Quote

[L]istening to leaders like Nasser, Ben Bella, and Nkrumah awakened me to the dangers of racism. I realized racism isn't just a black and white problem. It's brought bloodbaths to about every nation on earth at one time or another.

Brother, remember the time that white college girl came into the restaurant—the one who wanted to help the [Black] Muslims and the whites get together—and I told her there wasn't a ghost of a chance and she went away crying? Well, I've lived to regret that incident. In many parts of the African continent I saw white students helping black people. Something like this kills a lot of argument. I did many things as a [Black] Muslim that I'm sorry for now. I was a zombie then—like all [Black] Muslims—I was hypnotized, pointed in a certain direction and told to march. Well, I guess a man's entitled to make a fool of himself if he's ready to pay the cost. It cost me 12 years.

That was a bad scene, brother. The sickness and madness of those days—I'm glad to be free of them.

- Malcolm X

Just a little bit of fun!

BBC NEWS | Americas | US seeks to stop Geronimo lawsuit

BBC NEWS Americas US seeks to stop Geronimo lawsuit

Now this is an interesting little tidbit of news. What makes me realy curious is the reason the government is seeking to interfere in a lawsuit between the two parties. I'm sure that its members (including John Kerry and George Bush) probably still carry political clout and can help their buddies out. But why interfere at all?

I can think of a few reasons:

• They really did steal the bones of Geronimo, and its members would have hell to pay in the public circle. There would also be a precident for other such lawsuits.


• They really didn't steal the bones of Geronimo, and its group would lose some of its mystique and clout

Missing from the BBC article (but within the Wikipedia article on Geronimo) was the bit about Obama (since he is the current president, I suppose) as one of the plaintiffs of the suit. The request may be as simple a basis as that. Guess we'll have to follow the news and see . . .

BBC NEWS | Americas | Obama 'to revive military trials'

According to the BBC:

President Obama himself had criticised the military commission system during his election campaign, describing it as "an enormous failure".

But, his aides pointed out on Thursday, the president never rejected the possibility of using military commissions altogether if they could be made fairer.

They highlighted legislation he supported as a senator in 2006 which was intended to do just that.

Wow! That's an incredible amount of backspin. During the election, everybody looked at Obama as 'Clinton' without the namesake. I guess we'll see how accurate that is. What's really funny is that these policies are just what the Republican (Neo-Cons) want, so the issue of 'flip-flopping' hasn't been raised.

Cheney is out there right now making the case that torture is indeed effective, and the CIA has proof (in memo form). I'm guessing that he's assuming that terrorist only watch Al Jazeera (instead of Fox) and won't hear his commentary. Because if they do, they might take torture more seriously if they happen to capture someone on our side. But Cheney is smarter and less vindictive than that, right?

Let's be honest, though. The real problem is that the last administration was gung-ho on terrorism, and while there was a real concern at the beginning, that quickly evaporated in the followup reactions of Iraq. We are now in the same place Russia was in the early 80's with Afganistan, and rather than fix the situation quickly, our elected leaders are passing the buck. Republicans can't concede moral failures, and Democrats are blaming Republicans for their loss of moral compass. In the meantime, people who have nothing to do with any of these policies die on both sides of the argument.

I think that anyone looking for proof that McCain and Obama really are cut from the same cloth need only look at this issue. The only real difference is that McCain would not have altered the Bush agenda so rapidly (hence no back-spin) and Pelosi could have lived with her lie for another 4 years - the Republicans would not have had a reason to call her on it.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Obama U-turn on abuse photographs

According to the article, Obama now believes that the pictures could 'endanger the troops'.

I think he's still trying to have his cake and eat it, too. He placates the liberals in his voter base by announcing that the pictures must be seen by all. Then he reverses and (just like Bush) decides that hiding our national shame is far better that exposing it to the light.

I have not one single regret for not voting for this guy. Now I don't feel like I've betrayed my personal convictions. Just because the Democrats have both houses doesn't mean they've developed a backbone . . . .

