...And In Conclusion

This is a short, short follow-up to the previous epic length post about the Middle East.

First, thanks to all who commented. I was looking for alternative ideas and they came a-flowing. I don't have all the answers, just good guesses I suppose.

So I basically got two dirrerent alternative solutions to the Islamic terrorist problem. One being that basically full scale land invasions are passe' and ineffective. The money spent on the invasion would have been better spent on covert-ops and overhauling our intelligence forces so they meet the new challenges of the 21st century. Along those same lines, combat should have been limited to strategic sites based on terrorist locations, like Pakistan.

The other, and this came from two of my family members, was more philosophical. My dad wants the human race to evolve, which it is incapably of doing so long as we continue to practice "might makes right". Essentially pre-emptive war is the 21st century version of said, "might makes right". My dad, martyr that he is, stated that he's willing to, "take a nuke on the head," to preserve the moral high ground for the US. Pre-emptive war in his opinion cedes moral authority and stunts emtional growth as a world-wide populace. My uncle thinks we can beat Islamic fundamentalists with money and rock-n-roll...which is his solution to everything...he's an guitar player from the hippy dippy 60's.

On the subject of covert-ops, we've already been doing that. Slowly but surely our intelligence is improving and terrorist cells are being smashed from Portugal to Australia, from Norway to South Africa. It isn't perfect and there are certainly more cells and potential cells than there are agents but that's how it's going to be until more Muslims start turning on the fundamentalists and choosing a side.

On Pakistan, they've been the quiet little helper nobody ever talks about. I remember right after 9/11 when Bush said, "You're either with us or with the terrorist," and then they showed a clip of a wide-eyed President Musharraf swearing alleigance to the US. Since that time, "Musharraf said security forces had captured about 700 al-Qaeda suspects since late 2001 when Pakistan started its crackdown. Most are thought to have been handed over to the United States.

"Their back has been broken, they are on the run," Musharraf said." (credit brunei-online.com)

Obviously we've had our problems with them too but it's not an easy situation in his country. Musharraf has exposed himself to a hostile public in order to comply with US requests. The man is risking death from his own people because if he hadn't gotten on board with the US we probably would have gone into Pakistan as some folks had suggested we should have. We didn't because we had his full (or as full as he could provide) cooperation.

I'm willing to except that Iraq and a requisite response to 9/11 are not one and the same. In fact that was half of my argument, that an invasion of Iraq was on the table before 9/11 even happened. Having invaded Iraq, being there gives us the opprotunity to lean on other countries and apply pressure where it's needed. It also forces the hand of the ruling classes in the region, where before they could afford to play both sides (us and the fundamentalists) against one another while retaining their authority.

For example, according to Newsmax.com, "CAIRO, Egypt - Syria, long blamed for Middle East mayhem, seems to be bowing to U.S.-led international pressure to shed its image as a sponsor of regional instability.

Iraqi authorities say Syria - accused among other things of aiding anti-Israeli extremists and fanning the insurgency in Iraq - handed over Saddam Hussein's feared half brother, Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan. The decision came as an apparent goodwill gesture to ease tensions with the United States, which has demanded Damascus stop aiding Mideast militants and withdraw its 15,000 soldiers from neighboring Lebanon."

This is why we're there. Right or wrong it comes down the US moving in to the Middle East and throwing our weight around in the hopes that we'll see results from the Arab ruling elite. Now it would seem, judging from the theme of responses that I got on my previous post and the conversations I've had that leaning on countries and muscling them in to carrying out our will simply will not do and it is absolutely a violation of soveriegn rights. Probably, but I guess that's the philosophical difference between our two idealogical camps. Half of you are willing to stick to your ideals and preserve the moral high-ground, regardless of cost (and my dad will even take a nuke on the head just to prove a point).

The rest of us are just not that noble. The rest of us are Jack Nicholson from, "A Few Good Men."

I'm glad there two camps of thought. I'm glad half the country thinks we're imperialists or whatever. After more than a week of mulling this over in my head I've come to realize that even if half of the country is dead wrong, the constant nagging and arguing keeps the rest of honest.

Questions and Answers About the Middle East

[The following is an exceptionally long piece, especially for a blog. It will be up all weekend for the purposes of opening a dialogue the readers of this blog. I encourage readers to leave comments and express your views regarding the Iraq war.]

Late last week and most of this week depending on where you read it, I wrote an op-ed/rant titled, “I Have Seen the Enemy, And It Is Us.” Some people thought it was excellent while others very much hated it. I personally didn’t think it was my best work and for those that have written and commented about it, I’ve said as much. I think what happened when I was writing it was that I’ve been having this conversation about the Middle East and specifically Iraq since 9/11 and I feel like it never goes anywhere. Some people get it while some don’t. As the man once said, “Some men you just can’t reach.” It’s also not my responsibility to bang the drum for Bush’s foreign policy. If the man’s motives were not so buried in rhetoric and propaganda then most people I think would at least understand what’s going on without me having to lobby for free on his behalf. To those whom I offended by sounding like a pompous jackass, I sincerely apologize.

I’ve been thinking since I wrote the piece about the scope of what has happened since 9/11 and how it changed me and my thinking about our foreign policy. I think I owe the loyal readers of my work an explanation of where I’m coming from and how I got there. I also have some questions for all of you.

To being with, I believe, based on Bob Woodward’s “Plan of Attack” and Ron Suskind’s “The Price of Loyalty” that the Bush administration had always planned to depose Saddam Hussein, well before the attack on 9/11. Oddly enough that never bothered me. It would seem that the people who armed and backed Hussein against the Iranians, mainly Don Rumsfeld and company, realized after the ’91 Gulf War that they had essentially created Frankenstein’s monster in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Somewhere along the line somebody realized that that under the right circumstances, the beast they created to stave off Soviet aggression would come back to bite them.

In the many conversations I’ve had on this subject I’ve heard other theories about why they wanted Hussein out. Cheney wanted a plum to throw to Haliburton, Bush wanted to avenge his dad nearly being assassinated by Hussein’s agents in Kuwait and Don Rumsfeld needed a testing ground for what he thought would be the new, sleeker, less cumbersome military; a McNamara, if you will. Those are all plausible but who can say what was in their hearts and minds. One thing was for certain, the world had changed after the Berlin Wall came down and this trio apparently thought it was time to tie up loose ends.

So going in to a debate on whether or not we should have gone into Iraq, this is my starting point. I realize most people start with the question of “WMD’s” but that doesn’t even tell half of the story.

The other part of the equation regarding Hussein’s Iraq was the future of sanctions. Before 9/11 there were a few countries, France in particular, who were lobbying the UN to remove the sanctions from Iraq. Let us assume for a moment that there never were any WMD’s in Iraq ever, even after the Gulf War, as is the contention from most on the left. Let us further assume that France was right in lobbying for the removal of sanctions as Iraq had shown itself to be complying with UN resolutions. Most assuredly the sanctions would have been removed in time and that would have greatly empowered the Hussein regime. While the Duelfer report stated that at the time there appeared to be no weapons program, “Duelfer supported Bush’s argument that Saddam remained a threat. Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made it clear that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if U.N. sanctions were lifted, his report said.” (Credit msnbc.com)

As I stated above, the Bush administration felt that in one-way shape or form we would have to deal directly with Hussein sooner than later. I invite you to think about Iraq from their point of view – beyond oil or blood vendettas and all of that – history will remember Cheney and Rumsfeld for directly arming Hussein in the ‘80’s. If he turns around and attacks us (beyond trying to assassinate a former president) then who do you think would catch the blame? If you really want to be cynical about it, their fixation with deposing Hussein probably came directly from their desire to cover their own ass. These are human beings after all and I seriously doubt they wanted an attack by Hussein on their conscience.

Once again, this is what I had put together even without considering the role 9/11 played. To be honest, had we not been attacked, I honestly doubt the Bush administration would have had enough capital to push for a land invasion. They probably would have saved it for Bush’s second term when presidents tend to be ballsier.

Unfortunately, 9/11 did happen and it had a greater effect on our foreign policy then I think people realize. Going as far back to the days of our first president, George Washington, we have always been an isolationist country at heart. Sure we’ve been engaged in foreign conflicts ever since the country was formed but that doesn’t mean we liked it. As far as I can tell in the readings I’ve done, we as a population have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into foreign conflicts. Luckily for us as our country evolved our closest neighbors were either not hostile or not capable of dismantling our way of life. Europe on the other hand is not so lucky as it is on top off both Asia and Africa. At the end of World War II our isolationist country was forced into playing the role of rival superpower to the Soviet Union. Suddenly with the advent of nuclear missiles the world got a lot smaller and much more uncomfortable for a country whose only desire was to stay on their side of the pond out of harms way. I’m generalizing to be sure but to also make a point. We’ve been struggling with our role as a superpower since it was thrust upon us and even though most in our government thought they could handle the responsibility, the populace (you and me) need constant cajoling, convincing and coddling.

When the Berlin Wall came down it marked (more or less) the end of the Cold War. Unfortunately old habits die-hard and so do beliefs. During that period our government thought that the single biggest threat in the world was the spread of Communism. Pan-Arabism and Islamic fanaticism was just a blip on the radar. It was something in the peripheral and that is where it remained until 9/11. Apparently the only people who knew the truth about the threat of Pan-Arabism and Islamic fanaticism were the Arabs/Muslims themselves. It was as if we as a country thought that with the end of the Soviet Union we could go back to being isolationists despite the world being even smaller now than ever before. We weren’t caught sleeping on 9/11; we were caught wishing. We were wishing that we didn’t have to be “the” superpower anymore.

