Child rape: the scourge of the new SA

As someone who works with traumatized children on a daily basis I can tell you that South Africa is headed for an eruption of cosmic proportions. Childhood sexual trauma takes years of intensive therapy to overcome. The lasting symptoms of childhood sexual trauma that are left unchecked range from depression and hopelessness to schizophrenia. Now combine a growing population of young people suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder with the availibility of illicit drugs and the prescence of terrorism and you have yourself a recipe for societal disaster.

Then of course there's AIDS. Obviously if the number of news HIV infections far exceeds the number of people treated in SA, that country will be on the fast track to causing it's own genocide.

Here's the article:

At least 50 children per day are raped in South Africa, even as the country struggles with one of the highest HIV and Aids infection rates in the world. That is according to the official figures.

But specialist groups say these statistics grossly underestimate the true scale of the phenomenon depicted in police reports. Regular newspaper reports recount girls as young as five being raped, sometimes by boys who are barely in their teens.

South Africa has become notorious for the number of rape cases.

Lambrecht said one explanation was the country's violent past
According to Captain Percy Morokane, 40 percent of rape victims or 20 000 a year are under the age of 18. But according to organisations such as Rape Crisis, the total of all rapes reported, more than 52 000 a year, is far from the real figure which they put at more than a million.

Luke Lambrecht, head of Johannesburg's Teddy Bear Clinic, says that 91 percent of perpetrators are people who know the child.

Of them, "about 20 percent are people acting in the capacity of father in other words, the mother's boyfriend, the mother's living partner, the stepfather or the biological father," Lambrecht said.

"And another 20 percent are juveniles under 18 years old other children which is another worry."

"We have younger and younger offenders," Lambrecht said.

'But our country is still extremely traditional, so few men are able to take on that role'
"We have heard of seven-year-old boys who have attempted to sodomise other boys."

Lambrecht said one explanation was the country's violent past under the puritanical and repressive apartheid regime of white minority rule, coupled with the influx of sexually explicit material that followed its demise in 1994.

Parents were embarrassed to talk about sex to their children, who did not understand why they could not act on what they see, he said. And the HIV and Aids pandemic, which affects one adult in five in South Africa, links sex with death, an even more taboo subject. Other factors are the crowded housing conditions of many poorer people, living in one-roomed shacks of corrugated iron and cardboard, where violence and sexual promiscuity are common.

Social worker Linda Smith said: "Children are sexualised far earlier because of the lack of boundaries and poor living conditions, being exposed to sexual activities and family violence."

"People all live on top of one another, there is a lot of sexual abuse," Lambrecht said, adding that another big issue was poor maternal care.

Pediatrician Lorna Jacklin, one of the founders of the Teddy Bear Clinic, agreed, saying that "the only way to protect the children is educating the mothers".

A typical mother is "a young woman who has no skills, no resources, living in isolation, so disempowered that she is not able to protect her child", Jacklin said.

"The level of education of men is also important," said Lambrecht.

"If they take care of their children, they are less likely to hurt them.

"But our country is still extremely traditional, so few men are able to take on that role and violence is still a way of solving the problems whatever they are." Sapa-AFP

Bandar resigns as US envoy’

I haven't the foggiest clue what this means in the grand scheme of things but I think it's still very important. I will certainly keep an eye on this story seeing as he's a loyal member of the extended Bush family.

Here's the article:

LONDON — Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the US Prince Bandar bin Sultan has resigned after more than 20 years in the post, a BBC report says.


According to the report, the Saudi Embassy in Washington has sought to play down rumours of his departure saying merely that he is on holiday.

But Saudi officials have confirmed the persistent speculation that Prince Bandar has tendered his resignation, the report says.

Meanwhile, Arab diplomatic sources in Washington reported to have said Prince Bandar is in "hiding" and that he had not reported for work for the last two months.

The sources said that Prince Bandar had actually tendered his resignation four months ago and left the United States. He is said to have been forced by circumstances to accompany Saudi Crown Prince Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, when the latter visited the United States.

Bandar had not returned to his office when the Saudi Crown Prince met US President George Bush at his Texas ranch.

An official source in Riyadh denied that Prince Bandar had resigned from the post, claiming he was only on leave.

Senior Saudi officials rarely resign from their posts. They are most often relieved of their posts.

Bandar did not take part in the talks between US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal in Riyadh over a week ago. Instead, his half brother, Salman bin Sultan, who works as an administrative attaché at the Saudi Embassy in Washington, took part in the talks, the sources said. Salman could take over from his brother as the Saudi ambassador to the US, analysts said.

According to NBC TV channel, Prince Bandar submitted his resignation letter to Prince Abdullah. According to the sources, Bandar was angry at being left out of the shortlist of those tipped for the post of Saudi intelligence chief.

Prince Bandar became Saudi ambassador to Washington in 1983, when Ronald Reagan was in the White House. He has been close to every president since then.

Some Iranians May Welcome Military Strike

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

With the election of pro-mullah regime candidate, Mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I figured it was only a matter of time before the war in Iran starts. Part of the reason I voted for Bush in this past election was because I wanted Washington to harshly confront Tehran (and Damascus for that matter) and given the choices I had, I figured the "devil I knew" would get the job done. However, I've lost a lot of faith in Don Rumsfeld's ability to properly plan a war and I've lost even more faith in the American people's ability to understand why we're at war in the first place. So between bad planning and the population not having the stomach nor the capacity for rational understanding, I began to change my stance. I've backed away from calling for military intervention in Iran because of fears that it will be just like the war in Iraq. Mostly I feared that the people of Iran would revolt against us as the Sunni's have in Iraq. In my opinion, it just wasn't worth it.

I have called, at least once a week, for internal regime change in Iran via popular revolution. I've called for CIA assistance with reform movements on the ground in Iran itself rather than a full-scale invasion. However, I've been reading this article from the Worldtribune.com, which suggests that because of the recent election victory by the hardliners, maybe, just maybe the Iranian people might welcome a military strike.

"Apart from polarizing Iranian-Western relations, the election of Ahmadinejad also helped further polarize political feelings within Iran. Defense & Foreign Affairs sources inside Iran — sources who have unfailingly reflected the underlying mood of the population in the past — reported on June 25, that there was a feeling inside the country that would welcome even a U.S. military strike against Khamenei as a trigger to allow a popular uprising. This is a new sentiment inside Iran. Until now, the feeling has been that Iranians could and would handle the change of power in the country. Now, with Ahmadinejad, the feeling was that the suppression of political opposition inside the country would rise from the draconian to absolutist if the clerical leadership could possible achieve it." (Read More)

If this is true then it changes the complexion of how I feel we should engage Iran going forward. If there can be coordination between a strike against their nuclear capabilities and a catalyst to start a revolution against the mullah's in the streets, then I say that sounds like a plan. It would be even better if we could get their military to stand down against us and help the reformists. There's some slight indication that, that endeavor is indeed possible.

"Throughout this, the one internal group which has retained its honor in the eyes of the Iranian public has been the Armed Forces, even though the Armed Forces leadership is politically appointed and answerable to Khamenei. Now, while the Ahmadinejad Administration begins seeking out and destroying internal political leaders, it cannot yet risk dismembering or neutering the Armed Forces — particularly if there is the chance of a military confrontation with the U.S. — and this leaves the Armed Forces and Pasdaran units potentially able to confront the clerical rulers." (Read More)

Now some reading this might consider this view still too hawkish and I'll receive a litany of comments stating that, "war is never the answer" or something about deliberation rather than engagement. I would like to agree with those sentiments but it does take two to create peace and while this administration may have sinister goals in mind in consideration of the Middle East, it doesn't help that the Iranian mullah's aren't exactly extending the olive branch to us either.

The article goes on to say that, "Tehran is determined not to risk such an attempt to decapitate the Iranian nuclear/strategic weapons capability and command and control, even when it is likely that such a strike would not fully destroy either the weapons capability or the command and control mechanism/leadership. Instead, Tehran is considering the capitalization on the U.S.-Israeli threat as the justification for a unilateral escalation of the war-by-proxy with the U.S. in order to force a strategic decision through a myriad of terrorism and insurgency. Moreover, while it is likely that the U.S. would insist that Israel remain militarily uninvolved in such a strike, for fear of triggering a broader Muslim-Israel conflict. It seems clear from a reading of available indicators that Iran intends to make the destruction of Israel, rather than a confrontation with the U.S. in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, the primary objective of the regional eruption.

