New Review: It's My Party Too

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

The 2006 midterm elections and 2008 presidential election will hopefully become known as the “Years of the Moderates.” 2005 has given us the Terry Schiavo fiasco, filibuster-palooza, the potential deconstruction of Social Security, and any other number of partisan scandals. What I, along with many other people in America, really want is someone in a position of power who is a moderate. We want somebody who is liberal on some issues (like choice/abortion) and conservative on other issues (like the deficit). We certainly don’t want leftwing-fringe lunatic Communists in power, nor do we want evangelical-rightwing tyrannical fascists. We are a country that dines on happy mediums and to date, as both parties race to their respective fringes, we have been starved.

Just in time, however, comes a book that spells out our collective needs and desires in a neat format. Former New Jersey Governor and EPA Administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, has written a call to arms for all rational individuals currently invested in the future of American government. “It’s My Party Too: The Battle For the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America,” is one part political platform and one part autobiography. Whitman intertwines her life as the daughter of a prominent political figure, dark horse candidate, and eventual governor of New Jersey and EPA administrator, with her thoughts about how the GOP should conduct itself going forward in the political arena.

Though the book covers many topics related to how the GOP should operate, the central theme is that the GOP is somewhat in crisis. Whitman writes that those with a narrow view of Republican principles and those who remember the days of the GOP being a “big tent” party are ripping her party asunder from the inside. The biggest misconception about the Republican Party is that it is filled with evangelical, bigoted, social Darwinists who communicate with fire and brimstone rather than good old common sense. The purpose of the book is to re-establish that there are members of the Republican Party who do not belong to the “Taliban wing” or the “CEO/anti-FDR wing” of the GOP and are rather thoughtful and engaging personalities. (More)

Egyptians Question Culture-Extremism Link

We are not at war with the Muslims. We are not at war with the Arabs. We are not at war with the Persians.

The people we fight are no different than the gang bangers who execute drive-by shootings in Compton, CA, or Brooklyn, NY. Certainly no one would seriously suggest that because we are trying to stop gang violence we are in a war against Blacks and Hispanics (and Asians, Russians, Italians, etc.) The fact is that Islamofascists are cut from the same cloth as Bloods and Crips. These people are "dead-enders." For whatever reason, they have chosen a life that will ultimately end in their untimely demise. People used to say that it was rare when a young Black teenager residing in one of the nations big cities ever lived to see 21 years-old. Unless there are some radical changes throughout the Middle East and Europe, you may start to hear the same thing about young Muslim men.

The secret to defeating the gangs that have plagued inner-city residents for generations was to get the residents themselves to turn on the gangs and work with the police. When the residents made a choice to side with the police instead of the drug dealers and the gang bangers, then the police could do their work unimpeded. Eventually the neighborhood jettisons the dead weight and restores it's natural safety and sense of community. Usually this means that a community of minorities has to side with a precinct of mostly White police officers but, from my experience, when asked about this choice what the Black folks I've worked with have told me is that regardless of how they feel about White people or cops in general, if the drug dealers and gang bangers were gone, the cops wouldn't need to be in their neighborhood in the first place. In many cases they are fine with making the pragmatic choice.

I like the following article because it seems to point a changing climate in the Arab/Muslim/Persian world. Maybe, just maybe, slowly but surely, the Arabs et al are starting to realize that "terrorists" are actually causing more harm than good. Maybe, just maybe, some have figured out that if the "terrorists" would just disappear, eventually so would foreign troops. And maybe, just maybe, the Arabs et al have figured out that pound for pound, it's the terrorists purposely killing their own civilians, not the foreign troops.

Here's hoping this moment of clarity turns into a movement of purpose:

Stunned by terror attacks in a Red Sea resort, Egyptians are in a remarkably frank debate about whether mosques and schools - and the government itself - should be blamed for promoting Islamic extremism.

Even pro-government media say authorities have created a climate where young people are turning into radicals and suicide bombers.

In a country more used to hearing general condemnations of terrorism, critics on Wednesday were angry - and specific - hammering at instances where they say the government let state media and mosque preachers, including many appointed by the government, to promote intolerance.

At one mosque in Cairo, some worshippers objected to prayers for the dead and missing after Saturday's bombings in Sharm el-Sheik because some victims were likely non-Muslims, said the editor of the government weekly Al-Musawwar.

Another columnist pointed to a weekly column in the government Al-Ahram daily by a religious scholar, Zaghloul al-Naggar, who explains science by using the Quran. After December's tsunami in the Indian Ocean, he went on Arab television and called the devastation God's revenge on Westerners engaged in vice.

The debate since Sharm has been a deepening of the soul-searching that has gone on across the Arab world in recent years over whether religious interpretations need reform in the face of terror attacks by Muslim radicals.

The debate began, hesitantly, after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. And the voices have grown with each act of terrorism - particularly ones in the Middle East. A series of attacks in Saudi Arabia in 2003 forced that country to begin taking action against extremist thought.

The 2004 Madrid bombings increased calls for change among Muslims in Europe and the Mideast. After the July 7 suicide bombings in London, Britain's largest Sunni group issued a binding religious edict, known as a fatwa, condemning the attack.

Egypt has been hit this month by a double blow: the kidnapping and slaying of its top envoy in Iraq by Islamic militants and the bomb blasts that ripped through Sharm, killing as many as 88 people - the vast majority of them Egyptians.

What was unusual about the self-criticism after Sharm was that it came from government media - and even from within the Islamic clerical hierarchy picked by the government.

"There is no use denying. ... We incited the crime of Sharm el-Sheik,'' ran a bold red headline of a lead editorial Wednesday by Al-Musawwar's editor in chief, Abdel-Qader Shohaib.

The bombers "didn't just conjure up in our midst suddenly, they are a product of a society that produces extremist fossilized minds that are easy to be controlled,'' Shohaib wrote.

"They became extremists through continuous incitement for extremism which we have allowed to exist in our societies. Regrettably, the incitement is coming from mosque pulpits, newspapers, and TV screens, and radio microphones,'' which are all state-run, Shohaib said.

In Al-Ahram, columnist Ahmed Abdel Moeti Hegazi wrote: "This is not just deviation, it is a culture,''

Hegazi said he went to one mosque after the July 7 London bombings and the slaying of the Egyptian diplomat but the preacher made no mention of either attack. Instead, he denounced women wearing bathing suits.

Abdel Moeti Bayoumi, a theology professor at Al-Azhar University and a member of Al-Azhar's Center of Islamic Research, said change is needed. Al-Azhar, in Cairo, is one of the leading Sunni Muslim institutions in the world.

"Islamic preaching institutions are in a very acute need for shake-up,'' Bayoumi told The Associated Press. "Issuing statements and holding conferences to condemn terrorism is not what is needed. They are more like a cover-up of unresolved problems.''

Islamic leaders ``need to do a lot of work to enlighten clerics and preachers and educate them about the true religious ideas ... and teach them about the realities of the age we're living in,'' he said.

The government appoints the clerics of most big mosques in Egypt - but not of many smaller mosques. The Religious Affairs Ministry gives guidelines for Friday sermons, but there is no guarantee they are followed.

Critics have complained about the justifications of violence in Iraq by some clerics. Egyptian cleric Sheik Youssef al-Qaradawi - who has a regular show on the Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera - has issued a fatwa saying that since Iraq remains in a state of war, the kidnapping of those involved is allowed, but hostages shouldn't be killed. He repeated that stance Monday, two days after the Sharm attacks.

Not all are convinced that Islam needs reform, however.

Kamal Habib - a former member of Egypt's Islamic Jihad militant group who was jailed from 1981 to 1991 along with al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman Al-Zawahri - denounced the critics as ``secular extremists who hate religion.''

He blamed terrorism, instead, on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's autocratic rule.

"Mubarak's regime has produced this generation. ... This is a nihilistic generation of a nihilistic regime.''

U.S. tries to woo N. Korea with diplomacy

Let me tell you a quick story. As a therapist who works intimately with people in their homes, sometimes I walk into a home where because of the way the children act, or because of something that was said, I get the sneaking suspicion that a parent or guardian is very much abusing the child(ren) in some way that is not making itself known immediately. Many of my clients are mandated by social workers or the justice system to have therapy in their homes and thus they are compelled to be cooperative and try to throw snoopers, such as myself off the track. While my first instincts are to use a heavy just to let them know who's boss and that I'm watching them, unless I'm lucky enough to see an familial explosion firsthand, I'll never get to the truth. If I can't get anymore than surface stuff out of my clients then I can't help them. So, when the stick fails me, I have come to very much depend on the carrot approach. I become their ally. I become their advocate. If I suspect that a parent, guardian, or other child is hurting somebody behind closed doors the way to get to the bottom if the issue is to join with the alleged perpetrator. A guilty person is more likely to slip up when they are comfortable than when they are always hypervigilant. Eventually the facade falls and I can do the work of protecting the child(ren).

Now some might say that after all this joining and allying and so forth, it's too late to protect the child. I say to that, I cannot help anyone unless I'm actually in the house. Furthermore, if I'm wrong I do not want tear apart a family where there is no abuse going. It's better in the end, a lesser choice of evils, to reserve judgement and wait for the enemy to make a mistake I can work with.