Going back to our good friends in the Bush administration, they too thought the threats of the Middle East were far enough away that they could plan accordingly. That fantasy world came crashing down all around them. I’m asking those of you who claim to be anti-war or just plain hate the Bush administration, what exactly did you want them to do after 9/11? Did you think the problem was just isolated to Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan? If you read what al Qaeda and their brother groups have put out there, the plan isn’t just for Western societies to be out of the Middle East; that’s just phase 1. Their ultimate goal is to convert the entire world by the sword (I’m talking about the Islamic terrorists, Wahhabists, etc., not all Muslim people). Maybe we as average Americans didn’t know this at the time but I’m fairly certain those in power were perfectly aware of what ends our enemies were after. Again, put yourself in the position of the Bush administration, you can’t just abandon the Middle East and there is no country per se, to attack. As is often stated, “There is no al Qaedia.”

Some people say that they were OK with the invasion of Afghanistan but that’s where it should have ended. I’ve never understood why. The threat of Islamic fanaticism is far beyond that particular country so what would make you think that 50 some odd years of building hatred for Western civilization would just dissipate overnight? The other problem with limiting our strategic goals to just Afghanistan is exactly the problem we have right now. Bin Laden isn’t in Afghanistan anymore and hasn’t been for quite some time. According to Richard Miniter in his book, “Shadow War,” bin Laden has been jetting back and forth between Baluchistan, Pakistan and various places throughout Iran. If the argument from the left is that the War on Terror should only be limited to seeking out bin Laden then should we have invaded Pakistan and Iran right after Afghanistan? I think we can all agree that systematically wiping out a series of countries while hunting for one guy is probably not prudent strategy.

I throw the ball back to you dissenters and anti-war types, what do you do once bin Laden goes underground? The problem is bigger than al Qaeda and it’s certainly bigger than bin Laden. If we had been lucky enough to kill him the first time around do you really believe all of the various networks dedicated to annihilating Western Civilization would have just folded and went home? What exactly would you have had the Bush administration do at that point?

Bush named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the biggest threats to peace in the world. In addition, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Many people have argued that if we were going to invade a country based on the potential threat they posed, then we should have gone after North Korea, who actually has a nuclear weapon, or Saudi Arabia who seemed to be complicit in the 9/11 attack or Iran who is actively seeking nuclear weapons. People have further argued that between years of sanctions and bombing runs Iraq was of no real threat and should not have been invaded. I have never understood the logic of these arguments. You are suggesting that we instigate nuclear war with North Korea and wait for Iraq to eventually become an equal or greater threat? Maybe it is just me but I thought the more prudent strategy would be to take out the weakest target and use it a base from which to leverage the other two enemies into some form of dialogue. Putting aside the issues of oil, arms and egos, if you just look at a map it is plain to see the value of having a strategic base of operations in Iraq.

On paper it actually was a good plan. Of all the potential targets in the greater Middle East and Central Asia (Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan) the country that should have had the least resistance while providing the largest circle of influence was Iraq. If you take out Iraq you remove a hostile enemy to Israel, you surround Iran (with Afghanistan and Pakistan, our allies now, on the other side), and you put pressure on Syria. If the idea was to plant our sphere of influence smack in the middle of terror central then I believe Iraq was the place to do it. This is a war largely made up of symbolic actions. Iraq has provided a steady stream of symbolism to an enemy that believes itself to be guided by the whims of God.

Has the war effort been perfect? Of course it hasn’t. We obviously planned for mass surrenders and non-interference from Syria and Iran; we got the opposite instead. I’ve said this before, our government, be it Republican or Democrat, is still trying to figure out how we can go to war without actually killing people. Unfortunately, lots of people get killed in the experiments we try.

It is with all of this in mind that I was for the Iraq war. I always saw it as one of the many strategies against fighting the Islamic fanatics. I also knew going in that we as a public would need some convincing that could be squeezed into short catchphrases and cable news segments. That’s why when the administration was beating the drum about WMD’s I tended to laugh because I knew and they knew damn well that wasn’t the real reason we were doing this, it looked good on paper though and don’t ever underestimate the power of a good marketing strategy.

On the less cynical side, suppose we hadn’t pushed the envelop in Iraq. Suppose that after 9/11 Bush said to the world, “We’re sorry we abandoned Afghanistan after the war against the Soviets and let it be overrun by the Taliban. We’re sorry we gave Hussein mixed messages on invading Kuwait and then led a coalition against him to get his forces out of there. We’re sorry we put an American military base in your holy land of Saudi Arabia. We’re sorry we encouraged the Kurds to rebel against Hussein and then watched them get slaughtered by him. We’re sorry our word means nothing. We’re sorry for being a decadent country filled with sex, drugs and rock-n-roll. Give us a few days and we’ll just pack our things and let you folks in the Middle East handle your own business, Israel, nice to know you.” I’m sure some of you wished that’s exactly what would have happened. Well suppose it did, are you under the assumption that if we abandoned the Middle East to their own devices and let Israel be bombed off the planet that the fanatics wouldn’t have eventually found their way back to America? On that note, what if we had let the sanctions off of Iraq. Sure the connections between Hussein and al Qaeda were contentious at best and dubious at worst, but do you think allowing the possibility of a stronger connection blossoming with no safeguards in the area between those two would have been the best move on our part? Again, why are we arguing a “wait and see” strategy when the results would most assuredly have been disastrous? And for those who argue that Hussein was secular and bin Laden religious I say back that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Without getting into all of the information on this specific topic, there is sufficient proof that rather directly or indirectly, at some point Hussein would have been in possession of “the bomb” and undoubtedly he would have given to any number of terrorist organizations. Those organizations tend to do business with each other and overlap, like street gangs. To think otherwise is to be a tad naïve.

I will admit that proceeding rather ham handedly with the invasion of Iraq was a huge risk. The results could have gone any number of ways. It hasn’t been perfect and it sure isn’t pretty but I’m not sure what course of action would have been better. The idea is to be there in a strategic place to mix with local intelligence agencies and disrupt terrorist plans. That is what we’ve been doing. It doesn’t get much reporting in the news but it is happening.

I think this is why I got so frustrated with one person in particular and then was further infuriated by the comments of Randy Rhodes. The War on Terror and Iraq especially is so complex that focusing on erroneous rationales for starting a land invasion, I believe, misses the bigger point. I know people feel like Bush lied about WMD’s despite foreign intelligence reports saying they were there. I know people like to hold their politicians, especially ones they don’t like, to impossible standards of behavior. I get it and I suppose I sympathize with that point of view. I guess I’m just so cynical that when it comes to politics I expect to be lied to and when it happens I don’t take it personally. I knew we were being sold a bill of goods. Hell, I still expect to find some of what we were told was there in Syria but that’s another column. I guess I tend to forget that some people feel legitimately betrayed by the Bush administration and I don’t consider their feelings because as I stated above, I never believed it in the first place. I’ve always been fixated on taking Iraq as a strategic goal and nothing more.

In the news, pundits far and wide are referring to the Iraqi elections as akin to the fall of the Berlin Wall. It could be, one never knows. If Palestine and Israel make relative peace, if the Mullahs of Iran are deposed, if Saudi Arabia truly embraces democracy, if all of the countries in the Middle East and Central Asia commit every resource to ending the worldwide threat of Islamic fanaticism, Bush’s policy beginning with Iraq will have turned out to be genius.

So I am asking all of the doubters and Bush-haters, what would you have done after 9/11 instead of what’s been done? How would you have handled this problem? If Al Gore had been president it is conceivable that 9/11 could have been stopped due to a variety of reasons. But then what? If Al Gore was president today and 9/11 never happened what would you have had the man do about the potential threats in the Middle East. If I’m wrong and my analysis is so off then explain to me what I’ve missed.

I await your cordial and informed comments/e-mails.

Thank you.

Don't Let Facts Get in the Way of a Good Policy

One thing that is consistent about this administration, when they have their mind set on something they will not be distracted by picayune issues like facts. I tend to err on the side of Christie Todd Whitman when she says that the Bush Administration is less interested in the environment than they are in loosening the restrictions on business. The AP is reporting that once again the scientists and wonks are at odds and the scientists are losing.

"WASHINGTON (AP) - The voice of science is being stifled in the Bush administration, with fewer scientists heard in policy discussions and money for research and advanced training being cut, according to panelists at a national science meeting.

Speakers at the national meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science expressed concern Sunday that some scientists in key federal agencies are being ignored or even pressured to change study conclusions that don't support policy positions.

The speakers also said that Bush's proposed 2005 federal budget is slashing spending for basic research and reducing investments in education designed to produce the nation's future scientists.

And there also was concern that increased restrictions and requirements for obtaining visas is diminishing the flow to the U.S. of foreign-born science students who have long been a major part of the American research community.

Rosina Bierbaum, dean of the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, said the Bush administration has cut scientists out of some of the policy-making processes, particularly on environmental issues.

"In previous administrations, scientists were always at the table when regulations were being developed," she said. "Science never had the last voice, but it had a voice."

Issues on global warming, for instance, that achieved a firm scientific consensus in earlier years are now being questioned by Bush policy makers. Proven, widely accepted research is being ignored or disputed, she said.

Government policy papers issued prior to the Bush years moved beyond questioning the validity of global warming science and addressed ways of confronting or dealing with climate change.