Thus, unless there is a U.S./Israeli strike, Iran would refrain from directly striking at Israeli targets and U.S. regional targets, including basing facilities in Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain, and elsewhere. Instead, Iran would escalate activities of the myriad of Islamist-jihadist groups inside Iraq (both Shi'a and Sunni), and may even move militarily to enter parts of Iraq (either to protect Shi'ites in distress and/or strike at the support infrastructure for the Khuzestan insurgents). It would also escalate activities with regard to Iraq from Syria, and move to consolidate/secure its grip on power in Syria. This may also include the initiation at this stage, or later, of Hizbullah assets in Lebanon against Israeli targets, including the unleashing of major missile attacks from the Bekaa against Israel and launching a spate of major terrorist attacks at the heart of Israel by Iran-sponsored Palestinian groups in the PA.

Since Israel would retaliate against such attacks, Tehran would be able to present the regional conflagration as Islam's jihad against U.S.-Israeli presence in the region and for the establishment of true Islamic regime throughout the Middle East. Given the existing radicalization and incitement throughout the Middle East, there would be a groundswell of support for such a jihad to the point that most Arab governments would have no choice but join the jihad or risk violent overthrow."

I think I've made my stance on this clear. Your thoughts?

U.S. Agrees to Sell Arms to Egypt

I'm just guessing here but I've been reading that Egypt is due to deploy 750 guards along the southern border with Gaza after the Israeli's pull out in August. Again, I'm just guessing but this seems like a reward to the Egyptians for their willing to "work" with Sharon's government. Also, with a bevy of countries rushing around forming alliances with Iran, China and Russia, I would imagine that those paying attention in Washington are looking to solidify the "allies" we have left.

Here's the story:

The Bush administration has authorized the sale of 25 Avenger anti-aircraft missile launchers to Egypt, calling its ally "an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East."

The Avenger, sometimes seen around Washington during terror alerts, is a Humvee that carries a launcher that fires Stinger surface-to-air missiles.

The total value of the deal, which would include technical support and other associated parts, could be as high as $126 million, according to a statement from the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

Egypt would be able to build two air defense brigades around the Avengers, the statement said.

"This proposed sale will reduce Egypt's dependence on its Soviet air defense systems and will enhance potential interoperability with U.S. forces," the Pentagon said.

The principal contractors are Boeing Aerospace Company of Huntsville, Ala., and International Telephone and Telegraph of Fort Wayne, Ind.

Congress has a month to pass a joint resolution opposing such a sale, which would effectively kill it. Such a move is regarded as unlikely.

The Bush administration also authorized the sale of 50 replacement engines for Egypt's CH-47 Chinook helicopters, a deal worth up to $74 million, the agency said in a separate statement.

The announcement came a week after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Cairo.

In the past, Israel has raised concerns about U.S. arms sales to its Arab neighbors. Israeli and American officials are in discussions this week as the Bush administration seeks to limit what technology Israel will sell to China and other countries.

...And Now for Something Completely Different

Grokster Loses Copyright Case: Opinion

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

Of all the decisions that came down from the Supreme Court today, the one that jumped out at me was decision that media companies could sue “Peer 2 Peer” software developers.

Forbes.com reports that, “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that Internet file-sharing services may be sued for encouraging copyright infringement by their users, who share digital music files.

The unanimous decision sends the case between Grokster, a music file-sharing service, and MGM Mirage (nyse: MGM - news - people ) back to a lower court. The court's justices said sufficient evidence existed to demonstrate unlawful intent on the part of file-sharing services to hold them liable for the copyright-infringing activities of their customers.” (More)

Now I stopped stealing music a long time ago after the third time my computer crashed while I was using Limewire (I own a Mac). However, I know people who steal music, movies and programs all day long and have no desire to stop anytime soon. Some others who were my go-to people for music and movies have also stopped because their conscience got the best of them.

I don’t miss having the P2P software nor do I miss the ability to steal content. I’m fine with buying albums on occasion from Best Buy or Amazon.com. However, I was very much interested in how this decision from the highest court in the land affected those who still use and depend on those services. I wondered what this meant in the grand scheme of things and what the repercussions would be down the line. I also know that I’m a virtual Luddite who’s lucky he has the computer wherewithal to post this column. Having said that, I sent out an e-mail to a few of those people and one, my personal Macintosh and other technologies consultant, Mark Demofsky, answered with the following response:

I think if you're promoting the use of your product for illegal activity, you deserve to be shut down, because you are an idiot.

But the vast majority of these networks - in fact the most popular ones - do not promote illegal activity in any way, so as long as the constitution remains somewhat intact, there's nothing anyone can do to stop people from using these services.

What the record companies don't seem to understand is that information wants to - and ultimately will be - free. The record companies (we'll stick to them for the examples, although the same rules apply to the other media companies) got spoiled from the beginning. You couldn't copy records, and if you could, there weren’t enough of you to matter. Tapes came out, and while you could easily copy them, the quality decreased. Unless you made 1,000 copies of an album and air dropped them you weren't much of a threat either.

Time went by, and record companies saw that with digital media, they could deliver much higher quality audio to customers, who were tired of listening to hiss. What they didn't count on was the Internet.

So now we're in the Digital Age. We are at a point where our entire planet is connected to a digital network, where files and data can be transferred anywhere in seconds. Network protocols were created so countless people - worldwide - could share files, pictures, whatever they wanted, taking advantage of this new medium. At the same time, people realized that since this new format for music stored the audio in data form, instead of waveforms on a tape, it could be transferred to your computer. At this point in the home PC's evolution, the storage one had was not big enough to hold much music, so the technology was invented to compress the audio - so you could fit your whole collection onto your computer.

Another prevalent issue is that CD prices went up. That's right, before the whole controversy with Napster began, prices were going up, and the quality of new music was going down. The recording industry created one-hit-wonders and sold them like used cars to a music hungry public. Many people did not want to pay $15 and higher for an album with maybe 2 to 3 good songs on it. Many people also did not want to be bothered with just buying singles.

Now, put all this in a blender and hit Puree.... Napster was born. Millions were trading compressed music each day over the Internet. Millions more were being turned onto new music by being able to dabble in new songs without leaving your home, spending any money or putting on pants. Years went by before anyone new what was happening and there was much rejoicing. Then Metallica, Dr. Dre and others finally figured out that they were being hosed and came forward to claim what was rightfully there’s. They also cut their fan base in half in the process seeing as suing your fans makes for lousy business.

So the “evil monopolistic greedy record companies” decided to make life harder for everybody, fans and artists alike. They first decided to make CD’s that wouldn't play in every player or ones that couldn't be ripped (unless you tried really hard). Some CD’s were created that would literally fry your computer's disk drive if you tried to rip from them. These efforts made prices higher for CD’s while doing nothing for the actual content of said CD’s and that only prompted even more people to continue stealing music online.

Finally, the digital music store was born. These stores took advantage of the Internet in a new way - embracing the digital music so it would work for the record companies AND the people. However, even that wasn’t good enough, because the profit margin was too low for the record companies. They want stricter DRM, which forced yet more people to steal music online.

So we're back to the fact that they just don't get it. With the Internet the way it is, digital information - whether it's music, movies, pictures, whatever - WILL be free. There is nothing anyone can do to stop people from finding a way to trade these files and not get caught doing it. If something fails to work anymore due to a new law, another way will surface the next day. This is akin to all black markets under prohibition. Welcome to the new bootleg gin industry.

What the record companies CAN do, is accept that fact that they can no longer rob the public (and the artists) blind, and embrace this new technology. What they don't realize, is that sure, they'll be taking less money, but in the long run, they're making a ton more if all those people who were alienated come back to purchasing music legally. Odds are that they won’t but hey, I’m an optimist.

Now Playing: Right Now – Van Halen

Enter the Dragon

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

Bill Gertz has posted two stories in the Washington Times regarding China that are at once alarmist and frightening. Yesterday's story talks about how, "China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next two years, according to Pentagon officials." Well now at least I feel vindicated seeing as I said this months ago.

"China's military buildup includes an array of new high-technology weapons, such as warships, submarines, missiles and a maneuverable warhead designed to defeat U.S. missile defenses. Recent intelligence reports also show that China has stepped up military exercises involving amphibious assaults, viewed as another sign that it is preparing for an attack on Taiwan."

It isn't just the recent buildup of arms in China that has Pentagon officials worried. Much like the rhetoric coming out of our media punditocracy, when they look at China, they see Nazi Germany. "We may be seeing in China the first true fascist society on the model of Nazi Germany, where you have this incredible resource base in a commercial economy with strong nationalism, which the military was able to reach into and ramp up incredible production," a senior defense official said.

When the folks in Washington start with the Nazi comparisons, such as when Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990 and comparisons were made between former Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler, you know we're in for a terribly bumpy ride down the warpath.

The second article by Bill Gertz talks about China seeing the US as their main enemy. Now there's a shock...

"China's communist leaders view the United States as their main enemy and are working in Asia and around the world to undermine U.S. alliances, said a former Chinese diplomat."