BBC NEWS | Americas | Obama seeks extra funds for wars

. . . and this is why I decided to vote for Nader! In the article:

Nearly 95% of the money would, Mr Obama said, go to the Pentagon to "help the people of Iraq to take responsibility for their own future, and work to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan".

The rest of the money would be used to confront other threats to US security, from "securing loose nuclear weapons to combating fear and want under repressive regimes".

I understand and agree with needing to stablize the region (since it's our responsibility directly, now.) But the articl states that the Obama administration is requesting $150bn, which is a scant $22bn less than Goober Bush, and this time, the Democrats are going to be signing off on the check. No blaming the Republicans this time (though they never seemed to have a problem with this funding since the start of the 'war' . . . .)

According to an article from The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Obama is spending more on national defense than Bush did (adjusting for inflation.)

In the article:

The reason is quite simple. President Obama and members of his defense team plan to end the use of emergency supplemental bills to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. War spending under the Bush administration was largely requested in “off budget” supplementals that were excluded from White House deficit projections and long-term plans. By integrating war budgets into the regular Pentagon budget, the Obama administration will make war funding part of the normal budget process and therefore subject to budget oversight laws.

Since war funding is going to be shifted from emergency supplementals into the regular Pentagon budget, however, the regular Pentagon budget will increase in the years ahead due to the infusion of war funds. The United States will most likely spend less on defense overall; the money will just be presented up front in a single large chunk. This integration process will take time – there will still be a separate war supplemental next fiscal year – but the $534 billion Pentagon budget in fiscal year 2010 already includes some of the spending that used to be included in war supplementals.

So in other words, he gets to keep a campaign 'promise' and spend more money on the war anyway?

---

The Republicans say: We dont' care.
The Democrats say: We pretend to care.
(Ted Rall)

Political Rallies

Insert the name of the political party you dislike in place of INGSOC, and I think we have a typical analysis of a group you disapprove: 

I've made this observation myself.  Question is- why is it so easy to make?  

It's like when a congressman compares an advesary to Hitler.  You pick the worst person you can think of and label an opponent.  Imagery over accuracy!

I'm thinking that there's something to ASD that makes you immune (or at least acutely aware) of the mob mentality.  Since it's harder to fit in to a group setting, it's a bit easier to see when the group is being collectively influenced.

Okay - that's all I have this morning.  I'm getting back into writing practice here!

BBC NEWS | Americas | 'Deathbed confession' man charged

"A US man who thought he was dying and confessed to having killed a neighbour in 1977 has been charged with murder after making a recovery, US media say.

James Brewer could now face the death penalty over the unsolved killing in Tennessee 32 years ago, reports say."

'nuff said!

Obama is president-elect. Nader calls him out.

Barack Obama is president. There's a HUGE significant to that. Of course, Nader's still going to hold his feet to the fire . . .



Of course, one doesn't expect fair and balanced reporting from Fox news. Shep Smith's 'indignant white guilt' act doesn't play out too well, coming from the station that gave us Imus. Now, if Nader was black, no one would have batted an eye to this comment. Democrats are still sore about losing the 2000 election, and Nader will always be the scapegoat for that

To recap - Gore lost the election in 2000 (no thanks to the Gore / Lieberman ticket.) Kerry lost to Bush because of the big bad terrorist threat and the fact that Kerry and Bush stood for the same things. 'Beat Bush' was a wonderful slogan, but it's not bankable policy.

Obama certainly has the orator's gift, but I still failed to see the real difference between him and McCain on the real issues of the day (finance, terrorism, Iran, Iraq, Israel). That's what Nader was calling him out on.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | 'Guantanamo man' in Iraq bombing

BBC NEWS | Middle East | 'Guantanamo man' in Iraq bombing

So . . .
What came first?
The chicken or the egg?

And how will the Bush administration exploit this to their benefit?

For certian, Bush will cite that this was the reason why Guantanamo was built, and we need to face the realities of war - you know - same old shit.

But I suspect that the real reason they can not close Gitmo down is because we've managed to once again breed a group of terrorists based on our policies in the Middle East.

My, oh my, what would Clinton do? (or Obama, for that reason? No question McCain will simply tow the party line).

BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush urges wiretap immunity law

Our Commander-In-Chief is looking out for our well-being, really . . .

Mr Bush said it would be "dangerous" if the legislation - introduced by the government after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US - was not renewed.

He told the White House on Tuesday any lawsuits against telecommunications firms would allow al-Qaeda to scrutinise US intelligence methods and gift them a "roadmap on how to avoid the surveillance".

So . . .
If we don't allow warrantless wiretaps, then the terrorists win?
With this argument, any civil liberty (real or perceived) is subject to aiding and abetting terrorism.

Now, since it's election time, what do our Great Saviours (the Democratic presidential contenders) have to say about this, or the policy in general? I suspect that their position will be about the same (seeing how they are both cut from the same cloth - their contest is more of an election of personalities). I'm sure if Clinton or Obama urged this type of policy, even the most non-liberal conservative-bashing Democrat would spin it to his own liking.

Remind me again why this election is real and not just a coronation, please?

BBC NEWS | Middle East | US imposes new sanctions on Iran

From the article:

The US has repeatedly accused Iran of destabilising Iraq and Afghanistan, blaming the Revolutionary Guards for supplying and training insurgents. The US has repeatedly accused Iran of destabilising Iraq and Afghanistan, blaming the Revolutionary Guards for supplying and training insurgents.

I supposed it has nothing to do with Bremer disbanding the army way back in 2003 and alienating them by stating that former Baathists could not be employed by the army.
If Iran is involved, I couldn't say. My gut reaction is that they are not, considering that Iraq and Iran were at war for for some 10 years before the first gulf war. It just sounds like the state department's continued efforts to cover its a** by blaming everyone else. It sounds as ridiculous as blaming Al Queda for the bombing in London a few years ago. You don't need an international terrorism conglomerate to be the bad guy when the mere myth of one will suffice.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | US imposes new sanctions on Iran

From the article:

The US has repeatedly accused Iran of destabilising Iraq and Afghanistan, blaming the Revolutionary Guards for supplying and training insurgents. The US has repeatedly accused Iran of destabilising Iraq and Afghanistan, blaming the Revolutionary Guards for supplying and training insurgents.

I supposed it has nothing to do with Bremer disbanding the army way back in 2003 and alienating them by stating that former Baathists could not be employed by the army.
If Iran is involved, I couldn't say. My gut reaction is that they are not, considering that Iraq and Iran were at war for for some 10 years before the first gulf war. It just sounds like the state department's continued efforts to cover its a** by blaming everyone else. It sounds as ridiculous as blaming Al Queda for the bombing in London a few years ago. You don't need an international terrorism conglomerate to be the bad guy when the mere myth of one will suffice.

RIAA sucks the blood out of its base

I can't say that I'm surprised about this. There were some nasty revelations that came out of that farce, but the evil ones have scored a victory.

Yoohoo!

Good thing that billion dollar corporation was able to take down a single mother living in the boonies!

I am officially disgusted.

TIme to boycott the RIAA . . .

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Blackwater working again in Iraq

I don't think anyone in the world (excepting the United States) believes that Iraq is a self-ruling state. Iraq is no more resposible for its rule than a three year old child is responsible for paying the rent. The Blackwater affair and the events that followed are a prime example.

Remember back in 2004, when four soldiers were lynched in the streets of Falluja? Pictures were plastered all over TV and the region of our Brave Soldiers (which actually turned out to be Blackwater contractors) being pulled from their vehicles and hacked to pieces, burned, etc. It was used on this side of the Atlantic to justify our presence in Iraq. Opposition to the war wasn't as polarized at that point -the Democrats were still whining about Ralph Nader spoiling the 2000 election, for the most part.

What we really saw was how much Iraqis hated the occupation of their country by the Xian forces, especially when, to a lot of the Iraqi people, US troops and Blackwater operatives are are indistinguishable. I'm not sure that going to your local representative in Iraq brings much satisfaction when your rights are violated (or when the thugs kick in your door and grind your dignity under a boot heel in search of 'insurgents'.)