Why is this important? Because just as I am usually ready to employ the carrot even though I may be doing business with an abuser, it would appear that this same strategy is being used vis a vis the Bush administration with N. Korea. According to the below article, it seems that Bush and company have decided to back away from their usual bombastic rhetoric and will instead seek a diplomatic solution. Given the involvement of China and Russia with North Korea and their history of helping Iran develop their own nuclear weapons, the US has very much found itself between a rock and a hard place. It's hard to take seriously any military threat coming out of Washington when China is the main country acting as N. Korea's benefactor and nobody wants a war with China, at this time. Also, seeing as we're having difficulties still in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as new anti-terrorism measures throughout Africa, I don't see how, short of our own nuclear attack, anyone can seriously think we're serious about deposing Kim Jong Ill.

I think the Bush administration is on the right track by persuing a diplomatic track with N. Korea. They must allow N. Korea to make that oh so important comfortable error. When that happens, and I'm sure it will, then the US can come before the court of world opinion and say, "dear friends, with regards to N. Korea, we have reached an impasse." Then maybe the world bodies will think about doing something tangible about that rogue regime. To continue to drive N. Korea away from the bargaining table only justifies their position in a world that looks for any reason to invalidate the US. The sooner the Bush administration joins with N. Korea, the sooner we can put an end to the disaster in South East Asia waiting to happen.

Here's the article:

Washington has shifted gears by dropping its hard-line stance in favor of a diplomatic solution that once and for all resolves the nuclear standoff with North Korea, says a former U.S. negotiator on the issue.

Kenneth Quinones, a former State Department officer in charge of North Korea issues, said in a lecture in Tokyo on Monday that the United States will likely try to avoid confronting North Korea for the sake of gaining some form of accord.

"During his first four years, President (George W.) Bush couldn't decide if he wanted to get rid of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il or seek a diplomatic decision," said Quinones, who was involved in the Clinton administration's 1994 negotiations on the Agreed Framework with Pyongyang. "I think he (Bush) has decided he wants a diplomatic solution."

Quinones was addressing the Institute for East Asian Studies at Keio University.

"My understanding is that the United States will try to exert the most flexibility (at the six-party talks)," Quinones said.

He speculated that the U.S. delegation could even shelve its demands for clarification on whether Pyongyang has a program to produce highly enriched uranium in return for a pledge-as an initial first step-to dismantle its plutonium reprocessing program.

On arrival in Beijing, U.S. chief delegate Christopher Hill stated that his delegation was "just trying to get acquainted, to review how we see things coming up, and compare notes."

On Monday, the U.S. and North Korean delegations met in a "businesslike manner" and agreed to work for substantial progress, according to U.S. government officials. (More)

Imagine There's No Israel

This Post is also available at Blogger News Network.

With apologies to John Lennon, “Imagine there’s no Israel, It's easy if you try, No hell below us, above us only sky, Imagine all the people, living for today...” Though Lennon was getting at something slightly different, the underlying philosophy is very much the same in the minds of too many people inhabiting this planet. What many people across the world believe is that this modern war between Western civilization and radical Islamic fundamentalism (Islamofascism) is the result of having a Jewish country, Israel, smack dab in the middle of Mohammed’s empire. In short, many believe that if it weren’t for the creation of Israel back in 1948, after UN Resolution 181 partitioned the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine into two states for Jews and Palestinian Arabs, radical Islamic fundamentalism would have never existed, there would be no Osama bin Laden, thus no “War on Terror.” At best this theory is flawed and worst, simply ludicrous.

For the Islamofacists and historically throughout the world, Israel and the greater plight of the Jews have been a convenient scapegoat. During the Biblical Age (ostensibly the book of Exodus) under Ramses II the Jews were severely persecuted until, allegedly, Moses led them out of Egypt.

Charles Pellegrino writes, “What about the Jews' persecution by Egypt? Around 1900-1800 BC a bunch of Semites invaded Egypt and took power. The bible does say that Joseph and co were refugees from famine, and came peacefully, but then they would have wanted to put themselves in the best possible light, showing that the "Egyptian persecution" was unwarranted and unfair,” so that means little. Around 1730 BC the Egyptians staged a revolt and regained control. This lead to a century of oppression and forced labor for the former Semite "masters". Egyptian records reveal that there were "several" Semite exoduses during those 100 years, the final one coming at a time of "darkness, famine, plague and a parting of the waters" The OT may have merely combined all of these into one "big" exodus. Actually the last exodus was when the Egyptians kicked out the remaining Semites, since they were facing a famine and didn't want to feed them. Not so much Moses saying "let my people go" but pharaoh saying "get lost!”

The Jews also have historically been persecuted as the supposed murderers of the Christian god, Jesus. More pointedly they were persecuted during the rise of the Christian Empires because they were the money lenders and when said kings no longer wanted to pay their debts, it was nice and convenient to invent a reason to murder Jews. Then of course there’s the most popular and modern example of singling out Jews for hatred and genocide, oft mentioned but rarely truly appreciated holocaust of World War II perpetrated by the German National Socialists (Nazi’s). Needless to say, irrational hatred and wanton murder of Jews is not new nor the sole province of the Muslims.

So if hating Jews is nothing new and even par for the course when one wants to distract their people from the real causes of hopelessness and misery, then what exactly are the Islamofascists on about? The roots of Islamic fundamentalism as we know it today begin with Wahhabism. Wahhabism, according to Wikipedia is, “a movement of Islam named after Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (1703–1792)… Wahhabi theology advocates a puritanical and legalistic stance in matters of faith and religious practice.
Wahhabists see their role as a movement to restore Islam from what they perceive to be innovations, superstitions, deviances, heresies and idolatries. During the time of Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab, whose prominence gave name to this movement. There are many practices that they believe are contrary to Islam, such as:

▪ That invoking any prophet, saint or angel in prayer, other than God alone, is polytheism
▪ Grave worship, whether to saints' graves, or the prophet's grave
▪ Celebrating annual feasts for dead saints
▪ Wearing of charms, and believing in their healing power
▪ Practicing magic, or going to sorcerers or witches seeking healing
▪ Innovation in matters of religion (e.g. new methods of worship)
▪ Erecting elaborate monuments over any grave

Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia began with a surge of reformers seeking to reclaim orthodox Islam from innovation by various sects of Sunni Muslims. In the 18th century, it spread in Najd along with the expansion of the First Saudi State under Muhammad bin Saud and his successors.”

It is Wahhabism that is mostly responsible for the creation of modern Saudi Arabia. For years the Saudi Royal family have had a deal with the devil (the Wahhabists) where so long as the Saud’s financially supported the Wahhabis, the Wahhabis would not attempt to overthrow the kingdom. Once again, for years this allowed to the Saudi Royal family to lead a dual life of being both friend and enemy to the US, all for the explicit purpose of continuing their dictatorial rule. This obviously finally came to light and thus serious scrutiny after the events of 9/11 where almost all of the hijackers were of Saudi descent.

The fact of the matter is that despite Israel being on alleged Palestinian soil, if it were to disappear tomorrow that act by itself would not be enough for the Wahhabis. If we had never gone into Iraq, both in 1991 and in 2003, that act by itself would not be enough for the Wahhabis. If we had never established military bases in Saudi Arabia, miles from the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, that would not be enough for the Wahhabis. In a June 1999 interview on "Al Jazera" television, Osama Bin Laden stated that his aim is to destroy Western civilization and everything it represents: "We view every American man as an enemy." In August 1998, Bin Laden told the Italian newspaper 'La Republica' that "the international Islamic front has declared that the war has begun." This is what I’m trying to tell those that are clinging to some mystifying belief that these people can be reasoned with. At the end of the day, no amount of appeasement will matter when the sum total of the enemy’s demands is that you either convert to Shia’ism or die.

You can spend all day in your “anti-Bush” black T-shirt at the next Greenwich Village protest, carrying anti-Semitic signs, condemning Israel to hell all you want. The fact remains that even if you’re a Wiccan or an atheist, you’re still an infidel and just as soon as bin Laden gets around to it, you’re a dead person. The “War on Terror” is not about Israel or our occupation of Iraq. It’s not even about 9/11 per se. These Muslims whom have decided that blinding hatred is their only guiding light are just the latest batch in a new round of people who have completely lost the purpose and majesty of faith. They are no different than the Christians and Jews of antiquity who were just as zealous and murderous in their time. That’s what this is really about. It’s about a Reformation and an Enlightenment that will sharply divide the modern Muslim world from the barbarians who cannot see past their suicide pact with a god whom they clearly do not understand.

Though I am an ardent supporter of Israel, if I actually thought it’s removal would end the Wahhabis war against the Western world I might actually call for it. However, if you really look at who those people are and what they want, it is very clear that in the end, it doesn’t matter if Israel is in Palestine or South Carolina. Imagining there’s no Israel is just an exercise in anti-Semitism, bigotry, lazy thinking and invitation to ones own eventual murder.