See, and people wonder why I keep posting articles on who is forming alliances with whom.

Gertz is getting his information from Chen Yonglin, the former Chinese diplomat who recently defected to Australia. He is currently seeking asylum there, however that's a thorny. First off, his defection on the day of the 16th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre was a serious embarrassment to his former government. Second and probably more importantly, he won't receive asylum in Australia because Beijing is Australia's third largest trading partner with annual exchanges now worth $22.7 billion. Yonglin said he abandoned his consular post because he can no longer support China's repression of pro-democracy and religious groups.

"The United States is considered by the Chinese Communist Party as the largest enemy, the major strategic rival," Mr. Chen told The Washington Times in a telephone interview from Australia, where he is in hiding after breaking with Beijing in May.

"China has sought to influence Australia's government through high-level political visits and favorable trade and by offering contracts on energy-related products. The goal is to force Australia to become part of a China-dominated "grand neighboring region" in Asia and to "force a wedge between the U.S. and Australia," he added.

On China's military buildup, Mr. Chen said Beijing is following the strategy of former leader Deng Xiaoping, who urged China to "bide our time, build our capabilities" -- military as well as economic and political. "What that means is that when the day is mature, the Chinese government will strike back," he said.

"...Chinese society is getting more unstable," Chen said. "Once any serious civil disobedience occurs, the government may call for a war across the Taiwan Strait to gather [political] strength from people."

Whether Chen turns out to be another Ahmad Chalabi or someone that is spot on, on his analysis of the impending threat coming from Beijing remains to be seen. However, one cannot discount the reality that the Chinese are building up their military, they have threatened Taiwan and they are forming a bevy of strategic alliances.

Unlike the Islamic world, whom we can more or less bully at will, in China we have a different problem. According to the Treasury Department, major foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities total $1.38 trillion. Over the first seven months of 2003, Mainland China and Hong Kong have accumulated $177 billion of U.S. debt. Currently, China is the world's second-largest buyer, exceeded only by Japan. Furthermore, China's purchases of U.S. government securities rose 20% over the first half of this year and have exploded by more than 105% since the beginning of 2001.

This situation is dangerous because it is how the Bush Administration is in part funding the federal government, by selling our debt to the Chinese. This August, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the federal government will accumulate a $401 billion deficit next year not including the additional $87 billion request for Iraq. (Read more)

That's not the only economic issue between Beijing and Washington. "The China National Offshore Oil Corporation, a company that is 70 percent owned by the Chinese government, is seeking to acquire control of Unocal, an energy company with global reach. In particular, Unocal has a history - oddly ignored in much reporting on the Chinese offer - of doing business with problematic regimes in difficult places, including the Burmese junta and the Taliban. One indication of Unocal's reach: Zalmay Khalilzad, who was U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan for 18 months and was just confirmed as ambassador to Iraq, was a Unocal consultant." (Read More)

In case anyone was wondering the US obviously opposes this deal. In Washington, a bi-partisan group of lawmakers has sent a letter to Treasury Secretary John Snow demanding that the Committee on Foreign Investments in the US (CFIUS), a powerful inter-agency panel, review the potential deal ‘immediately’. Some say the US is bent out shape over this because the US is finding it ever more difficult to compete with China over scoring various sources of cheap oil. Other's note that the real issue is that China outbid American competitor Chevron for the purchase of Unocal.

It should be noted that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was a director of Chevron for a decade before Bush's election. Chevron even named an oil tanker after her. If wars could be fought with merely symbols, we'd already be at war with China.

And what about Ms. Rice then? What is she going to do about this seeing as she's the Secretary of State and an expert on China? Well, if history ends up repeating itself as it did in 1996 when Rice was involved in the largest Chinese army penetration of the Clinton administration, she may end up doing more damage than good. If you've never heard this story or have only heard about the Clinton side to it, it's probably because to this day, Condoleezza Rice will not answer questions about her service at Stanford with Chinese Army spy Hua Di, which led to a secure fiber-optic communication system being exported directly to the Chinese army. (Read More)

The irony in all of this is that because this administration wanted a war in Iraq so badly, they may have hamstrung themselves against the real threat emerging in China. The truly sad part is that Rice told Bush in his first term that China was going to be a problem and that he'd better do something about it, soon. So now the war in Iraq has opened Pandora's box and skulking somewhere in the back is a Chinese dragon just waiting for the right time to strike. Meanwhile, we'll still be shooting at Saudi's, Yemeni's, Egyptians, Syrian's and other assorted terrorists in Iraq. Not to mention that little problem of Iranian mullah's and their quest for the atomic bomb still lurking about.

But more importantly than all that, Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, is it real or is it all just media propaganda? I don't know about you but I'm :::::::yawn::::::: glued to my seat, never mind China.

My Thoughts on Iran and the Impending War in Song

EVERYBODY KNOWS by Concrete Blonde
Original version by leonard cohen

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows that the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight is fixed
The poor stay poor and the rich get rich
That’s how it goes
Everybody knows that the boat is sinking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody’s got this broken feeling
Like their momma or there dog just died
Everybody’s hands are in their pockets
Everybody wants a box of chocolates
And a long stem rose
Everybody knows

Everybody knows
Everybody knows
That’s how it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows
Everybody knows
That’s the way it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows that it’s now or never
Everybody knows that it’s me or you
Everybody knows that you live forever
When you had a line or two
Everybody knows the deal is rotten
Old black joe still pickin’ cotton
For ribbons and bows
Everybody knows you love me baby
Everybody knows that you really do
Everybody knows that you been faithful
Give or take a night or two
Everybody knows you been discrete
So many people you had to meet
Without your clothes
And everybody knows

Everybody knows
Everybody knows
That’s the way it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows
Everybody knows
That’s how it goes
And everybody knows

HARDLINERS PLAN MODERN IRAN

Well, it would seem that the path to war has been laid out before us. The hawks in Washington got their wish as the new President of Iran is hardliner, Mahmood Ahmadinejad. All I can say for right now is that if the good people of Iran don't want American and Israeli bombs dropped all over them in time for the 2006 mid-term elections, they had better institute a popular street rebellion soon. The clock is ticking and the train has left the station.

Here's the story:

Iran's new Hardline president, Mahmood Ahmadinejad, has vowed to create a a "modern, advanced, powerful and Islamic" model for the world.

Speaking after his shock election victory, he called for national reconciliation.

But the moderate cleric, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, has reacted furiously to his defeat, saying a massive, illegal dirty tricks campaign was mounted against him.

Final results gave Ahmadinejad 61.69 percent against Rafsanjani's 35.92 percent.

Turnout of the 46.8 million eligible voters was reported at 59.72 percent, slightly lower than last week's first round of voting.

Ahmadinejad's win gives anti-Western ultra-conservatives complete control
of every elected and unelected institution in Iran and effectively ends any chance of short-term reconciliation with the United States.

Washington said the polls were "flawed from their inception", with candidates chosen by clerics.

The State Department insisted Iran was out of step with "pro-democracy sentiment sweeping the region".

The White House said it would support "those who call for greater freedom for the Iranian people".

Iranian hardliners have urged a more confrontational stance in a tense nuclear stand-off with the international community.

They argue that Iran has a "legitimate right" to press on with nuclear work regardless of the consequences.

Britain, France and Germany, the three EU powers that have been conducting nuclear talks with Iran, all called on the new regime to continue the discussions.

On Religion and the Air Force

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

My Pappy, a man who hates religion with zealous fervor, sent me this article. He called me later that night to talk about it. I wasn't home because I was working late. Here's a brief of what happened:

"The U.S. Air Force Academy failed to accommodate minority beliefs but there is no overt religious discrimination at the college, an Air Force report on the religious climate at the institution said on Wednesday...The report was prompted by allegations that the prestigious academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado, which produces junior officers for the Air Force, promotes evangelical Christianity and a climate of intolerance toward other religious beliefs...The team described a campus chaplain telling cadets they would "burn in the fires of hell" if they were not born-again Christians...Other issues included football coach Fisher DeBerry hanging a locker room banner saying, "I am a member of Team Jesus Christ." " (Read More)

My opinion on this is that it's unfortunate. I know why my dad sent it to me. It's another example of the blinding hatred and intolerance inherent in the most zealous of organized religions. He's incensed and he's trying to lobby me into believing that all organized religions should be abandoned. Guess which political party he's registered as ; )

I believe in the civilizing effects of faith. I believe that submitting ones self to a greater truth is the way to keep from going off the deep end of immorality. When I needed to turn my life around, I began to look hard at faith and it helped me get back on track. Be mindful here, I keep using the word the "faith," not "religion." Religion, as my Pappy and I have deliberated on it, has come to mean institutionalized religion. The Christian Church being the one most often talked about but all organized religions present the same problem. I believe in the teachings of Jesus as I've learned from a variety of secondary sources. Most people whom are profoundly religious believe in the teachings of whatever their particular holy book tells them and nothing more.