Under Bush, said Bierbaum, the questioning of the proven science has become more important than finding ways to cope with climate change.

One result of such actions, said Neal Lane of Rice University, a former director of the National Science Foundation, is that "we don't really have a policy right now to deal with what everybody agrees is a serious problem." "

Undoubtedly I'm going to get some conservatives leaving comments on the sketchy science of global warming. I'm not going to bother stating an opinion on it either way because frankly I haven't done enough research. However, I do know that wonks and bureaucrats whom have inhabited the White House have a dubious history of ignoring scientists when the facts don't jive with the policy du jour.

My personal favorite, because it is a pet subject of mine, is how ignoring the experts let to forming our ever expanding and costly War on Drugs.

According to Clark Brittain in his article, "Failure of Fault Based War on Drugs," "Nixon commissioned conservative republican governors Shafer and Hughes to do a study and officially denounce marijuana once and for all. That commission disappointed the president and recommended among other things, that marijuana should be legal/regulated as is alcohol, and that the only legitimate role for the federal government regarding drug use would be to help identify people who might benefit by getting help. That report was rejected by Nixon, and the war on drugs was initiated with a relatively small budget of about $30 million. Selective prohibition was considered the moral thing to do; it would drive up prices making drugs comparatively unavailable to the average person. By the time Reagan became president the war on drugs took a serious turn. Maryland University basketball star Len Bias died of a cocaine seizure (his friends were afraid to get help for fear of legal culpability) and several dozen crack babies fed the federal frenzy that ratcheted up the war even further. Helping it along was the CIA involvement in cocaine trafficking to help fund the illegal arming of contras in Nicaragua. Illicit drugs became a huge business- because of the black market. It is estimated that the three largest industries in the world today are: oil, arms and illicit drugs."

For those keeping score, the Shafer Commision stated, "A final cost of the possession laws is the disrespect which the laws and their enforcement engender in the young. Our young cannot understand why society chooses to criminalize a behavior with so little visible ill-effect or adverse social impact.. . . And the disrespect for the possession laws fosters a disrespect for all law and the system in general.

On top of all this is the distinct impression among the youth that some police may use the marihuana laws to arrest people they don't like for other reasons, whether it be their politics, their hair style, or their ethnic background. . . 

For all these reasons, we reject the total prohibition approach and its variations."

Yep, the experts recommended legalizing marijuana, Nixon ignored them and started the War on Drugs. The experts are trying to warn GW about global warming and I imagine he'll choose to deal with the situation by declaring war on fossil fuels.

Run to the Hills?

I’m a big fan of history, archeology and anthropology. A study of all three subjects and their sister interests has the effect of providing perspective and relative calm on a number of subjects. When I see a situation in the news of day I tend to try and examine the history of the event that just exploded on my screen. It’s partially the student and partially the social worker in me that is so interested in the long term “why” of each event I bare witness to.

In the ongoing saga that is the Ward Churchill controversy one of the main themes that keeps coming is the history of injustices suffered by the Native South and North Americans by the European imperialist over 600 years ago. More specifically, Churchill and those like him tend to concentrate on the historical impact of European colonization and eventual American transcendentalism on the North American natives (no I will not call them Indians, those people live in India). In addition to academics, musicians like those in Iron Maiden or Anthrax (whom I love mind you) have written songs sympathetic to the plight of the Natives while casting shame on their own people.

Whenever the discussion of Native Americans comes up it us usually framed by this fantasy world where the natives never made war, were perfectly in tune with their environment and were innocent victims of the “White Mans” unaccountable aggression. It’s a case being presented to students from kindergarten to college and beyond with absolutely no evidence to the contrary. The “White Man” committed genocide against the poor, helpless, environmentally friendly and peaceful Native Americans. On behalf of us imperialist crackers, allow me to provide a bit of cross-examination of the short, short history of Native Americans.

First, I think any fair examination of the Native American people should begin with just who exactly these people were? “Based on anthropological and genetic evidence, scientists generally agree that most Native Americans descend from people who migrated from Siberia across the Bering Strait, at least 12,000 years ago…In recent years, molecular genetics studies have suggested as many as four distinct migrations from Asia. These studies also provide surprising evidence of smaller-scale, contemporaneous migrations from Europe, possibly by peoples who had adopted a lifestyle resembling that of Inuits and Yupiks during the last ice age.” (Wikipedia.org) For all intents and purposes, prior to European colonization, the ancient ancestors of our modern day Native Americans were mostly Asian. There are some who argue that migrants from the Pacific Islands share part of the Native bloodline but that theory hasn’t been completely proven accurate. For the sake of time, space and money let’s assume that the folks who inhabited this place before Mr. Whitefolks showed up were of Asian descent.

Any cultural anthropological study will show that humans developed two kinds of societies based on a number of variant factors such as soil rich for farming, availability of animals for hunting and domestication, etc. If adequate land for farming of resources was in limited supply or there were not animals fit for domestication, the society, band, tribe or what have you tended to be nomadic, hunter-gatherer types. However, those lucky enough to settle land that met the society’s needs became sedentary agricultural civilizations that eventually developed into trading empires such as the Maya or the Aztecs. When the European’s arrived in the “New World,” it was littered with both kinds of societies. Those societies were not innocent of the crimes often placed upon colonial European society.

For example, the words “war and imperialism” are often bandied about as the sole province of Europeans. However, the Native Americans apparently had their fair share of wars amongst each other. “(A)ccording to the native tradition, the ancestors of the Huron-Iroquois family had dwelt in this locality (Montreal-Quebec), or still further east and nearer to the river's mouth.

As their numbers increased, dissensions arose. The hive swarmed, and band after band moved off to the west and south.

As they spread, they encountered people of other stocks, with whom they had frequent wars. Their most constant and most dreaded enemies were the tribes of the Algonkin family, a fierce and restless people, of northern origin, who everywhere surrounded them. At one period, however, if the concurrent traditions of both Iroquois and Algonkins can be believed, these contending races for a time stayed their strife, and united their forces in an alliance against a common and formidable foe.

This foe was the nation, or perhaps the confederacy, of the Alligewi or Talligewi, the semi-civilized "Mound-builders" of the Ohio Valley, who have left their name to the Allegheny River and mountains, and whose vast earthworks are still, after half-a-century of study, the perplexity of archeologists.

A desperate warfare ensued, which lasted about a hundred years, and ended in the complete overthrow and destruction, or expulsion, of the Alligewi. The survivors of the conquered people fled southward, and are supposed to have mingled with the tribes which occupied the region extending from the Gulf of Mexico northward to the Tennessee river and the southern spurs of the Alleghenies.” (Earthbow.com)

Slavery is also a contentious topic among the elite. Europeans are seemingly burdened with endless blame over the institution of slavery. However, even here we are not alone in the world. The Native Americans kept slaves too but as this next bit will indicate, because of how their societies were structured, Native slaves did not have quite the same premium as slaves kept by Europeans. “(I)n most precontact Native American societies war captives served social rather than economic purposes. Torture awaited some, while others became adopted members of their captor's family and tribe. Torture enabled Indians to fulfill a sacred obligation by avenging the deaths of kin. Adoption, on the other hand, enabled a family to replace members who had died, and adopted war captives enjoyed all the privileges extended to relatives by birth. A few captives underwent neither torture nor adoption but remained on the fringe of society. This status most closely resembled the institution that Europeans called "slavery," because these people often performed menial tasks and strenuous work. Nevertheless, because most native peoples lived at the subsistence level and placed no premium on the accumulation of material wealth, these captives did not contribute economically in the way "slaves" commonly do. Certainly they contributed to the overall productivity of the group, and their sale or ransom might bring desirable goods into the community, but they did not represent a capital investment. Native economies did not depend on slave labor, nor did they value it.” (College.hmco.com)

Things evidently changed radically after the Europeans entered Native life. Now one might argue that despite some of the above evidence, the Native’s were just better people…and you’d be wrong. The Natives as a whole have shown themselves to be just as positive or just as corrupt as Europeans. “Some Indians, particularly in the South, began to adopt European attitudes toward Africans in the early eighteenth century. Treaties that required the capture of runaway slaves and paid bounties for their return drew Indians into the slave system of the southern colonies. Never isolated from colonists or their ideas, Indians became aware of the racial antipathy European colonists felt toward Africans. Unwilling to risk identification with these despised people, many native southerners began to distance themselves from Africans. Furthermore, some Indians began to find Africans useful as translators or laborers, and a few purchased slaves.” (College.hmco.com)

Finally there’s the Native American relationship to the environment. White people, especially today are blamed for any number of environmental disasters as if such instances were a relatively recent phenomenon. The ancient Mayans know quite differently. “While many Mayanists agree that wars contributed to the collapse, no one thinks they were the whole story. Another factor was overexploitation of the rain-forest ecosystem, on which the Maya depended for food. University of Arizona archaeologist T. Patrick Culbert says pollen recovered from underground debris shows clearly that ‘there was almost no tropical forest left.’ ” (Indians.org)

So where does this leave us? My point in all of this is that human beings, whether they be Asian, European, African or Native American are all susceptible to the same awful societal traps. No one race has moral superiority over the other. At one time in history or another we’ve all been the prosecutors or victims of perpetual war, genocide, slavery, and environmental irresponsibility. The Natives may have lost the war to the Europeans and suffered greatly for it but they weren’t these mythical creatures without sin whom were corrupted against their will either. In many cases they were complicit in their own disempowerment just as some of the Africans were.