Ladies and Gentlemen, once again, Mr. John Lennon, “You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one, I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will live as one.”

Saudi Arabia, Britain keen on boosting military cooperation

For years many people (mostly liberals) have condemned the US for doing business with dictators and tyrants. That was one of the murky points of attempting to depose Saddam Hussein. We supported his quasi-fascist rule so long as he was willing to fight the Iranians for us. Throughout Latin America and Africa we have supported one dictatorial regime after another and thus have earned the ire of many whom truly seek to see every country free of tyranny around the world.

However, today we stand at a crossroad, especially in the Middle East. As I've written before, our choices are the devil we know (the Saudi Royal family, etc.) or the devil we don't know (Osama Bin Laden). At the end of the day the fact remains that we and the Saudi elites want the same thing, we want Al Qaeda dismantled. I believe Musharraf of Pakistan would like Al Qaeda to drop off the face of planet as well. There reasoning however has nothing to do with the survival of the Western world and everything to do with the survival of their own established power. They know full well that once bin Laden and company are finished with the West, they will fix their gave upon those they feel do not live up to their ideal of Islamic behavior. In short, slowly but surely the dictators we like are realizing there's more to lose in continuing to support the side that will eventually want them dead anyway.

The following article is interesting to me because it isn't just the US that lays with tyrants but now the British are doing it as well. There's something to be said for backing away from idealization and embracing pragmatism. At the end of the day, we cannot defeat the terrorists and Mullah's without having the Saudi government and Musharraf on our side along with Karzai and select others. I hear good-hearted souls who cry out for those Arabs/Muslims whom are living under the dark night of tyranny all throughout the Middle East because we Westerners continue to validate their existence. As cold as this may sound, for the time being, such is life my friends.

Here's the story:

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Britain are keen on bolstering overall cooperation and in the military field in particular, officials told a joint press conference here Saturday night.

Remarks to this effect came after the meeting of Saudi Second Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense and Aviation and General Inspector Prince Sultan bin Abdelaziz and British Defense Secretary John Reid.

On topics that came under discussion, Prince Sultan said there was exchange of information, review of the different aspects of the strong relations between the two states, and the cooperation and coordination between the two armed forces specifically.

To a question on Saudi's declaration of willingness to share its expertise in combating terrorism with London, Secretary Reid said this initiative attests to the strong ties between Riyadh and London. He pointed out much could be learnt from Saudi's perseverance in the face of terrorism.

Referring to the latest terrorist strike, in Sharm El-Sheikh, the secretary remarked the international community fully sympathizes with Egypt and stands in solidarity with its people.

The secretary meanwhile stressed no military agreements were signed with Saudi Arabia but there is close cooperation in the areas of exchange of technology, expertise, staff and investments.

The British Defense Secretary arrived here Saturday evening and held talks with his counterpart on the latest regional and international issues and possible areas for improved cooperation to serve the two state's interests.

New Review: Freakonomics

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

The intellectual trains of economics and sociology rarely come together, but in “Freakonomics,” by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, they smash together in a fabulous flaming wreck. One cannot read this book without being utterly flabbergasted by the authors' assertions. Unlike other books that put forth nutty claims, this one isn’t entirely based on a talking head’s opinion but rather, the assertions are the sum total of a lauded economist's analyzation of pertinent data.

As the book jacket states, “…the modern world, despite a surfeit of obfuscation, complication, and downright deceit, is not impenetrable, is not unknowable, and -- if the right questions are asked -- is even more intriguing than we think. All it takes is a new way of looking. Steven Levitt, through devilishly clever and clear-eyed thinking, shows how to see through the clutter.”

And what clutter is he seeking to see through, you might be asking? Well, there are six full chapters titled with fascinating questions that will hook the reader right from the start. Those questions/chapter headings are:

1. What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common?
2. How is the Klu Klux Klan like a group of real-estate agents?
3. Why do drug dealers still live with their moms?
4. Where have all the criminals gone?
5. What makes a perfect parent?
6. Would a Roshanda by any other name smell as sweet?

At first glance these questions may seem silly or at the very least the stuff of bar room riddles, but they are in fact a testament to the book's claim that there is indeed a hidden side to everything. (More)

President-Elect: Iran Won't Seek Nuke Arms

If this can be believed, Iranian President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, may actually have a valid point. If the Iranians are serious about not wanting to build nuclear missiles then he absolutely has the right to criticize the west's efforts to thwart Iranian development of nuclear power. However, that is a rather large "If" and should the Iranians be lying to the world, as this administration believes it is, then coming up craps will mean millions dead in nuclear fire. The whole point of the "Bush doctrine" is to head off that kind of threat. However, the Bush administration has already used up the good will they had on "potential attacks" when they decided that the world could no longer wait for Saddam Hussein to be deposed. There's nothing we can do at this juncture except wait and see. All I can do is report when anything, good, bad or indifferent comes out of that country. Americans should be vigilantly watching what happens in Iran, China and Russia before they find themselves in a violent reminder that isolationism is dead.

Here's the story:

Iran's president-elect said Thursday his country will not pursue atomic weapons but it will not submit to international pressure to abandon its nuclear program, state-run television reported.

The comments by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were similar to those over the past year by Iranian leaders amid negotiations with the Europeans, who aim to restrict Iran's nuclear activities. The United States accuses Tehran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, while Iran says its program aims only to produce energy.

Some Europeans have worried that Ahmadinejad - who won election last month with the backing of hard-line elements of Iran's Islamic regime - could take a tougher stance in negotiations than the reform administration he is replacing.

Before his campaign, Ahmadinejad had criticized concessions by Iran, including the freezing of parts of the nuclear program, though since his election he has said he will continue talks with the Europeans.

"We hate atomic weapons. We respect international treaties and agreements, but we will not accept illogical pressures and the demands of powers," Ahmadinejad told a public meeting in Mashhad, 600 miles northeast of the capital, Tehran, according to the television report.

"We witness unfairness in the international arena. Some consider themselves as the lord of the world while they enjoy the biggest amount of weapons of mass destruction," Ahmadinejad said.

Iran has frozen uranium enrichment and other key parts of its nuclear program to avoid being referred to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions. But it has repeatedly insisted the suspension is not permanent and has said it will eventually resume.

Unocal Accepts Chevron's Raised Bid

It's not official yet as Chinese oil firm CNOOC Ltd. still has time to raise their bid. However, at this time the CNOOC officials are saying that they plan to stay behind their bid as it is thus giving the win to Secretary Rice's former company, Chevron. This may seem like stale financial news but it goes to a bigger story; that is in our modern world, though military war is still an issue, a battle is raging in the field of economics and finance as well between sovereign nations. China is stampeding toward super power status and their aim, while ambiguously violent, is to supplant the US as the worlds engine of financial growth and stability. The Chinese currently own something around $191 billion of U.S. debt, which obviously makes it a player in the global community. The dollar and the yuan are married to one another now, just as the dollar is married to the euro, the yen, and so on. As the battle to either retain US dominance or establish Sino dominance rages forward, this current fight over Unocal is one of many hills the US must take in order to win.

Here's the story:

The board of Unocal Corp. accepted a sweetened takeover offer from Chevron Corp. early Wednesday, dealing a setback to the politically sensitive, unsolicited bid for Unocal from Chinese oil company Cnooc Ltd.

In a bid anticipated by Unocal shareholders, Chevron offered $63.01 per share, or about $17 billion. Chevron initially offered about $16.5 billion.

Chevron raised its bid to head off an anticipated increase by Cnooc to $69 per share, a source close to the deal said.

"Our increased offer has been driven by competitive circumstances, but even at this higher price it remains a compelling transaction for Chevron stockholders and is accretive to both cash flow and earnings per share in 2006," Chevron chief executive David J. O'Reilly said in a prepared statement. "We are pleased to have the continued support of the Unocal board of directors and look forward to closing the transaction in just three weeks."

Unocal shareholders are scheduled to vote on Chevron's bid on Aug. 10.

In addition to raising the price, Chevron increased the cash portion of its bid from 25 percent to 40 percent. Chevron's new bid is still lower than Cnooc's all-cash $18.5 billion offer. But Cnooc has run into opposition from members of Congress who say selling a U.S. oil company to a Chinese firm could threaten national security. Cnooc is 70 percent controlled by the Chinese government.

Cnooc did not immediately raise its offer after the Chevron bid. "Cnooc's $67-per-share all cash offer has not been changed and remains in effect," the company said in a statement. "We have fully negotiated a merger agreement and other transaction documents reflecting this proposal with Unocal which we believe to be acceptable to them. We regret that they have not yet embraced our offer."

Unocal shares, which have risen in recent weeks in anticipation of a bidding war, closed at $64.96 on Wednesday, down 0.03 percent, indicating that shareholders do not view the current bids as final. Chevron shares closed at $57.60, up 0.3 percent, suggesting that Chevron shareholders approve of the increased bid.

Several Unocal shareholders said they appreciated Chevron's new offer but do not consider it high enough to knock Cnooc out of the running. They said they expect Cnooc to raise its offer.