The problem with those who are indeed profoundly religious is that they become blind to alternative sources of truth. Is not the Christian God equal to Muslim God? Most Christians and Muslims would say, no. Countless millions have died in the name of striking down false religions, false Gods, and beliefs threatening to their own. Primarily it is that blind hatred between the most devout that turned my father away from religion in the first place. I myself tend not to practice an organized religion per se because I have no need for a sense of a belonging among people blind to alternative points of view.

I also don't believe in any of the leaps of faith like the virgin birth or the miracles so that would probably make me a lousy Christian.

What appears to have happened at the Air Force is not out of the ordinary. After all, thirty-seven percent of all Christians in America (which is 83% of the population) describe themselves as born-again or evangelical; that includes nearly half of all Protestants (47 percent), as well as a small share (14 percent) of Catholics. Additionally, Evangelism soars particularly among blacks, and southerners: Two-thirds of blacks describe themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians, double the share of whites who do so. And 55 percent of Christians in the South say they're born-again, compared to 21 percent in the Northeast, 26 percent in the Midwest and 31 percent in the West.

Lower-income Christians also are more apt to be evangelicals. Among those with household incomes under $35,000, 45 percent are evangelicals; among those with higher incomes this declines to 31 percent.

With the most devout coming from the most poor or uneducated amongst us, it's not all that unlikely to see Evangelicals is places where those same folks can find gainful employment, like the military. As I began with, what happened at the Air Force Academy was unfortunate but I highly doubt it was institutional.

Here's my thinking on this, in America, a land that separates Church and State, when someone decides they feel they are being discriminated against because of their religious preference, instead of being locked up, as they would in Iran, they can take the institution to court. In today's America, they'd probably win too. There's no escaping devout, Evangelical Christians in this country unless you live in the heart of most big cities. However, despite recent events, they are not running the country. Non-religious or other religious people haven't lost their rights nor will they ever. The underlying issue with this story isn't that there's this hive of religious intolerance and we need to be afraid of a modern day Torquemada running amuck through America. The issue is that when the perceived discrimination reached a fever pitch, something was done about it. To my knowledge, the victims aren't being punished. They certainly aren't being imprisoned as they would in the aforementioned Iran or even better, Saudi Arabia. Let's not loose perspective here.

You cannot let your beliefs blind you into hatred and on that my Pappy is absolutely correct. However, humans left to their own devices will become complete animals. I've seen people develop in the absence of structure; it isn't pretty. People need an anchor to something bigger than themselves in life. Not everybody can be like my dad and just principle themselves in a religious vacuum. I couldn't. I needed the teachings of Jesus as at least guide because before I was making all sorts of nutty mistakes in my life. But where we agree is that however you get to your beliefs, my way or his, you right to believe and practice freely end at the next persons right to be left the hell alone.

US hawks rooting for hardline Iranian candidate

Is anyone here surprised by this? Dick Cheney (or as I call him, Da Cheney), Don Rumsfeld and the other usual suspects want an almost cartoonish like enemy residing in Iran so that when they move to make their argument to invade, there can be no question that the presiding Iranian regime is eeeeeeeeeeeeevil. It is apparent that the US is supporting Nuclear Freeze talks just long enough to plan for the next war just as they supported weapons inspections long enough to get their troops deployments in place for the war in Iraq. As the man once said in a little tune called "Spacegrass," "Don't worry, it's coming."

The only thing that surprises me here is that the press is actually reporting it. Then again, this is the Finanicial Times and they tend to report news not tabloids.

Here's the story:

As hardliners and pragmatists battle it out in the final round of Iran's presidential election today, rifts within the Bush administration have exposed a lack of coherent US policy towards the Islamic republic, as well as serious differences with much of Europe.

"The Bush administration is as deeply divided as the Iranian government," commented Ken Pollack, analyst at the Brookings Institution.

US "hawks", he said, had a bizarre preference for Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, a fundamentalist and hardliner, over Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president who sought to establish his more pragmatic credentials in part by making overtures to the US during his election campaign.

For the US hardliners, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, Mr Rafsanjani presents the danger of exacerbating the divisions between the US, which is essentially trying to contain Iran, and Europe which favours the engagement approach.

The US hawks also believe that a convergence of hardliners in Iran with the victory of Mr Ahmadi-Nejad is more likely to precipitate the collapse of the Islamic regime through popular unrest than the "Chinese model" of social pacification likely to be embraced by Mr Rafsanjani. One hardline official told the FT he saw no evidence that Mr Rasanjani was less committed to developing nuclear weapons. The Bush administration, he said, harboured deep scepticism over the prospects of success in the nuclear freeze talks with Iran led by France, Germany and the UK. (Read More)

Calif. taxpayers helped fund Viagra for 137 sex offenders

What the hell are we doing in this country? This is why some conservatives hate social programs of any stripe. They believe that the tax-payer money is wasted on programs that don't work. While I obviously believe differently, stories like this don't exactly help much in the way of lobbying public support for continued social programs.

And the worst part about this is that the money was spent on sex offenders. I've said it before and I'll say it again, in America and around the world, we hate children.

Here's the story:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California taxpayers helped pay for Viagra and other impotence drugs for at least 137 registered sex offenders in the past year, the state Attorney General's office said.

An audit found that Medi-Cal — the state Medicaid agency that funds some health services programs for California's poor — spent $2.6 million to provide 5,855 men with Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs, including 137 men who were registered sex offenders, Nathan Barankin, spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer, said Wednesday.

Lockyer's office received a list of Medi-Cal-funded Viagra recipients from the Department of Health Services and ran that list against the men whose whereabouts are registered with local law enforcement, Barankin said.

Last month, under federal pressure to prevent sex offenders from obtaining taxpayer-funded Viagra, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger directed state agencies to stop providing such ex-convicts with erectile dysfunction drugs.

The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services even warned it might cut federal funding for states that do not make serious efforts to cut convicted sex offenders off from these drugs.

State authorities across the country have been searching their databases after a New York state audit showed that 198 sex offenders there received government-reimbursed Viagra between January 2000 and March 2005.

Accused Pornographer Wants Lower Bail

If this monster gets his bail lowered then the judge should either be summarily discharged from the bench or have his children babysat by said monster. I think by now everyone knows where I stand on child rape/abuse/pornography. I don't believe in the death penalty but for a guy like this, but I wouldn't protest it either.

On the subject of keeping him or not keeping him on charges of possessing child pornography, why not committ him to a mental hospital for the time being? Any man (and I use that term loosely) that takes pornographic pictures of his 2-year-old granddaugther is clearly mentally ill and needs treatment. Lots of treatment. Surely he's proven himself to be a danger to himself or others which, in the state of Florida, is enough to be committed against your will. I say make with the committing until the authorities find charges that can stick. Of course it's only children that are in danger here so most likely instead he'll be given a job as a daycare provider <-----insert heavy sarcasm here.

Here's the story:

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- The lawyer for a man charged with taking pornographic pictures of his 2-year-old granddaughter asked for lower bail Wednesday, saying the man wasn't a flight risk and could stay with his two sisters.

Manchester District Court Judge William Lyons planned to issue a decision by Thursday on whether to reduce Richard Hawes' $200,000 bail. Assistant city solicitor Michele Battaglia argued against any reduction, saying the state considers Hawes an extreme danger.

At his court appearance, Hawes, 63, of Lynn, Mass., also waived the right to a hearing in Manchester District Court to determine if police have enough evidence to hold him on local charges of possessing child pornography.

Authorities say Hawes took sexually explicit pictures of his granddaughter during a visit with his son's family in Florida. They say he then tried to print the photos in New Hampshire, where he spends his summers, using self-service kiosks in CVS drugstores.

A clerk discovered electronic copies of the photos and turned them in to police. Unable to identify the girl, and convinced she was in danger, police released two ordinary photos of the girl that were included in the batch. Relatives saw one on television June 8.

Besides local charges in New Hampshire of possession of child pornography, Hawes faces a sexual assault charge in Florida and could face life in prison if convicted. He also has been indicted on a federal charge of transporting of child pornography from Florida to New Hampshire.

New Review: Greenspan's Fraud

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

If you are living check to check like me and would like some real answers (instead of the tripe peddled by our current politicians) as to why that's the case, then you need to read “Greenspan’s Fraud” by economist Ravi Batra. When people kvetch about their lives and need someone to blame other than themselves, the President or maybe a senator or two take the brunt of people's frustrations.
After reading this book, however, it is clear to me that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is taking all of us working folk to the cleaners. Most lay people don’t think about the job of Fed Chairman and the role it plays in the day-to-day lives of Americans. What Batra says in his book is that Greenspan is actually just as powerful (save for control over the military) as the President and has caused exponentially more damage to our collective livelihoods.

