acrimonious debate between the US Ambassador to Afghanistan (soon to be the Ambassador to Iraq) and the Pakistani government. According to Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, Pakistan's role as an ally in the "War on Terror" is questionable because of its concurrent support for militant groups who continue to receive training and arms from camps within Pakistani territory.

Ambassador Khalilzad is not alone in his frustration. CIA head honcho, Porter Goss, echoed a similar dissatisfaction in an interview with Time in its next issue where he stated that bin Laden's whereabouts are known but little was being done by Pakistani authorities. This isn't new. For years India and China have criticized Islamabad for supporting terrorist activities in the Kashmir and Uighur areas, respectively. Ultimately it's quite obvious that Pakistan's terrorist movement has now exceeded the control of its government which is a real problem. And it's not just a question of numbers. The fact is that the system of creating and supporting terrorist activities has become so entrenched it's almost "legitimate." In an excellent series of articles entitled "War on Terror for Dummies," Asia Times online documents the complexity of this situation and its relevance to the US effort to capture bin Laden and end terrorism.

It is states and governments which sponsor terrorism to begin with, and subjects become the ultimate victims, and then a vicious cycle of terror rotates. In this state-sponsored crime there is no exception, and Pakistan, India, the US and Israel all have the same role.

Many of us call it a battle between East and West, between the Islamic and Judeo-Christian world, but it is neither of these. It is in fact the ruling regimes that want to dictate their will, and then they exploit [people] in various ways. Sometimes in the garb of monarchy, sometimes for democracy, and sometimes for dictatorship."

—Khalid Khawaja, former Inter-Services Intelligence
(ISI) [Pakistani Espionage] official

Do You Want to Fund PBS?

2005-06-15T14:46:00.000-04:00

A subcommittee in the House of Representatives voted two days ago to cut funding for Public Broadcasting by 25% this year (from $400 million to $300 million) and to eliminate all funding in two years. What? Who doesn't think that public broadcasting is a good use of $400 million? We are for familiy values but we stop producing Sesame Street, NOVA, Frontline, The News Hour, full coverage of our political parties' conventions? We will be left with only Fear Factor and Law and Order.

It's also important to note that we are currently spending $6.9 billion a month on the war in Iraq (this is based on a total projected spending of $207.5 billion through September 2005 (30 months)).

Sign MoveOn.org's petition to show that you want to keep funding PBS with your taxpayer money.

Freedom Fries

2005-06-14T09:31:00.000-04:00

Remember Representative Walter Jones (R-North Carolina)? If you don't, he's the genius behind the campaign to rename french fries and french toast to the patriotic "freedom fries" and "freedom toast." Mr. Jones was also an ardent supporter of the invasion of Iraq. It's been two years now and Jones has had a change of heart and has initiated legislation that would require the US to set up a timetable to withdraw our troops from Iraq. I have no doubt that Mr. Jones felt genuine emotions when he attended the funeral of a fallen soldier, as would any of us, but couldn't he have seen this coming? Instead of his stupid publicity stunt he should have thought about the consequences of his actions. But obviously at the time, it was more important to change American menus rather than change the President's mind.

[I have the feeling that the bad taste that Jones' new standpoint leaves in the mouths of anti-war supporters is due not to us not wanting the US out of Iraq, but because it seems like Walter Jones is really just being selfish here. He dosen't want to see any more US troops get killed. The time for this was in March 2003 when we were considering invading without any exit strategy. He does not care about the Iraqi people, which is the new supposed justification for the invasion.

Here are some solutions: We do need to set up a timetable for our withdrawal so that we have something to aim for. We do need to let the Iraqis have more influence on what our troops can and can't do. We do need to stop trying to benefit financially or militarily from our invasion of Iraq. Handing Iraq peacekeeping over to the UN would perhaps be a move that would show our willingness to help rather than exploit. —Misha]