"We think this is a modest improvement from what [Chevron] had before," said hedge fund manager Peter Schoenfeld of P. Schoenfeld Asset Management. Schoenfeld, whose firm controls about 650,000 Unocal shares, said his analysis suggests that Unocal is worth $74 per share.

Cnooc's board has authorized management to bid at least $69 per share, people close to the company say. Cnooc has already offered to put $2.5 billion in an escrow account while a deal with Unocal is examined in Washington. The account is intended to assure Unocal's board that Cnooc has significant assets in a U.S. account that could be claimed if litigation arises between the two companies. Sources say that Cnooc wants assurances that Unocal will lobby for the deal in Washington if it accepts Cnooc's offer. Questions remain about how much lobbying Unocal could do given its agreement with Chevron.

Industry analysts say there may be more bidding before a deal is complete.

"Obviously Chevron gained the momentum by increasing its bid, but in my view they did not go up enough to discourage Cnooc from seriously pursuing its bid," said energy analyst Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & Co.

Gheit said Chevron has an additional advantage because 40 percent of its offer is in Chevron stock, which could rise significantly if the uncertainty of a rival Cnooc bid is removed.

"Chevron thinks its stock is undervalued right now," Gheit said. "That's why they think they can afford to bid low and clinch it. Cnooc has only one way to go, and that's pure cash. In order to entice shareholders, I think they have to get their bid close to $70."

Africa Calls for End to Injustice at U.N.

I spend a lot of time on this site excoriating the US for not recognizing the way in which the global community has evolved. I firmly believe that many in Washington, especially in the Pentagon still believe they are fighting the Cold War, which is the only reasonable explanation for some of the decisions that have been made in the last 15 years. However, I should probably start spreading the blame for global chauvanism around a bit more as, according to the below article, burgeoning super powers such as China are equally at fault as the US. The fact of the matter is that Africa cannot and will not be the "resource mall" it was once designated as. To leave Africa to it's own devices or to not grant it the voice and power it so rightfully deserves is to continue to invite disaster into this world. As I've stated many times on this blog, every country in this world is a neighbor to every other country due to the internet, jets and ICBM's. We cannot continue to operate as if pretending Africa isn't there will result in Africa actually combusting into genocidal flames. More than likely, an Africa left unchecked to erupt into perpetual chaos will crash in both the Far East as well as Western civilization. Africa, for all it's flaws needs a seat at the UN. There's is a voice that absolutely needs to be heard, regardless of how many of it's country seem to be unavoidably descending into chaos will alarming regularity. Will it largely be a symbolic gesture to allow an African nation a seat on the UN security council? Sure, but symbolism goes a long way. Just ask Osama Bin laden.

Here's the story:

Africa presented its proposal for expanding the U.N. Security Council, saying it's time to give a voice to billions of people in the developing world and end the historic injustice that left the continent without a permanent seat on the U.N.'s most powerful body.

It was the second expansion plan introduced in a week. The four countries behind the first one - Brazil, Germany, India and Japan - said Sunday they currently don't have enough support to seek a vote. A third group, Uniting for Consensus, hasn't presented a resolution but has significant backing.

There is widespread support for enlarging the Security Council to reflect the world in the 21st century rather than global power after World War II when the United Nations was formed. But previous attempts have failed because of national and regional rivalries.

Looming over the debate is opposition from the United States and China, who say the time isn't right for council reform because the disagreements among nations are too great.

The Security Council currently has 15 members, 10 elected for two-year terms to represent different regions and five permanent members with veto power - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.

Washington and Beijing can't block an initial resolution, but council expansion ultimately requires a change to the U.N. Charter, action that needs approval from all five permanent members. In addition an expansion must have support from at least two-thirds, or 128, of the 191 member nations.

Nigeria, which currently heads the 53-nation African Union, formally introduced the African resolution at a meeting of the U.N. General Assembly on Monday.

"Africa considers that now is the time most opportune to take a decision on this matter on which there have been several debates over the years," said Nigeria's U.N. Ambassador Aminu Bashir Wali.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan has invited world leaders to a summit in September to reform the United Nations and take action on U.N. development goals.

Wali said the summit offers the world's nations "an invaluable opportunity to rekindle hopes of mankind and confidence in the United Nations." Agreeing on Security Council expansion would convince U.N. critics "that the member states can rise above narrow interest and embrace the larger interests of the international community," he said.

The African proposal would expand the council to 26 members, adding six permanent seats with veto power and five non-permanent seats. Africa would get two permanent seats - with South Africa, Nigeria and Egypt the frontrunners - and two non-permanent seats.

The Group of Four's proposal would expand the council to 25 seats, adding six permanent seats but without veto power. Brazil, Germany, India and Japan hope to get four of the permanent seats with the other two for Africa.

The two sides said they would negotiate over the next week and then meet again in Geneva on July 25.

Egypt's U.N. Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz said Africa would like to see the elimination of the veto for all permanent members, but until that happens it will insist on the same veto rights as the five current permanent members.

South African envoy Xolisa Mabhongo said member nations have an unprecedented opportunity to make the Security Council more representative and responsive.

"We believe that this is the time to begin redressing historical injustices in global governance and to give a voice to the billions of people in the developing world who are now excluded from the decision-making processes in the Security Council," Mabhongo said.

Support for Bin Laden in Muslim Countries Declining

For those that have read about the storied history between the West and the Middle East, depending on your own personal philosophy, one might make the argument that this "War on Terror" is the result of years of bad, seemingly inhumane policies toward Arabs/Muslims. I don't want to have that debate today. Even if in some skewed sense of logic there's a clear justification for killing civilians with bombs, at some point one has to take a good hard look at their strategy in the world they occupy and ask, "Is this trip really necessarry?" The sooner the greater Arab/Muslim community realizes that murder is not the way to redress their greivences the sooner the whole region will rise from the muck and mire. Of course I realize life is a bit more complicated than that when you consider that those in power now are trying to use extremism to maintain the status quo but as I've learned being a citizen of the US, the average people have a way of throwing conventional wisdom to the wind, elites be damned. I hope the following article is a sign of growth and not an aberration. We shall see.

Here's the story:

Osama bin Laden is losing public confidence in several key Islamic countries, while growing numbers of Muslims are sharing Western concerns over extremism, a new survey found.

Support for suicide bombings and other acts of violence also declined significantly in most Muslim-majority countries surveyed in the 17-nation report by the Washington-based Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, reports Agence France-Presse (AFP).

"There's declining support for terrorism in the Muslim countries and support for Osama bin Laden is declining. There's also less support for suicide bombings," said Pew Center director Andrew Kohut, reports Reuters news agency.

"This is good news, but still there are substantial numbers who support bin Laden in some of these countries," he told a news conference.

In Morocco, 26 percent of people have confidence in bin Laden, according to the survey, down from 49 percent two years ago. The latest survey was conducted in May, before last week's bombings in London.

The al-Qaeda leader's rating also dipped sharply in the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation, Indonesia, where only 35 percent said they had a lot or some confidence in him, down from 58 percent two years ago.

In Lebanon, where both Muslims and Christians took part in the survey, only 2 percent expressed some confidence in the Saudi-born al-Qaeda leader, down from 14 percent in 2003, reports Reuters.

In Turkey, bin Laden's support has fallen to 7 percent from 15 percent in the past two years, the news agency reports. (More)

Back WTO or farm subsidies go on, U.S. tells Africa

This is a hardline policy but I can see the point in it. I think there's a tendency for ministers and diplomats of Third World countries to act like traumatized children at the global bargaining table. They demand too much and it tends to be in exclusion of all other relevant information. Essentially the attitude I see coming out the UN among other multi-national organizations is that the rich should just do as the poor ask without exception, no questions asked. No First World country even under the best conditions is going to respond to insane demands nor to emotional blackmail. It's in the best interests of the poorer countries to embrace the theory of, " you have to give a little to get a little." I certainly realize that many of the world's poorer countries have given above and beyond (and by given I mean it was taken) but there does come a point when must evolve beyond the politics of victimhood or risk being left behind. I want to this succeed. Anyone that has been following my blog should know that I absolutely detest farm subsidies, which is actually just another work-to-welfare program, dressed up for the Mid-West voters. It's a dinosaur clinging to life in a global village that no longer has any use for it and I've been calling for it's demise for years now (even before I started this blog). For the sake of Africa's much needed development and for the future of the global economy that is the true worlds superpower, I hope and I pray the African's don't "Arafat" this to death and subsidies end up clinging to life just a little bit longer.

Here's the story:

The United States has told African nations they must await a global trade deal before Washington will cut farm export subsidies, warning that failure at WTO talks in December could see subsidies extended for years.

A meeting in Senegal's capital Dakar with the 37 countries eligible for trade perks under Washington's African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) has offered U.S. trade chiefs a chance to explain to African counterparts G8 commitments made earlier this month to end farm export subsidies damaging African farmers.

African officials have said they will press for a timetable, but U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns told them not to expect one until other rich countries agreed to dismantle their subsidies too in World Trade Organization (WTO) talks in Hong Kong in December under the so-called Doha round of negotiations.