The book accomplishes three tasks simultaneously. First, it is a biography of Alan Greenspan. Batra writes about his early life, what and who informed the policies he’s implemented over the past 30 years, and how he’s managed to become reappointed during various presidential administrations to the Federal Reserve over and over again.

The second task of the book is to teach the average reader about economics so that said reader will have a fuller understanding of how Greenspan has been fleecing him/her since he worked for Ronald Reagan. Now, I nearly failed college economics in high school. I never research or write about the economy because I can barely understand the material I’d have to write about. However, Batra uses his skills as a university professor to methodically teach the reader the minutia of macroeconomics in such a way that even an economics blockhead like myself can understand what he is driving at.

The last part of the book goes to its title, “Greenspan’s Fraud.” Batra lays out a case that shows how Greenspan purposely stole via regressive taxation from the middle class and poor, and then gave to the rich elite that guaranteed he’d continue to be Fed Chairman. (continued...)

Lions Rescue, Guard Beaten Ethiopian Girl

This is the oddest story I've ever read. I can't even find the words. It's like something out of a Disney film. I'm just glad the girl is safe, for now.

As strange as this story is, it does go to a much more darker truth. The lives of children across the world mean nothing. The following article states that it's customary to beat and rape girls into marriage. Ethiopia is not alone in this. It was only last week or so that I reported on a story where the US accused 14 nations of trafficking in child sex slavery. As a social worker and a therapist I can't begin to tell you about all the children I've dealt with in Florida alone whom have been sexually abused by their parents, foster parents, siblings, other foster children or some complete stranger (though normally it's someone they know). We recently had a training at my job about identifying and treating sexually abused children. When it was over I asked the "expert" why aren't more social workers and therapists on Capitol Hill right now demanding more protection for children and sharing our vast experience and knowledge in stopping future abuses? He answered that people outside of our field don't really like talking about child rape and it makes people uncomfortable.

That's fine. As a global society we're not mature enough or responsible enough to protect children from rape. That's fine. I suppose we should just get them all lion's to protect themselves from sexual predators instead.

How bad have things gotten when the lion's are more humane than the humans?

Here's the article:

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (AP) - A 12-year-old girl who was abducted and beaten by men trying to force her into a marriage was found being guarded by three lions who apparently had chased off her captors, a policeman said Tuesday.

The girl, missing for a week, had been taken by seven men who wanted to force her to marry one of them, said Sgt. Wondimu Wedajo, speaking by telephone from the provincial capital of Bita Genet, about 350 miles southwest of Addis Ababa.

She was beaten repeatedly before she was found June 9 by police and relatives on the outskirts of Bita Genet, Wondimu said. She had been guarded by the lions for about half a day, he said.

"They stood guard until we found her and then they just left her like a gift and went back into the forest," Wondimu said.
"If the lions had not come to her rescue, then it could have been much worse. Often these young girls are raped and severely beaten to force them to accept the marriage," he said.

Tilahun Kassa, a local government official who corroborated Wondimu's version of the events, said one of the men had wanted to marry the girl against her wishes.

"Everyone thinks this is some kind of miracle, because normally the lions would attack people," Wondimu said.
Stuart Williams, a wildlife expert with the rural development ministry, said the girl may have survived because she was crying from the trauma of her attack.

"A young girl whimpering could be mistaken for the mewing sound from a lion cub, which in turn could explain why they didn't eat her," Williams said.

Ethiopia's lions, famous for their large black manes, are the country's national symbol and adorn statues and the local currency. Despite a recent crackdown, Hunters also kill the animals for their skins, which can fetch $1,000. Williams estimates that only 1,000 Ethiopian lions remain in the wild.

The girl, the youngest of four siblings, was "shocked and terrified" after her abduction and had to be treated for the cuts from her beatings, Wondimu said.

He said police had caught four of the abductors and three were still at large.

Kidnapping young girls has long been part of the marriage custom in Ethiopia. The United Nations estimates that more than 70 percent of marriages in Ethiopia are by abduction, practiced in rural areas where most of the country's 71 million people live.

Scott Ritter says, "The US war with Iran has already begun"

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

“You and I are not cut from the same piece of wood,” he said. “I’m a conservative Republican, and you are liberals. You’re pacifists, and I’m a warrior.”

These are the words of former U. N. weapons inspector and former US Marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter. He has recently written an opinion piece that was published on AlJazeera.net that states, "The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran."

On those covert operations, Ritter writes that, "The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labeled as a terrorist organization, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq."

However, Ritter states that there is more to this sordid tale. "To the north, in neighboring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran."

We have a few interests in Azerbaijan right now. First, Azerbaijani President Aliev plans to visit the United States sometime soon after finally receiving his invitation by President Bush. Some believe that he's finally gotten a seat at Bush's table due to the recent opening of the strategic Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman even participated in the inauguration of the pipeline in May and brought with himself a congratulatory letter from President Bush. I think by now we know that wherever there's oil, the Bush administration is lurking in the distance...like the Eye of Sauron.

But as Scott Ritter said, most likely the real reason we are inviting President Aliev to America is because he's consented to host mobile American military bases. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly visited the Azerbaijani capital many times recently to only further cement US-Azerbaijani ties and more importantly to make sure we have those bases. (Jamestown.org)

According to Ritter, securing a base in Azerbaijan changes the entire attack plan going into Tehran in the favor of US forces. "American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran.

In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence.

No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Arab Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated.

A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.

US military planners have already begun war games calling for the deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.

Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air and ground power in Azerbaijan.

Given the fact that the bulk of the logistical support and command and control capability required to wage a war with Iran is already forward deployed in the region thanks to the massive US presence in Iraq, the build-up time for a war with Iran will be significantly reduced compared to even the accelerated time tables witnessed with Iraq in 2002-2003." (Read more)

Scott Ritter has been banging this drum for quite some time now. One can hardly ignore the parallels he's making however. If you've read either "Plan of Attack," by Bob Woodward or "The Price of Loyalty," by Ron Suskind, both books clearly show that the Bush administration were clearly planning an attack on Iraq well before the events of 9/11. And if you think those books are nonsense, then you haven't heard of the Downing Street Memo.

The only problem with Ritter's premise is that US military enlistment is down, by all reports, and there aren't enough soldiers currently in Iraq to hold down the insurgents. I can only assume that the plan (if indeed this administration does plan to take down the mullahs) is to build up the Iraqi army enough that we can leave the mess in their hands and then just move our guys over into Iran. Don't get me wrong, that makes no sense to me whatsoever and I can't see how it would work but then again this is Don Rumsfeld we are talking about here. Here we have a man that believes we can fight wars on the cheap. Apparently the ghost of Robert McNamara lives on inside the decision making abilities of Rummy.

It's hard to argue against a man whom has been so right on Iraq thus far. We shall see what happens in Iran soon enough. I do contend however, that if the US press would stop focusing on nonsense and start reporting news as if we were not alone in the universe, then I wouldn't have to write articles like this and Scott Ritter wouldn't be publishing his op-ed on Al-Jazeera.

Vote recount in Iran after rigging accusations

Between the election chicanery in Ohio last year, the madness in Ethiopia, and now this latest episode of election rigging in Iran, I'm really starting to wonder whether or not any country anywhere will ever be able to pull of an election. Then again, the French were perfectly capable sending the EU into disarray when they had the chance so maybe there's hope...sort of speak.

Here's the article:

Electoral authorities on Monday ordered a partial recount of Iran's inconclusive presidential election after reformists accused military organisations of rigging the vote in favour of a hardline candidate.

The recount comes four days before an unpredictable second round run-off between the top two candidates in Friday's poll -- pragmatic former president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline mayor of Tehran.

Friday's run-off, forced after none of the original seven candidates won an absolute majority, is likely to have a major impact on Iran's relations with the world and the future of fragile reforms in the Islamic Republic.

Rafsanjani, 70, bidding to regain the post he held from 1989 to 1997, rebranded himself as a liberal for the campaign, saying the time was right to open a new chapter in Iran-U.S. ties and indicating he would increase social and political freedoms.

His surprise rival Ahmadinejad, 49, who would be Iran's first non-cleric president for 24 years, ran a far more modest campaign focusing on the need to tackle poverty and revive the ideals of the 1979 Islamic revolution.

But reformists, some of whom accuse state military organisations like the Basij militia of supporting Ahmadinejad, say he is part of an ultra-conservative totalitarian plan.