People like Ward Churchill play to these ridiculous notions of moral superiority regarding Native Americans that is completely divorced from reality. The sooner we stop pointing fingers at different races for the sins of the past (or for that matter the present) and start dealing how we are going to improve upon the future, the better we’ll all be. Enough with the “Run to the Hills” mentality of treating non-White people as the Fabrage Eggs of history and lets move on to a more expansive understanding of history in both its many contexts and changes. Furthermore, it would be a step in the right direction if folks actually knew the history of the world and stopped empowering racial demagogues like Ward Churchill.

The Yes Men: A DVD Review

Once again, boy am I glad I joined Netflix!

What do you get when you pair two effeminate liberals, Michael Moore, Greg Palast and a website critical of the World Trade Organization? Answer, you get a rather silly documentary called, “The Yes Men”.

The film begins with the two protagonists explaining how the “Yes Men” came to be. They began their pseudo-activist careers by designing a mock George W. Bush website that was hypercritical of him and his policies as then Governor of Texas. In the short sequence of clips, President Bush says that there should be, “limits to freedom,” that, “there is a lot of garbage on the internet,” and finally, referring to our heroes, “these are garbage men.”

After having stuck it to Bush, they were asked to design a similar website, this time taking aim at the World Trade Organization. The premise was the same in that they would employ the same look of the real WTO site while highlighting information about what the WTO has done to ravage Third World countries far and wide. The hook here is that because of this site and it’s striking similarity to the real thing, they end up getting invited to give lectures as representatives of the WTO. This is where the plot thickens; our two boys take the opportunity at these lectures to present an over-the-top satire of the WTO in an attempt to expose them for the uncaring weapon of globalization that they perceive them to be. Hilarity ensues.

I’ll give them this, “The Yes Men” was better than “Fahrenheit 9/11” but that isn’t saying much. I have no doubt that some of the information they present in the film is true but it is hard to take it seriously when it’s being delivered by the likes of Moore and Greg Palast, author of “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.” The anti-corporation documentary aptly named, “The Corporation” suffers from the same problem. The message may be dead on but the messenger lacks any kind of moral or intellectual authority.

There are three main parts to “The Yes Men”. In the first bit of satire, the main player dresses up in a gold suit with a large phallic TV protruding from between his legs. The gag is that he’s saying that this get-up is the wave of the future in manager-worker relations. In the plant of the future, workers will be lightly shocked into complicity by managers that can watch a global workforce from anywhere in the world. If you think you are losing something in translation don’t worry, it isn’t much better when you see in the movie. The gag is very adolescent, especially for two people whom appear to be intelligent adults. The audience at the lecture in the movie didn’t really get it either.

The second bit takes place on a college campus. They present to the unsuspecting students that in order to feed starving people in the Third World, they will attempt to recycle food waste. They show a computer generated cartoon of an American eating a McDonald’s hamburger, going to the bathroom and then via an underground pipeline, depositing the waste and reforming it into hamburger patties in some Arab country. Naturally the students react with angry questions, name-calling and eventually thrown projectiles as has become the staple for collegiate debates these days (pies, shoes, etc). This was actually funny to watch. The reactions of the idiot students to what is most assuredly an absurd proposal almost makes the movie for me. This bit is mostly a send-up of the idea that Americanization and globalization is McDonalds-uber-alles. That is to say that McDonalds is iconic of America coming into a country and stripping it of its cultural identity and replacing with consumerism and a well-stocked marketplace.

Lastly, the film crescendo’s with a conference in Australia where the heroes expose the WTO as inhumane and a tool of the corporate elite. In this lecture they make up a story that the WTO is shutting down and restructuring to incorporate UN human rights mandates. The funny part is the audience completely agrees with them.

In the final analysis the “Yes Men” acknowledge that they are just mere pranksters and that those who combat the corporations with lawsuits and such do the real work. This is from there website, “Traditional forms of action are more important than ever today: street protest, direct action, rallies, politics, lawsuits, letter-writing… All this and more is needed for change to happen.”

These fellows are biased and they admit as much on their site. “Kerry is part of Western civilization. His intention isn't to smash the state and destroy the government; his sole real concern for this world isn't the profitability of the mighty; his concept of justice and right doesn't come from another world altogether, one in which earthly laws and concerns have no relevance. The fundamentalist terrorist who seemingly won the election is very different in all three respects.

If Kerry had won, we who care about people might have had some hope of affecting his approach, perhaps second- or third-hand, via those who have his ear. With Bush, we have to focus on the preliminary step of getting this plague out of office.”

They have every right to be biased and it doesn’t really take away from the movie. Nobody could have sat down to watch this thing and expect these two gents to be anything but dyed in the wool liberals. However, after an hour and twenty minutes of this nonsense all one can say in reference to their efforts to the expose the WTO is, “What have you really accomplished?” How much more aware of what the WTO has wrought are people now that you’ve made this movie? The answer is not much.

Overall it’s an OK movie. It’s like “Jackass” for the intellectual crowd. College kids will love it and think it actually means something. Most others will never know it ever existed. And the WTO will keep on keeping on, doing what it does, barely acknowledging that these guys exist. Frankly, I preferred “Super-Size Me”.

Beyond Temper Tantrums

Bill O’Reilly can call for all the boycotts of France he likes and to some degree he may even be right in doing so but the reality is that France is not our enemy…there I’ve said it.

I am not disputing certain claims that definitely paint France as adversarial but being such does not make them, “the enemy”. Let’s get some perspective here, al Qaeda is the enemy; Islamic fundamentalism is the enemy; Pan-Arabism is the enemy; the spread of Communism in whatever form it takes is the enemy; the government of Syria is our enemy; the government of Iran is our enemy; the Wahhabist are our enemies; France is looking for some form of international influence and a return to global prominence in the face of US reach and dominance, which is far from saying, “Death to America!” Let’s all take a deep cleansing breath and examine the Franco-US relationship in all of its complexities instead of the road-rage/fast food style of political analysis we’ve all grown so used to.

President Bush is in Europe attempting to mend fences over the Iraq war among other issues. The AP reports, “President Bush's dinner with French President Jacques Chirac in Brussels, Belgium, on Monday approaches with the expectation that bygones will be set aside, despite enduring points of disagreement… It is a progression, at least in tone, from when Condoleezza Rice, now secretary of state and formerly the president's national security adviser, voiced the wish to punish France, ignore Germany and forgive Russia for their resistance to the Iraq war. In those days, France was seen as the most annoying member of what wags called the "axis of weasels," and the hard feelings and bitter words were mutual.

What's changed? Most notably, the invasion of Iraq that France so vociferously opposed fades in time and the Iraqi elections shifted the ground upon which Washington and Paris staked their leading disagreement.

"American action in Iraq was imprudent, but it must not be allowed to end badly," said Jean-Claude Casanova, specialist in bilateral history, tracing a basis for France to cooperate with Washington now.”

I have used this space many times to remind people that despite all of the anti-American rhetoric spewed both at home and abroad, it is a fact that where the United States goes, so does the rest of the world. We are the 800lbs gorilla and the engine the drives the world. We run trade deficits with a large portion of the world and I believe we are the largest donator of aid despite having much less of the worlds population. We have enough nuclear missiles to blow up the entire world 200 times over (according to analysts). However, we are not alone in the world nor can we police it by ourselves…at least not without killing a whole lot of people.

So let’s talk about France, oui? France is attempting to assert itself as the dominant player in the European Union, which in turn is attempting to establish itself as the regional leader East of the Atlantic Ocean. France and its neighbors however have roots and interests in both Africa and Asia. It is that very same Africa and Asia that have proven fertile ground for a turf war between America, the EU (France), Russia and China. France has as much to lose as we do if the Middle East or Central Asia falls under complete control of the Islamic fundamentalists. There are roughly 3 million Muslims living in France alone so despite what you might hear on cable news, they are in fact invested in the war against terrorism. If they weren’t they’d be exposing themselves to ruin.

For example, “…on 14 December 1999, an Algerian named Ahmed Ressam was arrested on the U.S.-Canadian border with a trunk full of explosives intended for use in an attack on the Los Angeles International Airport. Ressam grew up in Algeria, resided in Canada and plotted attacks against the United States, but despite having few French connections, French authorities knew who Ressam was and what he intended. French anti-terrorism investigators had been tracking Ressam and his associates in Canada for over three years and had repeatedly warned Canadian authorities of Ressam?s intention to carry out terrorist attacks in North America. After his arrest, French investigators were able to provide the FBI with a complete dossier on Ressam and to aid U.S. authorities in identifying his associates, eventually sending an official to testify at his trial.” (Credit brookings.edu)

This is just one example of how the French and US assist one another in the greater struggle. The embassy of France reports, “…the two parties have pledged to mutually provide one another with the greatest possible assistance in any investigation or proceedings involving criminal offenses whose sanctions fall within in the scope, at the time such mutual assistance is requested, of the legal authorities of the requesting government.”

Another telling statement comes from the Committee on International Relations in the U.S. House of Representatives. “The evolution from the old to the new transatlantic system should also be put in the context of the declining importance of Europe in military and strategic terms for the US, reinforced by 9/11. It is, however, noteworthy that when America needs help for something – be it peacekeepers, financial support, intelligence about terrorist networks and the like – the continent where it finds its allies is Europe.”