Just 4 days ago, Blackwater operatives opened fire in a crowd and killed 11 people, including one person (and his wife and child) who failed to stop soon enough at a traffic signal. I don't think there's too much dispute over those facts. Whether or not the shooting is justified is still under investigation; I think it will end as these things always end. People will believe what they want to believe.

What's certianly not up for debate is the fact that the people of Iraq have no more control of their country today than they did before the start of Gulf War II. The people of Iraq do not want the mercenary forces (whoops - contract security forces) in their country. Iraqi Iraqi PM Maliki called the mincident a "criminal act" and said he's not going to tolerate it - but of course, he's not really in control, is he? Notice tha Bush's involvement is minimal at best - Condolezza Rice has been doing all the deal brokering in the region. And of course, the end result is that Blackwater is back in operation in spite of being ordered to leave the country.

I don't think anyone expected Blackwater to really be expelled - that wouldn't server the United States' best interest. Of course, one of the edicts of Bremer gives these companies a measure of immunity, and they do not answer to military codes of conducts.

This was really a test of the independence of the Iraqi people to govern themselves, and definitve proof that they will not be allowed to do so in any short period of time.


Further reading:
You may not agree with it, but there's no excuse for know trying to understand it. When you spend so much time and energy vilifying an enemy, you forget that they are still human and have specific motivations behind what they do. Remember this, both Bush and bin Laden feel morally justified in their actions and decisions in the past 7 years. That doesn't make them right by any means, but a one-sided argument is just that.

http://www.islamonline.net/english/In_Depth/Iraq_Aftermath/2004/04/article_02.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/letter_from_america/3277801.stm

BBC NEWS | Americas | TV evangelist Messner dies at 65

Asked by [Larry] King if she had any regrets, she said: "I don't think about it, Larry, because it's a waste of good brain space."

The unsinkable Tammy Faye Bakker passes and I've got nothin'!

She was too much of a cartoon character to be a real threat as a fundie. Besides, she had already gone down in flames years ago for the air conditioned dog house courtesy of PTL viewers.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Deaths in US TV helicopter crash

Absolutely the most pathetic think I have ever read. The only thing that would make this tragedy in (the lack of real) journalism is if the driver of the vehicle had been one of the 'three' - Lohan, Ritchie, or Spears.

I'm not making light of the tragedy - far from it. But if there was ever a more inane reason to die, it has to be chasing down a nowhere-nothing car chase. The chase itself probably had a story-interest range of the involved cities and surrounding counties. But now the significance makes it all the way to the B . . . B . . . C.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush Libby move angers Democrats

BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush Libby move angers Democrats

Angry Democrats? That's like saying ethical Rebublicans . . .

BBC NEWS | Europe | Bush calls for action over Kosovo

Two things -
One, I'm not surprised that a xian neo-con would find meeting an ex-Hitler Youth turned pope a loving, moving experience.
Second, all this talk about Kosovo sounds like posturing to me. Not a word about Chechnya (or Tiawan for that matter!) Democracy for all (as long as there's money to be made). he war in Iraq was supposed to be both a profit windfall and an uplifting torch for the masses. What it turned out to be was a clusterf*ck that's making all the wrong people very rich. Bush and the Neo-COns thought that they could replace the American Spirit of the COld War (remember Hoover and McCarthy? Remember the Blacklists?) with the Iraq war, and they even had a Pearl Harbor to mark the occasion.

Of course, the popular lie is rusting at the edges, so it's becoming necessary to poke at the Russians to get another chance to make America look great again.

It's really, really sad, and of course the Democrats would like nothing better than to sit on the wall and critisize the process instead of fixing it. And we Americans are content to find the next best Reality TV show and 'hope it all works out' for the better.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Russia blames US in missile row

We live in a world that is managed by dumb-asses.

Russia tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile, which can be armed with up to 10 warheads, on Tuesday.

"Our American partners have left the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty," Mr Putin told a press conference.

"We have warned them then that we will come out with a response to maintain the strategic balance in the world."

The effort to re-colonize the Middle-East has failed miserably, so the U.S. is returning to the game it plays the best - Cold War antics!