"If he wins (Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali) Khamenei will really rule everything," said Mohammad Reza Khatami, head of Iran's largest reform party. "We will not have free elections and opposition voices won't be tolerated," he told Reuters. (Read More)

Molester Suspected in 36,000 Abuse Cases

How could any system of justice let this happen? I have seen many failures in our legal and social service systems but this clearly sets the bar for reprehensible incompetence. This is shameful:

Despite being arrested at least nine times for molesting boys, Dean Arthur Schwartzmiller managed to avoid lengthy prison terms, coach youth football, move in with another convicted sex offender - and be named by authorities as one of the most prolific child molesters in history.

Schwartzmiller's criminal record began 35 years ago, but he never registered as a sex offender and spent just 12 years in prison. In his time on the outside, police suspect he molested children as many as 36,000 times in several states, Mexico and Brazil.

Wily, charismatic and "smarter than heck," is how James Kevan, one of his defense lawyers in the mid-1970s, described Schwartzmiller on Friday. "He could write up legal documents better than most lawyers."

Often defending himself in court, Schwartzmiller got two of his four convictions overturned, even though the Idaho Supreme Court called him a repeat offender who "uses his intelligence to take advantage of the weak and oppressed and those who are in need."

With Schwartzmiller, 63, being held without bail on charges involving two San Jose boys, police and the FBI are trying to retrace his movements over the last 30 years.

A search of Schwartzmiller's San Jose home turned up spiral-bound notebooks with notes on more than 36,000 encounters with children, in categories such as "Blond Boys,""Cute Boys" and "Boys who say no" - together with codes appearing to indicate how he abused them, San Jose Police Lt. Scott Cornfield said. Read More

Rafsanjani, greying septuagenarian, positions himself as the 'new voice of Iranian youth

I hadn't intended to post anything today. We still won't know who the new leader of Iran is until after next Friday as there will be run-off between Akbar Hashemi "Let's Work Together" Rafsanjani and the hardliner anti-Westerner. However, this article was too good to pass up. It should serve as a reminder that beneath the various races, sexes, religions, ethnicities and biases that seperate us, we are all human underneath and thus subjected to the whims of our most fanciful desires. In more than just the internet/ICMB/airplane kind of way, we are all living in one small global neighborhood:

The upmarket district of Fereshteh is the only place in Teheran where the traffic jams are welcome. Every evening, the young and well-to-do of Iran, driving their smartest cars and wearing their best clothes, crawl around a mile-long circuit in the narrow side streets hoping to meet members of the opposite sex.

Given that there are no nightclubs or bars, and rendezvous in public parks are often broken up by the ever-vigilant morality police, drive-by dating is the best chance young Iranian men have of meeting a girl.

Pull up alongside a girl in your imported Mazda, tell her your dad is rich - a pistachio baron, perhaps - and she might just hand over her mobile number.

The latest suitor to have gone a-wooing round Fereshteh, however, is not a love-lorn twentysomething but a grey-haired, septuagenarian cleric by the name of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was on the hunt for votes.

In one of the most audacious bids ever to capture a "youth" vote, the conservative Islamic revolutionary rebranded himself for Iran's bitterly-fought presidential election last Friday as a champion of the young, using a Western-style marketing campaign that owed more to Nike than the Koran. Read More

Iran turns out in force for presidential poll

The election isn't even over yet and President Bush is already criticizing the election as illegitimate, saying it was designed to keep power in the hands of a few. He isn't alone. The Wall Street Journal reports that, Ayatollah Medhi Haeri is claiming that participation in the election is "haram.", He added that todays election in Iran is unclean according to religious principles and reasonable logic. He then suggested that it is forbidden by religious principles to participate.

"Whoever would participate in this process would be a full partner in the destruction of Iran by the current regime, a partner in its criminal behavior in the past, in the present and in the future. I am speaking not only on behalf of myself, but on behalf of the thousands of Muslim clerics who are imprisoned for defying the assertion that the state and religion should be under the control of a single Supreme Leader.

What I am saying is exactly what many other ayatollahs and grand ayatollahs are saying."

However, though Kenneth Timmerman is predicting a 27% percent turnout, actual Iranians think it will be higher. Some are counting on it as they believe a high turnout rate will work in favor of the reformists.

I'll go along with that. I think the Sunni's in Iraq did a dumb thing by boycotting the elections there in January. You can't just stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la I'm not playing la la la" and then expect that to help your cause. Even in a sham election, you have to participate if for no other reason then when it's all over you can look in to the cameras and say, "See, there is no democracy here! Revolution!" or something like that. Boycotting only gives your opposition a stronger grip on th reigns of power.

Not that I have a say in what happens there but from what I've been reading either Mostafa Moein or Akbar Hashemi Bahramani, also known as Hashemi Rafsanjani would be fine picks. Both are reformist candidates and the former seems to be a favorite among the younger Iranian voters.

We shall see how this all turns out. In the meantime, read more.

Reflections on Durbin

Now that I've finally finished all of my paperwork for my real job and I've had time to mull over the whole Durbin shpiel, I believe I can sum up my feelings on the subject this way:

Torture is terrible thing, no matter whom it's done to and who is doing the torturing. If the US officials at Gitmo are torturing POW's (and I believe we can agree that's what they are) out of sheer malevolence with no motive whatsoever, then absolutely it should be condemned. In that light, Durbin's statements make some degree of sense from the stand point of view that by doing so we become has inhumane as the enemy we fight.

However, I don't believe that is the case. Are there horror stories? Probably. Have some prisoners been mistreated for the sheer perverted pleasure of exerting ones will over another human being? Again, could be. But I don't think in the large sum of cases at Gitmo that is what is actually happening. I believe the episodes cited were for the expressed purposes of gleaning info from enemy combatants and nothing more. I would venture to say that the majority of POW's at Gitmo are subjected to various degrees of discomfort until someone on the food chain believes there is no more info to be learned from that person. Thus ends his being subjected to purposeful discomfort. Now if the discomfort leads to being maimed or death than that's a horse of a different color.

The fight seems to be between those who, bearing the above rationale in mind, would still call said discomfort torture. Hell, my dad would call listening to rap music torture. The other side believes that when the "torture" bares important pieces of intelligence it no longer remains "torture" rather it is an interrogation technique.

I personally belong to the latter group. It is from that point of view that I look at Durbin's remarks as inartful at best and assinine at worst. I do not believe it's treasonous, but I do believe for a rash of reasons we have lost perspective in this country and this is just one of the myriad example of said lost perspective.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong : )

Durbin Links Gitmo to Auschwitz, Cambodia and the Gulag Archipelago

I don't have too much time or patience today to get really deep into this. Below is a brief statement made by Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, who took the Senate floor yesterday to link our prison in Cuba to the events of Hitler's Europe, Pol Pot's Cambodia and Stalin's gulags. All I can say for now is that this sort of Dean-esque rhetoric does nothing but undermine the DNC platform in the eyes of most of Americans whom are paying attention. Pol Pot killed 2 million of his own people. Hitler killed 6 million Jews as well as score of other Gypsies and handicapped folks. Stalin killed 20-40 million Russians. Now admittedly I haven't paid that close attention to the brouhaha in Gitmo but I don't think even a million prisoners have died there. To claim that there is parity is ludicrous and it shames the DNC when people like Durbin make such claims. Here's the quote from Durbin:

When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here [at Guantanamo Bay]--I almost hesitate to put them in the [Congressional] Record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:

"On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. . . . On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor."

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
________________________________

I realize this is a small point to make but all of the events he's describing as similar to the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo pre-dates the creation of rap music by about 30 - 40 years. On a personal note, politicians should just stop invoking the work "rap" in their speeches as it just makes them look rediculous.

Arms sales to China have caused crisis in US-Israel ties

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

For years the US has sold weapons and technology to both allies and enemies alike. We have bandied about the world attempting to play both sides of multiple fences while maintaining our place at the top of the economic and militaristic heap. When the angry crowd snipes at how the US has mistreated various nations throughout the world, this is one of the issues that gets brought up. Iraq is a timely example. We sold weapons and the French sold weapons to Saddam Hussein's Iraq and then we he became too impossible to deal with for one reason or another, we used reported possession of said weapons as an excuse to invade. This isn't about Iraq though. This is about yet another example of how the world is changing ever so quickly right under the feet of the United States. We no longer have a monopoly on selling arms to both friends and enemies. We cannot even rest assuredly on the idea that selling arms to oppositional camps is a good way to maintain international equilibrium. This jig is up, as they say.

I've been keeping tabs on the various alliances being forged in Eurasia through tactical and economic agreements. The common thread in all of these articles is that the US objects.