"If we do not complete the Doha round in December the whole world will move on," Johanns told a news conference in Dakar late on Monday after the three-day AGOA meeting opened.

"If we do not (complete Doha) a new farm bill will be set in place for a number of years and we will have lost the opportunity quite literally into the next decade," he said.

U.S. farm bills usually last 5-7 years, and the next one would probably be passed in 2007, meaning that failure to reach a deal on free trade in Hong Kong would likely see U.S. farm subsidies extended at least to 2012, Johanns said.

"If we don't have a WTO agreement I believe there will be a temptation to pass much the same bill (as the current one)," he said. "Congress is very reluctant to change farm bills after they've been put in place." (More)

Lebanese-Syrian Relations Sour

It would appear that Arab nationalism is not as inevitable as people tend to believe seeing that tensions are still running high between Lebanon and Syria. What's interesting to me here is that one would assume the policy coming out of Damascus is that they should be doing everything they can to keep Lebanon in the fold. Trying to passive agressively punish Lebanon for rightfully seeking independence from Syria ulitimately creates complications in the Middle East vis a vis the US and Israel. Why should Lebanon feel compelled to stand with their Arab bethren in lockstep regarding the US and Israel when now there is an opening to receive the benefits of siding with the "infidels." It's certainly not unheard of as both Jordan and Egypt have come to a place where their countries stand apart from the collective Middle Eastern fold. Again, by taking this route, Syria complicates things in the Middle East. Complication is good. It's better for people to stand around and think through difficult issues than to have a clear definition of things and then go right to blowing something up.

Here's the story:

Sheltering from the searing heat in the shade of his truck, a red-faced and sweating Ali Bakri glared angrily at the endless line of cargo trucks stranded on the Lebanese-Syrian border.

"We are being treated like animals. We have no food, no water to wash. How long can this go on?" the 35-year-old Jordanian trucker said Monday.

Fresh fruits are turning to mush as customs officials carry out excruciatingly thorough searches, spending up to an hour with each vehicle. Previously, Syrian officials gave only cursory searches and often simply waved drivers through. Truckers now wait in line a week or more.

The drivers and their cargo are a casualty of the souring relations between Lebanon and Syria since Damascus was forced to relinquish its three-decade-long military grip on Lebanon three months ago.

Many Lebanese say Syria has clamped what amounts to a land and sea siege on its tiny neighbor to exact revenge following the withdrawal of thousands of troops. But the Syrians say the strict measures are aimed at catching saboteurs and militants.
France, a close Lebanese ally, has criticized the Syrian border actions. U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen briefed European Union foreign ministers on the dispute Monday and urged Lebanon and Syria to end the impasse.

Lebanon's only land outlet is via its shared border with Syria, through which 60 percent of Lebanese exports pass on their way to other Arab and Gulf markets, officials say. The dispute is estimated to be costing Lebanon over $300,000 a day.
(More)

China Plays Down General's Nuclear Remarks

This is interesting. Either a Chinese general went off the reservation and spouted utter nonsense that that government is officially backing away from OR he let the cat out of the bag way too soon and said government is trying to spin this away from their actual plans. What I'm thinking is that somewhere in Beijing there sits a Dick Cheney, a Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz whom are telling President Hu Jintao that now is the time to clip the wings of the American Eagle and take their rightful place as the worlds leading superpower. However, I'm equally sure there's a lot of Chinese officials saying, "Look, let's just skip the whole war thing and make money." Gravity may be pulling China and the US together in conflict but money tends to have a strange, euphoric effect on people. Trade and development is the ecstasy of the global community as it makes everyone love one another for the expressed purpose of making more dough. Here's hoping I'm right:

Beijing has played down remarks by a senior Chinese general who warned of a nuclear response in the event of a conflict with the United States over Taiwan. The Chinese government reiterated that the military officer was expressing personal views.

Gen. Zhu Chenghu, who is also attached to China's National Defense University, was quoted as telling reporters last week that his country was determined to respond if necessary, and he referred to the resulting destruction of hundreds of cities in China and the U.S.

Zhu said at the time he was giving his own assessment, not government policy, and he also said he did not anticipate that the two countries would go to war.

The official Xinhua news agency quoted an unnamed foreign ministry official as saying Zhu's remarks were his "personal views."

Beijing's stance with regard to Taiwan was consistent and clear, he said.

"We will firmly abide by the principles of peaceful reunification ... and exert the greatest efforts to realize peaceful reunification."

(More)

US House rejects bill on arms sales to China

Editor's note: This past week has been particularly busy. I've met the woman of my dreams...unfortunately she lives four hours north of me so between visiting her, work and now a weekend jaunt to New Orleans for my friends bachelor party, my time and energy to write has gone a little off the rails. Next week I should be back on track.

However, even though I've made two trips to Tampa, one to Orlando, another to New Orleans and still managed to work 3 9 hour days, I still can find the important news of the day. Take that mainstream media! ; )

_________________________________________________

So I think I've figured out why we get along with the Saudi's so well. They talk cheap about their love of America while giving millions to jihadi's for the expressed purpose of killing Americans. We talk cheap about a war on terrorism and never letting an enemy catch us unawares while selling millions of dollars in arms to China...after they've said they're ready for war with us over Taiwan. A quick message to the business lobbies that helped torpedo this bill that would have pressured the EU against selling arms to China...you can't take your vast fortunes in blood money with you when you're dead.

Here's the story:

The US House of Representatives rejected on July 14 a bill that would have imposed penalties on European firms selling weapons and technologies to China, according to Phoenix TV.

The bill not only urges US president and the Congress to impose pressures on the European Union for it to maintain arms embargo on China, but also pushes US President Bush to keep a close eye on arms deals related to China and prohibit exports of sensitive technologies to China.

The bill, proposed by House International Relations Committee Chairman Republican Henry Hyde, aims to urge the US government to impose pressures on the European Union through legislation and to dampen the EU's idea recently that it might lift the arms ban on China. The bill also demands the Bush administration

deliver an annual report and pay close attention to the countries and firms that sell weaponry and export military technologies to China. The bill also requires the US government to enhance the control over its exports to China so as to prevent export of sensitive technology to China.

The voting shows that the bill fails to win the support of the majority and is far from the votes needed.

The opposition to the bill was mainly from US business groups including US Chamber of Commerce, Aerospace Industries Association and the Electronic Industries Alliance. Representatives from these organizations lobbied that the control over technical exports to China will incur the United States disadvantages in the trade with China, for instance, the losses of commercial orders and jobs. Such remarks that made many representatives who originally supported the bill originally change their attitude when voting. Some representatives said if the bill was passed, the losses of the United States in its practical economic interests would be heavier than in of the so-called regional security.

The increasingly strengthened economic and trade relations between China and the United States played a key role once again in the voting. Economic interests will certainly play a much more important role in the complicated relations of the two countries in the future.

China ‘ready to use N-weapons against US’

The obvious question here is whether or not this administration is now going to start taking the threat of China seriously or are we still going operate in world with blinders on. Before this gets any worse the administration and the US media better start informing the US public just what exactly is going on with the US and China.

Here's the story from the Financial Times (which I'm sure hardly anyone in America reads):

China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, according to a senior Chinese military official.

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” Zhu Chenghu, a major general in the People's Liberation Army, said at an official briefing.

Mr Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University, was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory includes warships and aircraft.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” Mr Zhu said. “We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds. . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.” Mr Zhu is a self-acknowledged “hawk” who has warned previously that China could strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.

Rick Fisher, a former senior US congressional official and an authority on the Chinese military, said the specific nature of the threat “is a new addition to China's public discourse”.

China's official doctrine has called for no first use of nuclear weapons since its first atomic test in 1964. But Mr Zhu is not the first Chinese official to refer to the possibility of using such weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan.

Chas Freeman, a former US assistant secretary of defence, said in 1999 that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a nuclear strike by the US in the event of a conflict with Taiwan.

“In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei,” Mr Freeman quoted this official as saying. The official is believed to have been Xiong Guangkai, now the PLA's deputy chief of general staff.

The rationale for the new threats is unclear. China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs could not be reached for comment.

Mr Zhu, who has risen from the rank of colonel over the past five years, insisted he was expressing his personal views, and that they did not represent the policy of the Chinese government. Nor was he anticipating war between China and the US.

But he said that, because China did not have the capability to fight a conventional war against the US, the threat to escalate might be the only way to stop a war.

His comments could provide insight into the thinking among some in the PLA amid growing anxiety in Washington about its capabilities. Last month, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, voiced concern about China's military build-up.

WorldCom Chief Is Given 25 Years for Huge Fraud

...and another one bites the dust!

Out justice system isn't perfect and often doesn't work but when it does it sure is worth it. I'll be the first one to kvetch about how the rich protect their own and all that but every now and then somebody gets sacrificed for the greater good of protecting the upper 1% American caste. I can live with that...for now.

Here's the story:

Bernard J. Ebbers, the former chairman of WorldCom, was sentenced yesterday to 25 years in prison for orchestrating a record $11 billion fraud that toppled the telecommunications company he founded.

Judge Barbara S. Jones of Federal District Court in Manhattan handed down the sentence in a packed courtroom that included former WorldCom employees and investors.