Simply put, France and their neighbors are no longer in fear of the Soviets coming over the Berlin Wall to sprawl the Communist empire. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment-there is no “evil empire” on their doorstep anymore that requires them to do the bidding of the one force capable of protecting them. That game is done and we more or less won. If the Europeans don’t attempt to assert regional influence now then they might as well roll over and declare themselves part of the United States. I think their point is valid, the Cold War is over and so is their subservient role to the US. As the above statement indicates, they are our allies in all ways but that does not mean they are our slaves. It’s not the best situation in the world but that’s the way life is.

One of the issues that has historically complicated matters is their treatment of Israel. The story that got Bill O’Reilly all hot and bothered was that France would not designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. “French President Jacques Chirac has turned down a request from Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom to vote in favor of placing Hezbollah on the European Union's list of terrorist organizations, telling Shalom that the timing was not right for such a move.” One could read that and blame this strictly in anti-Semitism or even anti-Americanism in that we are ardent supporters of Israel. However, all is not how it seems. “According to Israeli sources, the French are well-aware of the terrorist element of the Hezbollah, but they are now focusing their efforts on the success of the upcoming Lebanese elections so they don't want to strain relations with the group, which is running as a political party in the upcoming vote.” Shades of gray folks, the world is more complicated than a segment on the O’Reilly Factor and kitschy bumper stickers. (Credit Haaretz.com)

The cold hard truth of the matter is that at the end of the day, we are together against the Islamic fundamentalists. It is possible however unlikely that the Muslims living in Europe will join with their brothers in the Middle East and Central Asia and attempt a revolution from within. If that happens France knows we will be there to help stop it. If it never happens and the jihad is only limited to attacks we’ve already seen such as in Madrid, then in all actuality, they loose nothing by occasionally putting their foot down and acting as an international counterweight to the US.

I believe we are better served by moving beyond these trivial temper tantrums and understand that the world is not so black as white as is painted on cable news. Competition in the international marketplace is not the worst problem facing the US and we should refrain from acting like it is.

"Why behave like a 6-year-old child?" Walter Russell Mead, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (2/20/05)

Condi to replace Cheney next year?

And so it begins. The signs are all pointing the right direction. If Cheney steps down and Rice is tapped to be VP, then we'll know just who will be running against Hillary in 2008. Whomever ends up replaces Cheney gets the Rove-election machine in the process and we all know what happens when the Rove-election machine gets running. For those of trying very hard to make sure the Clintons never end up in the White House again, all my not be lost indeed. Furthermore, for those of us who think this country cannot stand another Bushite in the White House (for example, Jeb), once again, we may have a savior in Dr. Rice.

This from Worldnetdaily.com:

Vice President Dick Cheney likely will step down next year due to health reasons and be replaced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, according to a report by geopolitical expert Jack Wheeler.

On his website, To the Point, Wheeler reports there's a "red-breasted rumor bird" flying around Capitol Hill that has whispered the same thing to most congressional committee chairmen.

"We all know that Dick Cheney has been the best vice president of modern times, perhaps in American history," one such chairman told Wheeler. "And we know that he absolutely will not run for president in 2008. Further, he has an unfortunate history of heart trouble. So let's just say none of us will be surprised if, sometime next year, he will step down from the vice presidency due to his health."

Continued the source: "Should this happen, President Bush would need to appoint his replacement, just as Richard Nixon chose Gerald Ford to replace Spiro Agnew. It is quite clear to us whom the president would choose should he need to: Condoleezza Rice."

Wheeler goes on to analyze what such a scenario would mean for the 2008 presidential election.

Writes Wheeler: "Being a sitting vice president places Condi in an impregnable position for the GOP nomination in 2008 and sucks every breath of wind from Hillary's sails. Historically, it's hard for a party to keep the White House after they've had it for eight years. This is George Bush and Dick Cheney's way to buck history – and make it."

Serving as Bush's national security adviser during his first term, Rice took over the State Department last month.

Strip Club Artfully Slips by Anti-Nudity Law

After yesterday's rant, I think I need a break from the serious stuff. So, bring on the stripper story!

"BOISE, Idaho (Reuters) - A strip club in Boise, Idaho has found an artful way to prance past a city law that prohibits full nudity.

On what it calls Art Club Nights, the Erotic City strip club charges customers $15 for a sketch pad, pencil, and a chance to see completely naked women dancers.

In 2001 the Boise City Council passed an ordinance banning total nudity in public unless it had "serious artistic merit" -- an exemption meant to apply to plays, dance performances and art classes.

"We have a lot of people drawing some very good pictures," said Erotic City owner Chris Teague, who has posted many of the drawings around the club.

Teague said he got the idea when a customer asked if he could get in for free to sketch the dancers. Realizing that "art classes" were exempt from the law, Teague decided to bill Mondays and Tuesdays as art nights, and let the dancers go without their G-strings and pasties.

In the two months since they began, Art Club Nights have drawn full crowds of 60 people but no police citations, he said."

As a friend of mine once said, "Pussy is what makes us America!"

"I Have Seen the Enemy and It Is Us"

I would like to consider myself a fair person. I think my radio listening habits reveal just how open-minded I am to alternative points of view. When I lived in NY I listened to Morning Sedition on Air America in the morning, Rush Limbaugh at noon, Bill O'Reilly in the mid-afternoons, and depending on my mood and what time I got out of work, I switched off between Randi Rhodes (again Air America) and Mark Levin. If I was in the car late at night I switched back and forth between Laura Inghram, and the Majority Report with Jeneane Garofolo and Sam Seder. In Miami my habits are still the same. Air America in the mornings, Rush and some awful radio host named Schnitt and then Randi Rhodes.

This week on the Rhodes show she was being her usual sarcastic self while talking about the war in Iraq. If you listen to the show regularly you'd know it is fairly typical of her to complain about the war while "supporting the troops". Her major bone of contention is that there, "were no WMD's in Iraq" and "Saddam didn't attack us on 9/11," which is the usual juvenile and provincial arguments one hears from the left side of the debate. Mind you, she'll go out of her way to expose all sorts of information about Republicans but does not display the same intellectual fairness with regards to Democrats or the UN.

For example, in her latest diatribe against our involvement in Iraq and the "nonexistent" WMD's she didn't bother to cite an article saying the UN weapons inspectors were drinking on the job. This from News.Telegraph out of the UK: "UN inspectors in Iraq spent their working hours drinking vodka while ignoring a shadowy nocturnal fleet believed to be smuggling goods for Saddam Hussein, a former senior inspector told the US Senate yesterday.

In a move that provoked fury from officials of the Swiss firm Cotecna, an Australian former inspector detailed a picture of incompetence, indifference and drunkeness among the men acting as the frontline for UN sanctions."

On the "nonexistent" weapons, Rhodes and those just like her never get into the role Syria played in aiding and abetting Saddam Hussein’s regime while we were mired in on-going UN debate. According to 2LA.org, which appears to be a pro-Lebanon website, "Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept...Nayouf writes that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein's Special Republican Guard, including General Shalish, with the help of Assif Shoakat , Bashar Assad's cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family.

In February 2003, a month before America's invasion in Iraq, very few are aware about the efforts to bring the Weapons of Mass Destruction from Iraq to Syria, and the personal involvement of Bashar Assad and his family in the operation.
Nayouf, who has won prizes for journalistic integrity, says he wrote his letter because he has terminal cancer."

I've seen this story before in at least a dozen other places. It's meticulously documented in Yossef Bodanskys, "Secret History of the Iraq War." I also remember Don Rumsfeld saying after we took Baghdad that we should takes steps to secure Syria as well because of there involvement in the war. Of course the story got buried and now the only people talking about WMD's in Syria are Sean Hannity and me ::::sigh::::.

As a patron of the show I must put up with her one-sided research and destroy methods because eventually she gets around to making a lucid point. However, today she uttered something to the tune of, "we killed children in Iraq." Not too long after the war started Harlem Congressman Charlie "I'm a redneck too" Wrangle said much the same thing, that we were purposely killing women and children.

It's possible. In war there is collateral damage. But they are not talking about collateral damage here, they and a good portion of this wing of the Democratic party are implying that the US purposely murders innocent civilians for the expressed desire of empire building. There are those whom are Democrats, Greens, Liberals or just plain anti-American that view our armed forces as a weapon of ill intent without bothering widening their perspective to the rest of the world.

They call us murderers in the face of this: "The residents of a Syrian city named Hama had been more persistent in their criticisms of the dictator than other towns. For that reason, Hafez Assad decided that Hama would be the staging point of the example he was to make to the Syrian people. In the twilight hours of February the 2nd, 1982, the city of Hama was awakened by loud explosions. The Syrian air force had began to drop their bombs from the dark sky.

The initial bombing run cost the city few casualties. It's main purpose had been to disable the roads so that no-one could escape. Earlier in the night, Syrian tanks and artillery systems had surrounded Hama. With the conclusion of the air bombing run, the tanks and artillery began their relentless shelling of the town.

The cost in human lives was severe. As homes crumbled upon their living occupants and the smell of charred skin filled the streets, a few residents managed to escape the shelling and started to flee. They were met by the Syrian army which had surrounded the city ... they were all shot dead.

Hours of shelling had turned Hama into rubble. The tanks and artillery had done all that they could. The next wave of attacks came in the form of Syrian soldiers. They quickly converged onto the town killing anything that would move. Groups of soldiers would round up men, women, and children only to shoot them in the back of the head. Many other soldiers would invade homes with the orders to kill all inhabitants.