For example, Washington has called India’s decision on Monday to sign a US$22 billion gas import deal with Iran a “small wrinkle” in US-India ties. New Delhi says the deliveries are vital for meeting India’s growing energy needs. India signed an agreement on Monday with Iran to import five million tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) annually for the next 25 years, beginning in late 2009 or early 2010. The agreement was signed between the National Iranian Gas Export Company and a consortium of Indian firms. Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanghaneh told reporters after talks with his Indian counterpart, Mani Shankar Aiyar, earlier this week that the two sides had reached an agreement on the price of the natural gas to be imported. He said Iran would begin exporting natural gas to India in 2009. The two sides also said discussions would continue between New Delhi and Teheran over awarding India exploration rights for the Jofeir oil field and the Yadavaran gas field in Iran’s Khuzestan province. Meanwhile, Iran has reportedly agreed to give major Indian energy corporations a share in the Persian Gulf’s vast North Pars gas field for the production of LNG and its export to India and other countries. India and Iran have also signed a memorandum of cooperation for the construction of a gas pipeline that would run from Iran to India via Pakistan. The agreements have caused concern in Washington. The US has called on India and Pakistan to abandon the gas pipeline project with Iran and has indicated its willingness to work with Islamabad and New Delhi on alternative ways to meet their growing energy needs. (read more)

The latest objection, and in my humble opinion rightly so, is to Israel selling arms to China. The article states that, "Israeli arms sales to China have provoked a "crisis" in relations with the US but the Jewish state must retain a measure of independence from its key ally, an influential deputy said yesterday.

The comments by Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Israeli parliament's foreign affairs and defense committee, came after the Pentagon confirmed on Monday that the Bush administration had raised concerns with Israel about its sales and transfer of military equipment and technology to China." (Taipei Times)

The US has reacted by imposing a series of sanctions on Israel's defense industry and has barred the Israeli defense industry from involvement in key military development projects. The US has also frozen the transfer of sophisticated technological equipment to its Middle Eastern ally.

Other than what has become almost an irrational fear of competition, the reason Washington has reacted so harshly to an Israeli-Sino weapons deal is that they feel those weapons, which the Israeli's got from or because of the US, will end up being used on Taiwan. As I've written before, if Taiwan is attacked there will be war between Washington and Beijing.

It wasn't all that long ago that the US also sandbagged an arms deal between the EU and China. A series of stories reported that the EU, led by the French, were planning on dropping the 16-year arms embargo against China. After US pressure, it was blocked by among others, the British. The Chinese are reportedly a bit upset and are stepping pressure to resume talks about dropping said embargo. (Read more)

From my vantage point, if one were to sum up a common denominator in international events today, it wouldn't be Islamofacism or the War on Terror. That's really only a fraction of what is turning the globe these days. What's really happening is that slowly but surely, the countries that once depended on the US because of state of the world in during the Cold War, are distancing themselves from the US. Israel is close to Britain as our most staunch ally and even they are hedging their bets by cozying up to China when given the chance. How long before China is powerful enough to safely exert itself against the US? There is a reason Rumsfeld is currently criticizing China for increasing military spending despite the absence of a threat from another country and has said that Beijing risks diminishing its global influence unless it opens up its political system.

Rumsfeld also questioned why China has stationed hundreds of missiles within range of Taiwan.

"I just look at the significant rollout of ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan and I have to ask the question: If everyone agrees the question of Taiwan is going to be settled in a peaceful way, why this increase in ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan?"

Turnabout is of course fair play. We've been selling arms to Taiwan forever now in the face of China exerting it's right to bring the island back into the national fold. Is there any wonder why China is arming itself to the teeth and will buy from anyone, even the hated Israeli's? What I'm afraid of, as an American, is that when it all goes down and we begin to look for allies, we will be left wanting. Our free trade mad scientists have created a monster that may in time reframe a world that no longer relies on the US as the economic engine pushing everyone else forward.

In the words of Bill Murray from the movie "Ghostbusters," "Whoa! Somebody's comin'!"

Police launch child porn raids in 13 countries

Michael Jackson may have gotten away with sexually assaulting a minor but the world does indeed keep spinning. The following story allows me to at least imagine there is some kind of justice in the world. MJ may have gotten away but the trash being written about herein the EU will hopefully get what they deserve.

From Reuters:

Police in 13 European countries raided 150 locations in a child pornography crackdown on Tuesday, seizing computers, videos and other material, the European Union's police agency Europol said.

Police carried out raids in Austria, Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden, questioning around 150 suspects. Arrests were made in some countries.

The operation, codenamed "Icebreaker", targeted suspected members of Internet child abuse networks in an investigation into the downloading and exchange of pictures of molested children, the Hague-based police agency said.

"Most of the suspects are subject to further investigation as large quantities of equipment including computers, laptops, videos and other materials containing images of child abuse were seized," Europol said.

The operation was led by Italian police and supported by Europol.

Italian police provided most of the evidence in the investigation into the possession and distribution of child abuse material over the Internet during which users hid their electronic identities and encrypted their communications.

"I find it of the utmost importance to focus on this extremely terrible kind of crime, which involves the abuse of children, so it is my hope that today's operation will lead the investigators to some of the producers behind these evil deeds," Europol's director Max-Peter Ratzel said.

German federal police said they seized large quantities of evidence in raids on homes of five suspects in three different German states, including child porn videos and pictures.

A spokeswoman said no actual arrests had been made so far in Germany but the suspects were being questioned.

Soundtrack to My Life

For those that don't know, I am a social worker/family therapist. Though I live check to check I do it because I think the work really matters. I'm good at what I do and though I've made some mistakes, I believe I truly help those clients whom I've been assigned to over the last 5 years.

Tonight I committed a 10 year old boy temporarily to a children's psychiatric hospital. It was for his own good and he'll be released soon enough. However, the feeling I have in my gut for having to do so still sucks. That being said, I need a break for a day to get my head right (for this, Michael Jackson's acquital and few other reasons). In the meantime, here's a little piece of my life, Wednesday we'll get back to business:

Opening credits: Bring Tha Noize (w/Anthrax) - Public Enemy
Waking up: In the Meantime - Helmet
Average day: Voice of the Voiceless - Heaven Shall Burn
First date: You're Crazy - Guns N Roses
Falling in love: Open Your Life - Helloween
Love scene: Sex (I'm a) - Lovage
Fight scene: Fucking Hostile - Pantera
Breaking up: Unsuccessfully Coping With the Natural Beauty of Infidelity - Type O Negative
Secret love: If I Can't Have You - Eve's Plum
Life’s okay: Easy Breeze - Clutch
Mental breakdown: Pure Hatred - Chimaira
9/11: Disciple - Slayer
Driving: Fuck Your Enemy - Superjoint Ritual
Learning a lesson: Redemption - Invictus
Deep thought: Dixie Babylon - Cracker
Flashback: Here I Go Again - Whitesnake
Happy dance: Trollhammaren - Finntroll
Regreting: Burn In Hell - Dimmu Borgir
Long night alone: Enjoy the Silence - Tori Amos
Death scene: Only Time - Enya
Closing credits: When the Music's Over - The Doors

Michael Jackson: Not Guilty on all 10 Counts

That's fine. That's our justice system. He may actually have not molested anyone, who really knows for sure. My only wish is that someday he gets the help he so desperately needs and that he is kept away from as many children as humanly possible.

However, to the people who chanted, "Michael, Innocent!" You have aligned yourselves with a possible serial child molester. Just as I cannot be sure he's guilty, you cannot be sure he is truly innocent. But the fact that you give him more than the benefit of the doubt and chant his name makes you all scum as far as I'm concerned. I do not wish death on you nor do I wish you or your child suffers a sexual assault but know that your behavior is unforgivably abhorent.

May God have mercy on your souls.

Saudi Prince-Iranian Rowhani discuss terrorism

I've been wondering for some time now about Saudi-Iranian relations and where they stand. Both countries have oil, support terrorism, have terrible human rights records, and want to push Israel into the sea. However, we are partners with Saudi Arabia, despite their financial support for terrorism, while we are close to violently confronting Iran over, "weapons of mass destruction." The most obvious reason for this goes back to the Islamic Revolution and the removal of the US backed Shah of Iran. Cries of "Death to America" have been emenating from Tehran ever since. But where does this leave Saudi Arabia?

From what I've been reading, the Saudi's are looking to Tehran for a common sense regional policy that allows the US an opportunity to somewhat back away from the region. For example, "With this is mind, some aspects of Iranian politics in the region are not conducive to defusing tension. In fact, they give rise to doubts and concerns among the Gulf countries, reigniting negative memories of previous Iranian policies toward the region. The foremost among these is Tehran's determination to develop its conventional and non-conventional defense programs. The GCC states cannot view this merely as a U.S.-EU-Iran dispute, because those directly threatened by such weapons are not the Americans or the Europeans, but the GCC countries.