She said the penalty - the stiffest in a corporate fraud case in recent memory - was appropriate given the size and scope of the damages.

"Mr. Ebbers was the instigator in this fraud," she said during the 90-minute proceeding, rebutting arguments that Mr. Ebbers was duped by his subordinates. "Mr. Ebbers's statements deprived investors of their money. They might have made different decisions had they known the truth." (More)

Kim Jong Il Wants Nuclear-Free Korea

:::::::::::full spit take:::::::::::

SINCE WHEN?!!!!

All this man has said almost since GW became president is that he was bound and determined to become a nuclear power. N. Korea has been a proliferator of nuclear arms technology to Iran for at least the last couple of years. So if by wanting a nuclear-free Korea he means armed to the teeth with ICBM's then I guess I can take this seriously.

Here's the story:

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il told a visiting Chinese diplomat Wednesday that his country seeks a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, China's official Xinhua News Agency reported.

Xinhua also paraphrased Kim as saying that he hoped six-party international talks could be an important platform for realizing that goal. A new round of talks - involving the two Koreas, the United States, China, Russia and Japan - are expected to begin in Beijing the week of July 25.

Kim made his remarks to Chinese State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan, who is on a diplomatic mission to the North as a representative of President Hu Jintao, Xinhua said.

More younger children are having sex - survey

Rwanda...Congo...Sudan...Somalia...they've all collapsed at some point in the decade or so. South Africa may be next.

Here's the story:

10, and 17 out of 100 will deliberately spread the virus if they know they are HIV-positive.

These are the findings of a comprehensive survey by the Community Information, Empowerment and Transparency (CIET Africa) in November and December 2002.

CIET is a worldwide network of professionals from a variety of disciplines that provide technical support to communities to enable them to participate in an informed way in decisions that affect their lives.

'Explicit messages with sexual connotations are common'
The results of the study have already been used to develop life skills education materials, called "Beyond Victims and Villains", adapted to meet the standards of the revised national curriculum. The survey was published in the British Medical Journal last year.

The study involved 269 905 pupils in Grades 6 to 11 in all language groups, across a range of schools and from all nine provinces.





Some of the other disturbing findings included that, at 18, two out of every three children had had sex. Two out of 10 pupils did not believe condoms prevented pregnancy or other sexually transmitted diseases.

One in 10 said they believed sex with a virgin could cure HIV/Aids, and one in 10 had been raped in the past year. Three out of every 100 pupils thought that girls liked sexually violent boys and one out of every 10 thought that girls who got raped, asked for it, according to the study.

The study further stated people were becoming sexually active earlier and belief systems about sex supported sexually violent and sexually irresponsible behaviour.

'Often young girls become victims of rape'
"It is not surprising that 43 percent of all sexual crimes committed on children reported to Childline, were committed by children under 18," the study reported.

Despite widespread preventive interventions, reports of sexual abuse had increased. Reported incidents do not reflect the scale of the problem. CIET Africa research concluded that of every 394 offences committed, only 272 were reported.

"Only 17 of these become dockets of which five are referred to court for prosecution. One docket in every five gets 'lost' and only one conviction is secured," said the study.

Some of the reasons for not reporting rape were shame, feelings of guilt, lack of access to a reporting point, intimidation, adult gate-keeping, an emotional bond with the abuser and economic dependence.

The study also challenged myths:

Damage to the child was irreparable. Children can, in fact, heal. It is essential to acknowledge and support the child's capacity to heal and benefit from therapy and a healing environment.

Children can say "no" to abuse. This can put children at greater risk as it creates an expectation of safety. Children often cannot say "no" because the abuser is more powerful physically and psychologically. There is a universal norm of respect for an older person that most children have internalised. Older people have access to resources children may need or want and use these to manipulate the child.

Abused children will develop into adult abusers. While this is sometimes true, it was not true for the majority of victims - girls.

Public campaigns and activism, said the study, had very little impact on service provision in respect of prevention or management.

Research indicated that a secure childhood was seen as one of the most critical factors in developing mature and responsible adults. But, the study recommended that life skills education in schools focused on the inculcation of a human and child rights culture.

Life skills needed to focus on not only the pursuit of protecting and claiming a person's rights but also the protection of the rights of others, particularly the rights of those who were vulnerable.

Educational psychologist Salochani Govender supported the CIET Africa research findings. The time had arrived for South Africa to become pro-active and this had to start at home and school, she said.

Education on sexuality, HIV and Aids, creating attitudes of empowerment and growth and developing a transformational mindset were the keys to moving forward, said Govender.

The education department had life skills, sexuality and HIV programmes as well as pupil support material for supporting youth in a trained and nurturing environment in which issues could be discussed.

The Advice Desk for the Abused executive director, Fatima Bayat, said it was very disappointing and sad to note that rape and sexual assault were dominating society.

"Our youth, including young children, are sexually active."

There were numerous reasons why young people displayed inappropriate sexual behaviour patterns, said Bayat.

"Media, especially television, plays a very influential role to enhance kids' curiosity and encourages them to become sexually active. Explicit messages with sexual connotations are common.

"Often young girls, deprived of financial security and love, become victims of rape or consenting to sex for fear of rejection," said Bayat.

KwaZulu-Natal department of education spokesperson, Christy Naude, was not available for comment.

Saudi Arabia says ready to beat militants from Iraq

This post is also available at Blogger News Network.

I recently posted a comment over at Political Notio with respect to MJ's piece entitled, "A Response to Terrorism" I suggested, "

What I'd like to see is a stronger and serious lobbying effort on the part of the Western world to bring the governments of the Middle East and Central Asian nations to take a solid stand against the terrorist cells in their own nations. Whether it's Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, Pakistan or any other, the governments of those country must, for lack of a better phrase, pick a side. As rediculous as it sounds when he says, there is something to Bush's cowboy statement, "Your either with us or with the terrortists." In the case of the above mentioned countries, they must either stand before their people and declare war against the terrorists or quite frankly there's nothing anyone will be able to stop another rediculous land invasion that won't tackle the actual problem (Iran I'm looking in your direction).

By the same token, if the Arab/Muslims gov. actually pick a side (the Western one obviously) and stay there, the Western world has to do all it can to back up said governments against a large mass of people sympathetic to the terrorists cause. That of course means we end up continuing to support despots but I offer this, do we go with the devils we know, or the devils we don't know.

Frankly, given a choice I'll take the Saudi Royal family over Mullah Bin Laden at this juncture.

Arab Special Forces and Intelligence agencies need to be working hand in glove with Western Special Forces and Intelligence services. There's really no other way to do this. Full scale war is overkill and a legal investigation first takes too time much and consumes too many resources versus how much will actually get accomplished and second, it simply sends the wrong message. We are at war. There's no doubt about that. But gone are the days where nations can carpet bomb cities into the stone age while massive waves of foot soldiers lay siege to everything and everyone the bombs missed. Nations can do it militarily but nothing ends up being served. We bombed what little was left in Afghanistan after the Soviets left and the Taliban took over and then we had to rebuild the country nearly from scratch. In Iraq we tried to rebuild as we were bombing it. That tells you something right there. Total annihalation of a city isn't what it used to be.

What is called for is precision. Information needs to flow freely from the spies in the field to the Special Forces so they can respond in a time fashion. That can't happen unless we have complete cooperation from said Arab/Muslims governments. Right now such cooperation is half-assed at best and non-existent at worst."

Now It would appear that maybe, just maybe, my suggestion is starting to be followed in Saudi Arabia. According to this article, "Saudi militants returning from Iraq will be even tougher than the veterans of Afghanistan but the kingdom, which is battling a two-year wave of al Qaeda violence, is ready to defeat them, a senior minister said."

The article also states that the Saudi's have "functionally eliminated" Al Qaeda in their home country but passions still run high as does racism against the west so they must continue to be vigilant against terrorism.

There's something to be said for looking out for your own skin. If the Saudi Royal Family are starting to realize that thier best chance for survival is to work with the West instead of fueling the terrorism when we're not looking then we may have taken a major hill in this war. We shall see.

New Poll Question

My dad and I had a conversation regarding what would happen if Iran (or by proxy employing Hezbollah) were to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. My contention was that people in the US would not be willing to start WWIII by retaliating against Iran as doing so would inevitably bring Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, and Cuba instantly into the war against us. An attack by the US against Iran would most assuredly bring about "mutually assured destruction." I don't believe the majority of US citizens care enough for Israel or are savy enough to understand the greater implications of Israel suffering a nuclear attack from Iran. Thus I believe we are hamstrung if Iran ever makes it this far.

My father, in a rare display of optimism, believes that if Iran ever attack Israel the American people would absolutley support the US retaliating against Iran with our own nuclear weapons.

I decided to put our argument in your hands. The new poll question down below reads:

If there were even the slightest indication that Iran directly or indirectly (Hezbollah) initiated a nuclear attack against Israel, would that compel you to stand behind the US retaliating with our own nuclear weapons against Iran?

Vote early and vote often. And for those of you whom are compelled to leave comments, feel free to explain your reasoning or address my father (Chris) and I directly.