After the majority of the people in Hama were dead, the soldiers began looting. They would take all that they could from the now empty homes. Some were seen picking through the dead civilians looking for money, watches, and rings.

With their mission completed and their pockets filled with loot, the soldiers began to retreat from the city. One would think that would have been the last wave of the attacks. It was not. The final attack on Hama was the most gruesome. To make sure that no person was left alive in the rubble and buildings, the Syrian army delivered poison gas generators. Cyanide gas filled the air of Hama. Bulldozers were later used to turn the city into a giant flat area." (Credit reformsyria.org).

When has the US Armed Forces EVER done something like this? The only event that I can recall that remotely resembles the massacre of Hama was the bombing of Black Wall Street in Oklahoma and civilians with their own planes did that while the National Guard more or less watched. Mind you, that event took place in 1921. Syria essentially committed genocide as recently as 1982. With the help of the Red Cross and dogged determination, the residents of Greenwood (Black Wall Street) rebuilt their city and today it is a testament to the resilience of the American spirit in the face of occasional insanity. The residents of Hama are dead, all of them. They were buried in rubble, shot, and gassed to death. What happened in Hama is not an aberration in the Middle East; it is the way things are done. When Rhodes, Wrangle, Kennedy and the rest compare our government and our military to that...the systematic genocide of an entire city then in my opinion, there is nothing left to talk about.

I am done having this stupid conversation the "Bush-haters". Blind ideology is bad no matter where it is coming from. The Bush administration has its faults, and lots of them, but to day after day beleaguer both our government, our military and our attempts at some degree of national security while allowing events such as Hama go unreported falls under the heading of intellectually dishonest and juvenile a la Alan Colmes, and that's the most diplomatic way I can put it.

It's 30 some odd years after the Vietnam War and some people still have the nerve to accuse us of being, "baby killers." That is the height of irony considering it's coming from the pro-abortion contingent of the national debate.

I have tried since roughly late 2002 to educate in the most empathetic and mindful way I can to those whose only source of world news the Daily Show. I have used every skill in my social work/mental health arsenal to try to reach people and I won't do it anymore. I refuse to have civil discussions with people who refuse to see the other side of the argument or bother to fully research an issue before definitively declaring a position. Being "anti-war" doesn't give you the right to be a tactless moron. As any good social worker knows, I cannot help you if you categorically will not help yourself.

I will continue to write because I love to write. I will continue to educate myself out of a sense of duty to do so. But to the Randi Rhodes' of the world, you folks are on your own because I cannot rationalize with the irrational.

In the immortal words of Pogo from the Sunday funnies, "I have seen the Enemy and it is us."

It's Not About Porn, It's About Free Speech

Venezuela, check. Africa, check. Syria, check. Robot army...check. Yep I think I've shot my load on foreign policy blogs for this week.

And speaking of shooting ones load (cue rim shot) my old boss is in the news again. Rob Zicari AKA Rob Black was indicted in August of 2003 under former Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department for distributing obscene material. Every once a while it seems somebody gets tagged with this charge and seldom is it proven credible. Former punk rocker Jello Biafra was also once brought up on charges for distributing harmful matter to minors. The matter in question was a painting by HR Geiger (he also designed the sets for Alien) that came in the liner notes for the Dead Kennedy's "Bedtime for Democracy" album. He ended being acquitted and now he goes on spoken word tours promoting the Green party and anti-globalization.

But going back to Rob, this is the story today from the AP: "WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration said Wednesday it would seek to reinstate an indictment against a California pornography company that was charged with violating federal obscenity laws. It was Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' first public decision on a legal matter.

Billed as the government's first big obscenity case in a decade, the 10-count indictment against Extreme Associates Inc. and its owners, Robert Zicari, and his wife, Janet Romano, both of Northridge, Calif., was dismissed last month by U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster of Pittsburgh."

Let me take you back to 1999. We were in the midst of the Monday Night War between WWF (now known as WWE) and Ted Turner's WCW (pronounced dubya see dubya). I was living in LA trying to become a professional screenwriter and failing miserably. I had lost my job teaching special ed. students in an East LA junior high and by August was nearly homeless as most of my family was back in NY and unable to support me. I finally ended up getting a job working as a customer service rep. for a large health care company and slowly got back on my feet. It was during this time that I got hipped to a new indie wrestling company that was attempting to pattern itself after ECW. Now me being the obsessed wrestling fan that I was at the time (I don't bother with it anymore) I sought them out and volunteered on their ring crew. As it turns out, this wrestling company, called Xtreme Pro Wrestling (XPW) was actually owned by a pretty famous porn company, Extreme Associates, of which the owner was Rob Zicari.

After a couple of months of dedication and hard work he ended up giving me a job in the porn office during the day and I did double duty at night working on XPW stuff. I got to learn to wrestle, participated in some of the shows and I met some famous wrestlers. Once I got lost in Compton while attempting to drive Shane Douglas to the airport so he'd be on time for a PPV the next day. Luckily he made his plane and I managed not wreck Robs BMW (though I think I scratched it once).

Anywho, the point is that while I worked in Robs porn office (writer PR material, sorting chromes, making deliveries, getting smashed on the head with a non-gimmicked acoustic guitar, etc) I saw many scenes being filmed and I can attest to many dirty deeds done dirt cheap but I'm fairly certain nobody broke any laws. I think the only thing one can accuse Extreme Associates of is putting out a terrible product. Have you seen some of these videos? You know, even porn has to have standards.

However, the Justice Department feels otherwise; "Prosecutors charged Zacari and Romano and their company with distributing videos to Pittsburgh through the mail and over the Internet. Mary Beth Buchanan, the U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh, has said the case was not about banning all sexually explicit materials, just reining in obscenity. Extreme Associates' productions depict rape and murder, Buchanan said."

And so do a number of Hollywood and foreign films. I can name about a dozen films that are sexually explicit and depict rape and murder. There's a French film called, "Baise Moi" which isn't porno per se, but it does show prolonged scenes of rape, murder and other explicit material. Any kid can buy this on Amazon with his mom’s credit card. For all you of civil libertarians and free speech advocates, this is a violation of the First Amendment, not Ward Churchill's right to teach in a taxpayer-funded university. Ward Churchill may only be fired; the Justice Department is trying to imprison Rob. That's the difference folks.

I don't like Rob. Working for him was the worst 7 months of my life. Frankly, seeing the dark underbelly of both porn and wrestling is what drove me out of the entertainment industry and into social work in the first place. I'm not defending him personally. I'm defending is right to free speech and I don't do that lightly, especially for scum like Rob Zicari. He was a psychopath and a terrible boss that hurt a lot of people and will most likely die alone from illicit and prescription drugs. I don't wish death on the man, in fact, I hope some day with all the therapy and medication he's paying for, he gets to the bottom of all the psycho-social ills that have plagued him and made him into the monster that I knew him to be in 1999-2000. But from what I saw when I worked there, the Extreme Associates product was on the level. Again, I've seen worse in Hollywood films. Rob's crew was fairly meticulous in following the laws of the land regarding porn production. This indictment holds no water and that's why it was dismissed in the first place. Gonzalez appears to be trying to make a name for himself by going at Rob again because frankly, nobody will be sympathetic to a disreputable porn mogul, especially one as hated as Rob Zicari.

As I stated above, while Rob's product may suck even by porn standards, it's not against the law to make bad porn. None of what he's filmed breaks the barrier between what can be legally shown and what can't. This is a witch-hunt and it's wrong. When the government directly intervenes and tries to lock you up for your art or something you've said, that's a violation of the first amendment. So long as the models in the shoots are willing, as the videos certify they are usually, then the fiction you are being presented is protected free speech. The bottom line is that Extreme Associates is a private enterprise that distributes adult’s movies to consumers who pay for them. The legality of the case is a stretch and Gonzalez knows that.

Most likely the case will be dismissed again and the Justice Department can move on to more pressing and important business.

Conservatives Mobilize Against 'Law of the Sea' Treaty

For those keeping score, this is why I'm not a blind supporter of the Bush administration. When they do something I approve of, I write it, when they don't, I complain about it. This from the NY Sun.

"WASHINGTON - Conservative activists are pressing the Bush administration and Republican lawmakers to reverse their support for an international oceans treaty they claim will limit American sovereignty and empower an international body akin to the United Nations.

They want President Bush to repudiate a treaty called the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, just as he pulled America out of an agreement creating the International Criminal Court and has refused to sign the Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gas emissions. The White House says it wants to see the treaty ratified soon.

Although the oceans treaty may be obscure, it is stirring intense passions among conservatives who see it as internationalism's latest encroachment on American sovereignty.

The treaty has created "another unaccountable, politicized multilateral tribunal," said the president of the Center for Security Policy, Frank Gaffney. The treaty, which came into force in 1994 and has been signed by 148 countries, created an International Seabed Authority to oversee extraction of resources from the seabed. The authority has an assembly, a council, and a secretariat; an International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea was also created to resolve disputes.

More than a dozen groups that helped elect the Republican majority in Congress plan to flex their political muscle during a press conference Friday and denounce the treaty during the three-day Conservative Political Action Conference, which bills itself as the largest annual gathering of conservative grassroots activists from around the country."

Newsmax.com appears to one of the forces leading the charge against the "Land of the Sea Treaty (LOST)". They write:

"U.S. adherence to this treaty would entail history's biggest and most unwarranted voluntary transfer of wealth AND surrender of sovereignty. LOST, which was a product of the Left/Soviet/non-aligned movement agenda of the 1960s and 1970s, created the International Seabed Authority (ISA). ISA is a new supranational organization with unprecedented powers:

The power to regulate seven-tenths of the world's surface area;
The power to levy international taxes;
The power to impose production quotas (for deep-sea mining, oil production, etc.);
The power to regulate ocean research and exploration;
The power to create a multinational court system to render and enforce its judgments!