Due to this direct threat, the GCC states find themselves obliged to depend more on foreign forces to guarantee their national security. Thus, Iran's policies intensify foreign military presence in the region and force regional states into an arms race that could adversely affect regional stability, deepen mistrust and obstruct national development plans.

Iran's attempt to exploit the current instability in Iraq to consolidate and assert its political leverage at the expense of the other parties sends wrong signals. It is not just a direct intervention in the affairs of an Arab country whose political stability and security are directly linked to the Gulf environment as whole; it is seen as an attempt to destabilize the regional balance of power and sends clear signals that Tehran's foreign policy is still motivated by narrow interests.

On the other hand, it is vital for the GCC states to understand and take into account Iran's security concerns, especially as it finds itself under serious foreign political pressure and besieged from all directions by the U.S. presence in Central Asia, Afghanistan, Turkey and Iraq. It is not in the interest of the GCC states to allow continued animosity between Tehran and Washington, because this adversely impacts GCC-Iranian relations. More than ever, the GCC is today required to make Tehran feel that it is an indispensable part of any Gulf security arrangement."

With that being said, I found this article very interesting. Part of the article states that, "Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah Sunday called for cooperation between Riyadh and Tehran in countering terrorism which he said was threatening the entire countries in the Persian Gulf region, IRNA reported.

In a meeting with the top Iranian security official Hassan Rowhani, Prince Abdullah stated that the two regional heavyweights could play a key role in fighting terrorism both at the regional and international levels.

The Saudi crown prince described Iran and Saudi Arabia as important friends in the Islamic world, stressing the need for strengthening ties between the two countries."

READ MORE

Opinion: Sean Penn in Iran

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

This isn't my opinion. It comes from Iran Scan. I happened by it while surfing for news on Iran and thought that I really couldn't have put my opinion on Sean Penn's visit to Iran any better. More than anything else highlights the better option, that is support real democratic reform in Iran and assisting the people in throwing out the Mullahs.

Here's my favorite part of the article:

"The honest parachuting journalists quickly realize that Friday prayers are a passé backdrop, that Qom is not the story, that Iranians have been in a post-Islamist phase for several years, that most Iranians do not hate America (in fact, as my friend Karim Sadjadpour, the very astute ICG analyst in Tehran puts it, “Iranians are the least anti-American populace in the region”), that the real story is how the Islamic Republic of Iran will contend with a largely young, frustrated, restive, post-revolution population hungry for more political and social freedoms and economic deliverance, and little enamored with the revolutionary slogans of their parents‘ generation.

I wonder how Sean Penn will see things. Will he honestly portray what he sees? Or will he be blinded by his hatred of President George W. Bush to fall into the trap many a good leftist falls into: defending the Islamic Republic to take a jab at Bush. Progressives in America consistently fail to side with the forces for democracy in Iran because it might just seem too, well, Wolfowitzian or, worse, Rumsfeldian."

What bothers me the most about our handling of Iran is that supporting democratic reform and internal regime change should be something that both the Republicans and the Democrats should be bi-partisan on. Obviously a nuclear armed Iran is with Mullahs screaming, "Death to Israel, Death to America," is a big security risk for us. Aside from maybe a few blindingly pro-Israel policy wonks in DC, I would think that most Republicans would want to avoid war with Iran if possible. The Democrats are always hollering about diplomacy and non-violence and war being a "last resort." So why aren't both parties coming together to support aiding the Iranian domestic reform movement?

Iran-Nigeria interested in defense collaboration

This post is also available at Blogger News Network

Iranmania.com is reporting that, "Iran and Nigeria explored avenues for bolstering bilateral cooperation in various defense fields. The visiting Nigerian Defense Minister Rabiu Kwankaso and his Iranian counterpart, Ali Shamkhani held a second round of talks. Talking to reporters after the meeting, Shamkhani said expansion of cooperation with Africa, particularly the continent’s western states is a foreign policy priority of the Khatami administration, IRNA reported. Iran is determined to promote cordial ties with Nigeria, in the interest of the two nations, he said. Kwankaso, for his part, expressed satisfaction over his visit during which he also toured major industrial units affiliated to the Defense Ministry, and reiterated Abuja’s interest in boosting cooperation with Iran. He said the visit helped him get familiar with Iran’s defense achievements."

Yet another reason why the West must stop regarding Africa as the red-headed stepchild of the world; The US appears to be standing slack-jawed while Russia, China and the Third World scramble to create strategic partnerships around the globe. Why might that be? Because if the United States has any intentions of ever employing another military intervention, a tangled web of strategic partnerships across Africa and Asia will create untold obstacles if not complete catastrophes for whatever war plan we might have thrown together.

For example, we counted on Turkey, an ally of not only the United States but Israel as well, to launch a northern front in Iraq. It was a major point of our invasion plans. However, that all went out of the window when relations went south and Turkey told us to, for lack of a better phrase, stick our plans in our collective noses. Our whole invasion plan had to be revised to accomodate the loss of an imporant staging ground.

Another example is over-flight rights. We've been denied over-flight rights by countries in the past and that has impeded our ability to effectively launch campaigns that were dependent on said rights.

Nigeria is Africa's most populous country and it is yet another exporter of oil. I think it's safe to say that if a line needs to be drawn between us and the Iranians over their inevitable (yes I mean that) possession of nuclear missiles, we don't want Nigeria on their side.

Over the last few months I've covered stories on how Iran is linking itself to Russia, China, Venezuela and of course Syria. This sort of thing is only going to continue. In many ways it has to. Pay Buchanan and folks whom are out of work can scream all day long about protectionism and outsourcing but the fact of the matter is that globalization is a juggernaut on the march. It's not stopping and to paraphrase a My Life With The Thrill Kill Kult sample, "Globalization is the new way to go, it is the way of the future."

Further complicating this mess is the fact that we are one of the few if not only countries that still levels economic sanctions against Iran. The Europeans don't. The Africans don't. The Asians don't. The South Americans don't. The EU and the UN are both talking about employing sanctions against Iran but who knows if that will happen or not. I doubt it will as European countries have heavy trade with Iran and more importantly both Russia and China oppose sanctions against their strategic ally.

Meanwhile, while some in Iran may be talking about democratic reform in the face of the upcoming June 17th elections, the Mullah regime military is hard at work on weapons that can be weaponized and used to hit targets in Israel, Europe and eventually, the continental United States.

Ladies and Gentleman, boys and girls, children of all ages, meet the Shahab-6 Intercontinental Ballistic Missile:

The Shahab-6 is the longer range of the new class of Iranian missiles being developed in conjunction with North Korea. Similar to the Shahab-5, the Shahab-6 is based on technology from the North Korean Taep’o-dong 2, which in turn is based on Chinese technology.

The Shahab-6 is a two or three-stage liquid/solid fuel rocket. The missile uses most of the same systems as the Shahab-5, but economies in weight and payload increase the range to approximately 6,000 km (3,728 miles). The missile is intended to carry one single warhead with a substantial yield, most likely in the area of 500-1,000 kg. As a result of its inaccuracy, the missile’s utility it probably restricted to attacking population centers and spreading radiation rather than hitting military targets. Thus, the Shahab-6 is more likely a blackmail/terrorist weapon than a military asset.

The integration of technology from the Taep’o-dong 2 missile into the Shahab-5 represents a substantial security risk for the U.S. If its 6,000 km reported range is accurate, the Shahab-6 will be able to target most of Europe, Russia, and Asia. The United Kingdom, a staunch ally of the U.S., will be completely vulnerable to an attack, as will be a number of other key U.S. allies. In addition, the possibility exists that Iran will give or sell its missile technology to rogue states or terrorist groups antagonistic to the US. Iran’s military is known to support terrorist groups and the Iranian government has little control over its own missile force. (missilethreat.com)

We cannot go on like this. First off, the administration needs to do a better job of educating the public about the real dangers brewing across the world. It would also be nice if the press would do it's job and actually report news instead of the same old tabloid nonsense. I'm sorry that Natalee Holloway may have been kidnapped and possibly murdered and my prayers go out to her family but for God's sake the world can't stop turning over the unfortunate happenings of yet another white chick. I feel like Eddie Izzard asking an audience of Americans, "Do you know there are other countries out there?"

We also cannot continue to practice policies in a vaccum under the premise that we are alone in the universe. We're not. Between a hypertransitory world wide population, the internet and ICBM's, we are now living on top of Eurasia, not on the other side of the world. Michael Jackson's pedophile verdict is not important. Iran currying strategic partnerships in Africa is. Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise's love affair is not important. The arms race brewing from the Middle East to South East Asia is. Let's get organized folks.