New Review: Sneaking Into the Flying Circus

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

National politics has not been a life and death struggle in this country since at least the 1950s and 60s. From that time on the majority of Americans could go about comfortably in their lives not knowing or caring what was happening in Washington DC. The nuts and bolts of political life were the province of high stakes Wall Street executives, the media, and of course the politicians themselves.

However, since the dawn of 24-hour cable news and the monopoly of said news stations, the public has been inundated with the background noise of life in the American political hemisphere. Alexandra Pelosi, daughter of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, HBO documentary filmmaker, and former NBC News reporter, uses her experiences covering the last two presidential campaigns to turn her blogger-esque observations into a full-length current events book. The fruits of that labor entitled, “Sneaking Into the Flying Circus: How the Media Turn Our Presidential Campaigns into Freak Shows,” is a companion journal to her second film, “Diary of a Political Tourist,” in which she followed all of the Democratic Presidential Candidates around the country with the hopes of understanding what in America makes a presidential candidate (as it turns out, there is no answer).

"Sneaking into the Flying Circus" is broken up into three sections with many mini-chapters. The First Act covers the pre-Primary season, when the candidates hit every district in Iowa and New Hampshire in the hopes of winning the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary, respectively. It has been often said, and Pelosi points this out as well, that whoever wins Iowa and New Hampshire wins the nomination. (Continued)

Blair vows terrorists won't win

Prayers to the people of London.

First, though I haven't been able to do much surfing this morning so I don't know if this definitely is the case, I would imagine there will be people voicing the argument that this attack is just desserts for England's involvment in the Iraq war along side America.

It isn't.

In our modern age, though collateral damage is still an issue, war planners try to make distinctions between "enemy combatants" and "innocent civilians." It doesn't always work out the way it's planned but the belief is sound. It is obvious, and has been for quite some time, the terrorists don't make such distinctions. Regardless of ones political dispostion or belief in the imperial designs of the Western world, blowing up 100's of commuters on their way to work is never an adequate response. This is not the way to make yourself heard.

The fact of the matter is that before we ever went into Iraq, there were Arabs/Muslims who's greatest desire was to push the Western world out of the Middle East. The fact of the matter is that there is no where to run and hide. There is no place to we can move to, to "just leave those people alone." Isolationism is dead.

Though it would certainly help if more countries moved up the developmental ladder across the globe to curb the recruitment of terrorists, the fact also remains that you will always have fanatics ready to sacrifice for a cause they believe is bigger than them. Remember Terry Schiavo? There was a mother who sent her son to bring "just a drink of water" to the departed Schiavo and that kid ended up in handcuffs. A few changes in beliefs and priority's and that kid would have been wearing a homicide bomber vest.

We cannot run from fanaticism. We cannot placate or pacify fanaticism. Osama Bin Laden and those who believe as he does are not interested in diplomacy. This is a war and today we, in London, lost a battle. The war however, goes on.

Here's the story:

Tony Blair has said terrorists will not succeed in destroying "our values and our way of life" after blasts hit London's transport network.

The prime minister said it was reasonably clear the blasts were a terrorist attack designed to coincide with the G8 summit in Gleneagles.

He said he was flying back to London to hear reports from police and emergency services face-to-face.

But the G8 summit would continue in his absence, he said in a TV address.

Mr Blair said it was "reasonably clear" terrorists were behind the blasts.

"It is important that those engaged in terrorism realise that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world," he said.

"Whatever they do, it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilised nations throughout the world."

Mr Blair said all the G8 leaders wanted the meeting to continue in his absence so "that we should continue to discuss the issues that we are discussing and reach the conclusions that we were going to reach".

"Each of the countries around that table have some experience of the effects of terrorism and all the leaders ... share our complete resolution to defeat this terrorism," he continued.

"It is particularly barbaric this has happened on a day when people are meeting to try to help the problems of poverty in Africa and the long term problems of climate change and the environment.

"Just as it's reasonably clear this is a series of terrorist attacks, it's also reasonably clear, that it is designed and meant to coincide with the G8."

BBC political editor Andrew Marr said Mr Blair was clearly extremely upset when he gave his reaction to the blasts.

Poisoning the Well With Good Intentions

This post is also available at Blogger News Network.

In America, drug addiction is the only disease we treat as an intolerable crime. Part of that comes from the unfortunate belief that drug addiction is not a disease but rather a symptomatic trait of weak and depraved people. However, most people who actually have family or friends that have suffered through drug addiction may have come to the realization that the issue is just a bit more complex than simply the province of depravity.

Despite imaging studies that have shown specific abnormalities in the brains of some, but not all, addicted individuals, plus further research that supports the assertion of addiction being a disease rather than strictly a behavior, our federal government persecutes drug addicts with zealous fervor. In addition, since the advent of the Marijuana Tax Act, our federal government has traditionally pursued an end to drug abuse in a counterproductive and often detrimental way. Historically, our lawmakers have been persuaded by personal bias and bad science than by facts and common sense.

The latest example of this comes from Fox News (you know, the conservative propaganda channel) of all places. The article states that, “An organization representing local officials said Tuesday that the White House is not paying enough attention to a growing methamphetamine epidemic.

The localities say they need more help from the federal government to combat methamphetamine, a powerful and highly addictive stimulant that has spread throughout the country through distribution from home laboratories.

Fifty-eight percent of local law enforcement agencies in a National Association of Counties (NACo) survey released Tuesday call methamphetamine their most serious drug problem. Cocaine is named the No. 1 problem by 19 percent, while marijuana is named by 17 percent.”

I think we need some historical perspective here in order to understand why the Bush administration, as well as every other since the beginning of the 20th century, has regarded marijuana to be the very worst of all known drugs despite being one of the least harmful (including tobacco and alcohol).

The first attempts to prohibit recreational marijuana use started in the Rocky Mountain and southwestern states, namely Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, and Montana. The laws, that were passed, while high minded they might have seemed at the time, were in fact passed for nefarious purposes. The laws were intended to control the migrant Mexican population of that region.

The records of the time reflect an undercurrent of racist beliefs that informed their collective decision making process. Probably the best single statement was the statement of a proponent of Texas first marijuana law. He said on the floor of the Texas Senate, and I quote, "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff (referring to marijuana) is what makes them crazy." Or, as the proponent of Montana's first marijuana law said, (and imagine this on the floor of the state legislature) and I quote, "Give one of these Mexican beet field workers a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette and he thinks he is in the bullring at Barcelona."

Shortly after these laws were passed Commissioner Harry Anslinger, of the newly named Federal Bureau of Narcotics, waged a propaganda war against marijuana that resulted in similar laws being passed throughout the Northeast. The theory was that even though they didn’t actually have much a “Mexican problem,” per se, the lawmakers though that the Yankees would simply substitute the new drug de jour, marijuana for other drugs, such as heroin, which has just been prohibited by the Harrison Narcotic Act.

The New York Times in an editorial in 1919 said, "No one here in New York uses this drug marijuana. We have only just heard about it from down in the Southwest," and here comes the substitution. "But," said the New York Times; "we had better prohibit its use before it gets here. Otherwise" -- here's the substitution concept -- "all the heroin and hard narcotics addicts cut off from their drug by the Harrison Act and all the alcohol drinkers cut off from their drug by 1919 alcohol Prohibition will substitute this new and unknown drug marijuana for the drugs they used to use."

From that point on you had the sort of “Reefer Madness” propaganda that has plagued both casual users and the medical field alike. Common sense has yet to prevail where fear and racism have built an empire. In short, we aren’t effectively dealing with addiction and furthermore we are concentrating on the less harmful drugs and letting the more harmful ones permeate further into the social strata.

That of course takes us back the aforementioned Fox article. “…the organization was critical of President Bush’s drug policy, which has focused heavily on preventing marijuana use in children and adolescents. The strategy includes widespread media campaigns against marijuana and a focus on school-based drug testing.

The administration should focus on methamphetamine “as much as they do marijuana,” Larry E. Naake, the group’s executive director, told reporters.

“We think that there now is an epidemic that needs to get their attention,” he said.

“Our message to the administration is that there is also an additional drug epidemic that is occurring in this country,” said Angelo D. Kyle, the NACo president and a county board member from Lake County, Ill.

Officials complained that the rising use of methamphetamine – also known as “meth” -- is increasingly responsible for child neglect cases and arrests for domestic violence. Overdoses with the drug, as well as poisonings and burn injuries from manufacturing labs, are putting increased pressure on rural and county hospitals, they say.

Forty percent of 303 counties in 13 states surveyed by the group reported an increase in neglected children placed outside the home by child welfare departments because of methamphetamine use.

The 2006 federal budget cuts $804 million in federal grants that localities used to police methamphetamines and other drugs. The White House budget states that the funds, called the Justice Assistance Program, “do not have a record of demonstrating results.”

“It’s causing us a tremendous problem,” Naake said of the cuts. The group wants Congress to spend more money on methamphetamine law enforcement and treatment programs for localities.”