U.S. national security interests will be severely undermined by several of the Treaty's provisions:

The sorts of at-sea interdiction efforts central to President Bush's new "Proliferation Security Initiative" (PSI) would be prohibited. Communist China has already been citing the Treaty to object to PSI maritime interdiction and boarding of vessels suspected of weapons of mass destruction or terrorism ties;

The treaty effectively prohibits two functions vital to American security: intelligence-collection in, and submerged transit of, territorial waters; 

Mandatory information-sharing will afford U.S. enemies data that could be used to facilitate attacks on this country (for example, detailed imagery of underwater access routes and off-shore hiding places); 

Obligatory technology transfers will equip actual or potential adversaries with sensitive and militarily useful equipment and know-how (such as anti-submarine warfare technology).

The Treaty fails to address, let alone offer solutions to, the most dangerous flashpoints for military conflict facing the world. In fact, Communist China is using its own "unique" interpretation of this Treaty to justify its assertion of control over the strategic South China Sea!

LOST is a prime example of the way left-wing Democrats would like the world to be ordered and run. It is NOT consistent with conservative Republican governing principles and values -- or, more importantly, this country's VITAL INTERESTS."

You'd think that President Bush, who considers himself to be akin to Reagan would be against this thing. Apparently he isn't.

Playing Chess in the Middle East

I’ve often compared the country of Iraq to a chessboard in which we are playing against a conglomeration of enemies under the banner of Islamic fundamentalism/Pan-Arabism. I think my analysis is incomplete. Iraq is a piece on the greater chessboard of the Middle East and Central Asia. Despite the on-going terrorist attacks by al Qaeda regional leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, I believe in a strategic sense, we have firmly taken the Iraq piece. I know it’s not perfect over there but life seldom is and yet it moves on. Anyone that believes a solid victory in Iraq means the end of terrorist attacks is not living in the real world. For all intents and purposes, we’re nearly done with Iraq.

So in the game of global chess, what is our next move? Iran has aligned itself with Russia and China while engaging in limited diplomacy with the European Union. The Iran piece is pretty much blocked. We can threaten but the fact remains that war in Iran is most likely not going to happen. It doesn’t have to. The Syrian piece has been exposed and we are primed to take it.

The road to Syria takes us through Lebanon. On Monday, February 14th, former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and at least nine others were killed when a massive bomb ripped through Beirut's fashionable seafront boulevard. According to Newsday.com, “Hariri's killing has already emboldened the Lebanese opposition, which is using renewed international attention on Lebanon to advance its demand for a pullout of the 15,000 Syrian troops here and an end to Damascus' political domination. The opposition lost its most important figure in Hariri, a billionaire and construction tycoon who led Lebanon for 10 years and oversaw the rebuilding of Beirut. But the opposition also gained new momentum and a sense of unity.”

This tragic event has, as Newsday indicated, put the spotlight on Syria’s involvement in the Lebanese Republic. Now without delving into many years of Arab history and how it was mucked up by the Allies re-drawing artificial state boundaries, there is a bit of history here that is relevant to what is going on right now. To start with, Arabs have apparently always questioned the legitimacy of Lebanon being a sovereign nation in the face of their belief that it is actually a part of Syria (which was once a part of Ottoman).

This is the short, short history of Syrian-Lebanese/Middle East relations:

1946: French troops leave Lebanon.
1948: Influx of Palestinians and the establishment of Israel.
1958: Pro Arab Druze and Sunni forces try to overthrow government so as to unite with Egypt and Syria. Conflict ends after US intervention.
1964: PLO founded.
1969: Cairo Agreement signed.
1975: War start between the Lebanese Front and the Palestinians. Left wing parties join in on the side of the Palestinians.
1976: Syria fearing Israeli intervention enters Lebanon to stop the fighting with the blessing of the Arab League.
1977: The Syrians become an occupying force.
1978: The Lebanese front engages the Syrians in an effort to expel them. Israel invades southern Lebanon to combat the PLO.
1982: June 6: Israel invades Lebanon for the second time, and this time centred to both southern Lebanon, and Beirut.
August 21: US mediation convince PLO that they have to leave Lebanon, multinational peace keeping force arrives..
August 23: Bashir Gemayel is elected president..
September 14: Bashir Gemayel assassinated.
September 21: Amin Gemayel, Bashir's brother, is elected new president.
1983: May 17 Agreement signed with Israel, Syria and its allies attack the Lebanese government forces. Lebanese Forces defeated in the Shouf.
1984: Multinational forces leave Lebanon.
1985: Heavy fighting in southern Lebanon starts after withdrawal of Israeli troops. Palestinian-Druze-Shiite coalition defeats Lebanese Forces in the south.
1988: Michel Aoun is appointed head of Lebanese government.
1989: Taif Agreement signed in Saudi Arabia and is rejected by Michel Aoun. Elias Hrawi is elected new president.
1990: After an all out Syrian assault, Aoun orders Lebanese Army to surrender. Aoun is exiled to France.
1992: Elections for the new National Assembly boycotted by the majority of the population, but results are upheld.
1996: Israeli attacks Hizballah in southern Lebanon and Beirut. shelling of Qana 100 civilians killed in UN shelter, 150 were wounded. (Credit cedarland.org)

According to Freelebanon.org, “Since September 17, 1982, Syria has been in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 520, demanding that "all non-Lebanese forces" leave Lebanon. Syria has occupied Lebanon since 1976, when it initially intervened in the Lebanese civil war. Syria has killed hundreds of Lebanese leaders since the early 1980s and then it systematically absorbed Lebanon into itself.

Syria, driven by the idea that Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine (also known as Southern Syria), are part of Greater Syria, has worked for almost three decades, unhindered, to pacify Lebanon, and make it vanish as an independent state. Daniel Pipes in "Greater Syria: The History of an Ambition," has written extensively about the Greater Syria ideology that drove Bashar Al-Assad's father and continues to motivate the new Syrian president.”

Now that Hariri has been assassinated, Kofi Annan is once again calling on Syria to honor UN resolution 1559. “UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Tuesday called on Syria to start withdrawing its troops from Lebanon by April, when he is due to report to the Security Council on the implementation of a UN resolution (1559) urging all foreign troops to leave Lebanon… The resolution, adopted last September, calls for the withdrawal of all remaining foreign forces from Lebanon, disbanding all militias and extending government control over the whole country.

Although the resolution does not specifically mention Syria, Annan said in an initial report in October that aside from a UN peacekeeping force, the only significant foreign forces in Lebanon were Syrian. The report said Syria indicated that it has some 14,000 troops still inside Lebanon.” (Credit xinhuanet.com)

You know you’re in trouble when Kofi Annan starts demanding countries other than the US and Israel actually follow through on UN resolutions.

The rhetoric from both sides is already starting to ramp up. Immediately when the story broke President Bush recalled Ambassador Margaret Scobey for "consultations" in the wake of Hariri's assassination. She may end up going back but right now that’s not a sign that the US is going to spend time considering “diplomatic” solutions to the Syrian problem.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, "The United States will consult with other governments in the region and on the Security Council today about measures that can be taken to punish those responsible for this terrorist attack, to end the use of violence and intimidation against the Lebanese people and to restore Lebanon's independence, sovereignty and democracy by freeing it from foreign occupation.”

That was followed by a statement from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who said, “We would hope that the Syrian government would take the opportunity of this signal from the United States to review where we are in the relationship and to try to put our relations on a better path.”

Anybody that can understand Bush-speak knows that’s a war cry.

The Syrians are in on the act as well. They of course are pleading innocence and instead are blaming the whole affair on the Israeli Mossad. “All the evidence indicates that the Israeli intelligence service Mossad killed Hariri, since it had previously plotted to assassinate important Lebanese politicians.

The Mossad is trying to help the Zionist army claw its way back into Lebanon, since history has shown that the stability of Lebanon is not to the advantage of Israel.” (Credit Mehrnews.com)

The writing is on the wall and pieces are being moved into position. Whether it is through a large-scale land invasion or through covert operations, the next piece we will take is Syria, mark my words.

U.S. Withdraws Ambassador From Syria

This may be the beginning of the end for Syria's current leadership. From Newsmax.com:

"WASHINGTON -- The United States has recalled its ambassador to Syria amid rising tensions over the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon.

Before departing, U.S. Ambassador Margaret Scobey delivered a stern note, called a demarche in diplomatic parlance, to the Syrian government, said an official who discussed the situation only on grounds of anonymity.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, announcing the move, said it reflected the Bush administration's "profound outrage" over Hariri's assassination.

Boucher did not accuse Syria of being involved in the bombing Monday in Beirut. "I have been careful to say we do not know who committed the murder at this time," he said.

But he said the deadly attack illustrated that Syria's strong military and political presence in Lebanon was a problem and had not provided security in the neighboring country.

"It reminds us even more starkly that the Syrian presence in Lebanon is not good," Boucher said. "It has not brought anything to the Lebanese people."