In my professional opinion, the drug war, which was racist an ill informed from the start, needs to end. Medical professional should have complete province over whom should receive drugs, and which drugs they should be. To continue to piss money on prosecutions and seizures away is to continue to perpetuate a social and psychological disease while doing nothing substantial to curb said issue. It is a crime against every citizen no different than locking people whom have HIV/AIDS or cancer.

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Post 1)

It doesn't sound as ominous or deadly as the "Axis of Evil" or even the "Legion of Doom," but it's still going to be a thorn in the side of the US where our interests in Central Asia are concerned.

Here's the first story:

Shanghai Cooperation Organization set to curb U.S. influence in Central Asia

MOSCOW, June 29 (RIA Novosti) - The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has a new objective of curbing U.S. influence in Central Asia, a leading political scientist said Wednesday.

Vyacheslav Nikonov, president of the Polity Foundation, told a Moscow news conference that the organization, which unites Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and China, has spent the past few months creating a new image for itself and resetting its priorities. He said he believed these efforts had been prompted by the wave of "color revolutions" in the former Soviet Union and the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The ruling elites of the SCO member states and other countries of the region see these events as an alarming indication that U.S. influence in Central Asia is growing out of proportion, he said.

"The SCO is now emerging as something of an interest club," Nikonov said. "The member countries are coming to share an interest in the possible restriction of American influence in Asia."

He said the SCO was a political organization, not a military bloc, but added that the possibility of it using a peacekeeping force some time in the future could not be completely ruled out. At this point, however, the SCO members see no immediate need for mobilizing their peacekeepers and continue to use the alliance as a forum for discussing problems of security in Central Asia, he said.

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Post 2)

Here is yet another example of China's exploding influence in the world. It's certainly an interesting choice to used terrorism as the cover du jour. Something of a "turnabout is fair play" I suppose.

Here's the second story:

China takes over chair of Shanghai Cooperation Organization

ASTANA, July 5 (RIA Novosti) - China will chair the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), an expanded summit meeting of the organization resolved Tuesday. "We have agreed that the chairmanship of the SCO should be passed to China," Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev said opening the summit meeting in the Kazakh capital of Astana Tuesday. The leaders of Russia, Kazakhstan, China, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan are expected to sign a convention on regional cooperation against terrorism, separatism, and extremism. Mongolian President Nambaryn Enkhbayar is attending the summit as an observer.

The SCO leaders will also sign a resolution granting Pakistan, Iran, and India observer status in the organization, an inter-government agreement on cooperation in providing assistance in dealing with emergency situations, and an agreement on procedures to arrange and conduct combined antiterrorist operations.

The declaration that established the SCO was signed on June 15, 2001, in Shanghai. The organization is designed to promote mutual trust and friendship between the member states, and foster effective political, economic, scientific, and cultural cooperation, as well as contacts in the sphere of education, energy, transport, environment.

China, Russia issue joint communique

At face value this is a good news/bad news situation. The good news is that the communique sounds reasonable and if it can be believed, it would seem that Moscow and Beijing are moderating themselves toward a more diplomatic and developmental track than a militaristic track. The bad news is that it would appear more so than ever that Moscow and Beijing have tied their fates to one another. Furthermore, if this is just a stall until China begins it's attack on Taiwan, as I've been saying for months now, we will be facing more than just the Chinese. We will be facing a united front from both China and Russia. It will be interestign to see how Washington reacts to this news, if they react at all.

NOVOSIBIRSK, Russia: China and Russia issued a joint communique yesterday, standing shoulder to shoulder on terrorism, UN reform and the Korean Peninsula's nuclear issue.

The communique, issued at the end of President Hu Jintao's four-day visit to Russia, recognized the profound changes the world has undergone.

Although globalization and regional cooperation have brought new opportunities, traditional security problems, as well as new challenges, pose a severe threat to world peace and stability, it said.

Hailing the role of the China-Russia strategic partnership in the establishment of a new world order, the communique said the two countries are determined to work with other countries for global harmony and development.

Terrorism

The communique reiterated the two sides' commitment to fighting all forms of terrorism, and called for strengthened international co-operation and the establishment of a long-term, comprehensive anti-terror strategy under the coordination of the UN and the Security Council.

China and Russia oppose linking terrorism to particular countries, nationalities or religions.

China and Russia, both victims of terrorism, will further enhance co-operation in the fight against terrorism, it said.

UN reform

China and Russia agree that the UN has played an irreplaceable role in safeguarding world peace and security, and that efforts should be made to give the UN a bigger role in solving major international problems, the communique said.

Both sides support reform of the UN, and believe that reforms should be aimed at strengthening multilateralism, improving the world body's authority, efficiency and its ability to deal with new challenges and threats.

The two countries said reform of the UN Security Council should be based on consensus through consultation with all parties.

To avoid a split among UN members, China and Russia oppose setting a time limit for Security Council reform.

Korean peninsula

The communique also reiterated the two countries' commitment to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula and the search for a peaceful solution to the peninsula's problems through dialogue.

The two countries' also restated their support for further improvement of ties between the North and the South of the peninsula and the normalization of the North's relations with all countries concerned.

The Six-Party Talks are the best and most effective way to solve the nuclear problem on the Korean Peninsula, the communique stressed.

Central Asia, Asia-Pacific

In regard to Central Asia, the two sides expressed "full respect" of countries' rights to independently choose their own path of development.

They also pledged to deepen and expand bilateral co-operation with Central Asian countries and make unremitting efforts to promote the economic development of those countries.

They hailed the role of the Shanghai Co-operation Organization (SCO), saying it was of great significance to regional security, stability and economic development.

"The SCO has become an important factor in establishing a just and rational new international political and economic order," the communique said. The two countries are SCO members, along with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

China and Russia also pledged to work together to maintain security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and strengthen dialogue, coordination and co-operation within the framework of regional groupings such as the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The joint communique also touched on Iran, saying China and Russia firmly oppose the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and favour an early solution to Iran's nuclear problem through diplomatic means within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Karl Rove: Traitor

This post is also available at Blogger News Network.

It would appear that Karl Rove did in fact out Valerie Plame, formerly of the CIA to Matt Cooper of Time Magazine, according to Greg Mitchell of Editor & Publisher. It is illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act to reveal the identity of a CIA agent and a conviction can bring a maximum sentence of 10 years. Now I'm no lawyer nor am I prone to throw the word "traitor" around but I think this qualifies.

Here's the first article I've found on the subject:

Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Friday night, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Today, O'Donnell went further, writing a brief entry at the Huffington Post blog:

"I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's e-mails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

"McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.

"Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow." (Read More)

Reflections on "War of the Worlds"

Last night after three false starts I finally got to see, "War of the Worlds." Before I left I received a warning phone call from a friend saying that it was very blah. "Walk, don't run, to see this movie," is how he put it. The buzz going around was that it looked great but the plot was almost non-existent. It's mostly Cruise and Fanning running from the robots and one scene featuring a very eerie Tim Robbins.

When the movie was over I was visibly shaken up. Upon reflection what I realized was that I'm not nearly as over 9/11 as I thought I was. I was on the pier in Brooklyn with first tower went down and that image (and the screams around me) are still pretty fresh in my head. Watching the machines tear apart my former home (I live in Miami now) made me a bit sick to my stomach. Trauma works in mysterious ways. Just when you think you've worked through something, a fictional story about robots and aliens destroying the earth triggers memories and feelings from that horrible day.

But that's not the real problem I had with the movie as such. I was fighting back tears during the scene where Cruise and family are attacked in the van by a mob of people. Man's inhumanity to man and all that I suppose. I just felt awful watching a depiction of people devolving into animals and seeing a defenseless girl nearly get mauled by grown adults. From a cinematic or artistic point of view it was fine but I personally found it very hard to watch and I had difficulty separating myself from the fiction. I guess that particular moment in the film was a little too real for me and I I was already a little worn down from the first sequence of destruction.

As a social worker/therapist it pains me to see children of any stripe being abused. However, usually when I see a movie I can detach from reality long enough to enjoy the film. In this case I'm not sure whether or not I liked as I'm still trying to work through being quasi-retraumatized. I can say for sure that this is the first time I can recall getting sick to my stomach because of the fictional images on a screen (and not because of movie popcorn).

This is not a rip on Spielberg or the art of making movies where stuff blows up. I'm fine with that. The end of "Batman Begins" didn't make me sick to my stomach nor did any of "Revenge of the Sith" (except for the love scene dialogue between Padme and Anakin but that's a topic for a different column). As despressing as "Cinderella Man" was at times, I left the theater feeling pretty good about what I saw. "War of the Worlds" wasn't exploitive or insulting or any of that. It was a fictional story for the purposes of entertaining a summer moviegoing audience and nothing more. That's groovy and I can dig it. The problem isn't with Spielberg. The problem is me. As I stated above, trauma is a complex thing and you never know what will trigger you and what won't. All I could think about during the initial sequence with the robots destroying NY was 9/11 despite the fact that the two events were nothing alike and do not wish to make it seem like they are congruent in any way. They clearly are not and it sucks that even so, I can't seem to separate the two in my mind and soul.

This post is also available at Blogger News Network