Boucher refused to describe Syria's rection to Scobey's diplomatic messages in Damascus. Syria has not yet taken any reciprocal action, such as withdrawing its own amabssador to Washington.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, apparently referring to the note Scobey delivered to the Syrian foreign ministry, said the United States has "made it clear to Syria that we expect Syria to act in accordance with the United Nations Security Council resolution calling for the withdrawal of all foreign forces and the disbanding of militias,"

Also, McClellan said, "we also made it clear to Sryia that we want them to use their influence to prevent the kind of terroist attack that took place yesterday from happening."

The administration had earlier condemned the killing of Hariri, a billionaire construction magnate who masterminded the recovery of his country, and insisted that Syria comply with a U.N. resolution calling for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

Hariri, like most Lebanese politicians, walked a thin line between criticizing Damascus and deferring to the country that plays a dominant role in Lebanon's affairs.

He resigned four months ago in light of tensions with Syria but was weighing a political comeback. A Sunni Muslim, Hariri was on good terms with Lebanese Christians and was especially close to French President Jacques Chirac, who has called for an international investigation into the assassination.

Assistant Secretary of State William Burns, who heads the Near East bureau, will attend Hariri's funeral, a gesture of U.S. respect for the former prime minister.

The administration did not directly support Chirac on his call for an international inquiry, but the White House said those responsible for the bombing of Hariri's motorcade must be punished."

More on this story tomorrow...

The Royal Rumble in Washington DC

I may never become a professional op-ed writer if I keep comparing modern day politics to pro-wrestling but I can’t help it when they make so damn easy.

There are two schools of thought on our two major political parties. One is that both parties are very different and can never reconcile their differences, as their fundamental core belief systems are so vastly different. Republicans want a smaller government, they want to uphold traditional values and provide for a strong defense (in theory). Democrats want to build upon the New Deal creating a wealth of social service programs with the aim of ending poverty, extend the boundaries of cultural relativism under the guise of civil liberties and utilize an internationalist approach to foreign affairs (in theory). The problem here is that like men and women since the sexual revolution, both parties are suffering from gender role confusion.

First and more obvious is the Democratic Party. There is a rift in the party that may end up driving it further and further out of power. This rift is most actualized in the separation of camps between the Dean-Kerry-Kennedy/Progressive wing of the party and the Clinton/Centrist-New Democrat wing. Essentially this split comes out of ideology conflicting with election strategy. As Karl Rove said recently, “we are a center-right country” and apparently the Clinton’s are savvy enough to know how to reach voters and win elections (how they behave once in office is a whole other matter). Meanwhile, there’s an entire other half of the party that is clinging to their progressive roots with all their might and will not suffer an inch of compromise. These are the Moveon.org folks who just stormed the gates of the DNC palace like virtual Bolsheviks and demanded that the face of the party resemble the philosophy of the party: enter Howard Dean.

Howard Dean has just been elected to be the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He recently stated that, “What I was trying to get across is that democrats, in order to win, have to stand up for what we believe. We are never going to win if we try to pretend we're half republican all the time. The republicans have claimed democrats are pro-abortion. That couldn't be further from the truth. I don't know anybody that's pro-abortion. I do know democrats think women should make up their own mind about what kind of health care they get.” (Credit tv.ksl.com)

Howard Dean is attempting to re-brand the party as fiscally conservative and socially progressive, which if promoted effectively, that message will find an audience willing to listen. He is also attempting to emulate the organizational skills of the Republicans for the purposes of contesting elections in states less likely to vote for a Democratic candidates and thus restore the party to their lost seats of power.

Dean, who was quoted as saying he “hates” Republicans, has paid special attention to how Newt Gingrich and company took control of Washington. Newsmax.com reports, “This past week, U.S. News and World Report's ‘Washington Whispers’ noted that Dean ‘admires Newt Gingrich more than he does Bill Clinton.’ ” Dean also said that Gingrich, “created a real success for the right wing…Clinton, meanwhile, led the Dems into complacency and defeat.” Indeed the battle lines have been drawn and the players are moving into position.

Meanwhile, George W. Bush his running around the White House singing Madonna’s “Material Girl.” This man has the nerve to refer to himself as fiscal conservative. That would be true if by conservative he means recklessly negligent on spending. Now I’m not referring to the money spent on Iraq, Afghanistan or other clandestine anti-terror efforts, which I think is money well spent. I’m referring to his asinine domestic spending programs. One such doozey is his decision to increase spending on abstinence-only programs. Despite recent studies showing the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only education, President Bush proposes to increase funding for said abstinence-only education programs by $39 million, to $193 million. The increase in funds is more than 50 percent since 2004.

Another grand scheme is his marriage initiative. According to Womensenews.com, “The Bush administration proposes to spend almost $2 billion of scarce welfare funds over the next six years promoting marriage. Our total federal welfare budget is less than $17 billion per year, the same amount it was in 1996. In February, the House passed H.R. 4, a welfare reauthorization bill that diverts funds from basic economic supports such as job training and childcare into experimental marriage-promotion programs. Currently, the bill is under consideration by the Senate.”

According to the Cato Institute, “a libertarian research institution, says overall federal spending has increased twice as fast under Mr. Bush as under Mr. Clinton. At the same time, the federal deficit is projected to hit a record high of $427 billion this year.”

This is not small government by any definition that I know of. This is social engineering, which is big in Iran but is not much tolerated by those of us living in the land of the free. This is also fiscal irresponsibility and you know you’ve gone off the deep when even the Cato Institute is admonishing a Republican.

This is what I mean when I say that both party’s roles and underlying philosophies are confused. The Democrats think they are Republicans and George W. Bush thinks that selling our country, via floating debt, to China is good, sound, fiscal policy. However, gender confusion is only half the story in the Washington rumble.

As stated above, there are two schools of thought on our most prominent national political parties. The other school of thought is that both parties are actually the same, with their agendas being to maintain the status quo both in seats of power and on Wall Street.

One example of this dubious, incestuous nature of Washington politics is a story in the Washington Post. They write that, “There's been K Street chatter, our colleague Jeffrey H. Birnbaum tells us, that (Joe) Lieberman (D – CN) could be on an administration list to replace Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in the next year or so.

That would be convenient for Lieberman, whose term is up in 2006, and could give Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell (R) an opportunity to appoint a Republican to the seat for at least a few months before the election, inching the GOP closer to a filibuster-proof Senate.”

What a mixed up mix this all is. The Dems are split and fighting amongst themselves and it won’t be long before potential Republican candidates start vying for position concerning the 2008 presidential election. Indeed you will see backstabbing, dirty tricks, betrayals, double-dealing and the sort of dramatic intrigue that used to make Oliver Stone movies watch-able. It would almost be wild fun to watch if we, liberals and conservatives alike, didn’t suffer from our depraved and toxic system.

"Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others." Sir Winston Churchill

Global Warming Treaty Set to Take Effect

First the news, then some perspective.

This from the AP: "NEW YORK (AP) - After seven politically painful years, the Kyoto Protocol finally enters into force on Wednesday, reining in industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" in a first attempt to control climate change.

The global pact negotiated in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, remains a small step, potentially eliminating only one-tenth of a projected 30 percent rise in worldwide emissions between 1990 and 2010. Its supporters already are looking beyond it, toward bigger steps once the agreement expires in 2012.

Progress will be limited without the United States, however. The world's biggest emitter rejects the Kyoto pact and balks at discussing future mandatory cuts. European environment ministers, key Kyoto supporters, say they will step up efforts this year to win Washington over."

President Bush is often accused of wrecking the environment because he pulled the US out of Kyoto. Let's examine the facts: According to Jean-Francois Revel (he's French mind you) in his book, "Anti-Americanism", "Already in 1997, with Bill Clinton occupying the White House, the US Senate had rejected the Kyoto Protocol by a vote of 95 to 0...President Bush had nothing to do with it."

Revel sites this situation as politically sticky and nearly impossible. He says in his book that, "Here, Clinton's evident intention was to hand Bush a political hot potato at the last minute. If he accepted it, the incoming president would be faced with the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 percent without cutting back industrial production and energy consumption too drastically: an impossible task."

Many American citizens, especially liberals, and Europeans, both in the public and their respective governments point to the Bush administration and cry negligence over the environment. Here's the irony of that according to Revel, "By mid-2001, four years after the Kyoto conference, not one of the 167 other signatories - and not a single European nation - had ratified the protocol."

Lest anyone think that the above statement is irrelevant because we are such wanton polluters, Revel writes, "...nations that are heavy polluters - such as Brazil, China and India - demand that the United States apply restrictions that they themselves don't feel required to observe. In a report published on May 29, 2001, the European Environment Agency noted a worsening of pollution in Europe, mainly because 'transportation is constantly increasing, in particular those modes that are least sustainable (road and air).' "

But wait, this gets better, "Ecologists (say)...that America, with 5 percent of the world's population, is responsible for 25 percent of the world's industrial pollution...but it should be pointed out that America also produces 25 percent of the planet's goods and services, and that the other 167 Kyoto signatories had none absolutely nothing by mid-2001 towards reducing, either collectively or individually, their 75 percent share of world pollution."

This is why I can't take arguments by environmentalists seriously. I'm not saying the Bush administration is without sin. If they were I doubt Christie Todd Whitman would have quit the EPA in Bush's first term. What I am saying is that we should not be shouldering the blame alone as we are not alone in polluting the world. This business in Kyoto is simply a red herring that is throw out into the public forum for the purposes of smearing the Bush administration.

The above line about progress being limited by the US is a joke. Progress will be limited because countries around the world are less serious than the US in environmental matters. They are high on rhetoric, low on action. How positively European.