OH Crap!
From the NY Times:
A day after New Orleans thought it had narrowly escaped the worst of Hurricane Katrina's wrath, water broke through two levees on Tuesday and virtually submerged and isolated the city, causing incalculable destruction and rendering it uninhabitable for weeks to come.
Waters engulfed much of New Orleans on Tuesday, and officials feared a steep death toll after breaches in the levees sent the muddy waters of Lake Pontchartrain pouring into the city.
With bridges washed out, highways converted into canals, and power and communications lines inoperable, government officials ordered everyone still remaining out of the city. Officials began planning for the evacuation of the Superdome, where about 10,000 refugees huddled in increasingly grim conditions as water and food were running out and rising water threatened the generators.
The situation was so dire that late in the day the Pentagon ordered five Navy ships and eight Navy maritime rescue teams to the Gulf Coast to bolster relief operations. It also planned to fly in Swift boat rescue teams from California.
As rising water and widespread devastation hobbled rescue and recovery efforts, the authorities could only guess at the death toll in New Orleans and across the Gulf Coast. In Mississippi alone, officials raised the official count of the dead to at least 100.
"It looks like Hiroshima is what it looks like," Gov. Haley Barbour said, describing parts of Harrison County, Miss.
Across the region, rescue workers were not even trying to gather up and count the dead, officials said, but pushed them aside for the time being as they tried to find the living.
As the sweep of the devastation became clear, President Bush cut short his monthlong summer vacation on Tuesday and returned to Washington, where he will meet on Wednesday with a task force established to coordinate the efforts of 14 federal agencies that will be involved in responding to the disaster.
The scope of the catastrophe caught New Orleans by surprise. A certain sense of relief that was felt on Monday afternoon, after the eye of the storm swept east of the city, proved cruelly illusory, as the authorities and residents woke up Tuesday to a more horrifying result than had been anticipated. Mayor Ray Nagin lamented that while the city had dodged the worst-case scenario on Monday. Tuesday was "the second-worst-case scenario."
It was not the water from the sky but the water that broke through the city's protective barriers that changed everything for the worse. New Orleans, with a population of nearly 500,000, is protected from the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain by levees. North of downtown, breaches in the levees sent the muddy waters of the lake pouring into the city.
Streets that were essentially dry in the hours immediately after the hurricane passed were several feet deep in water on Tuesday morning. Even downtown areas that lie on higher ground were flooded. The mayor said both city airports were underwater.
Read More
Heard at Blogtalkradio.com/whiskeyrebellion every Tuesday Night at 8:00 PM Eastern, Call In At (646) 915-8862 Intellectual Honesty is a Greater Virtue Than Party Loyalty
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Venezuelan President Offers Aid For Katrina Victims
This Post is also available at The Blogger News Network
No sooner does Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez make an overture of alleged peace and help toward his fellow man do the pundits begin railing against the man. On the radio today I heard all sorts of things like how this is Chavez using the hurricane for political opportunism and how this is all a ploy to make the big bad US look bad and yadda yadda yadda. The talking heads added that we shouldn't do business, even in a crisis such as what's afflicted New Orleans, with a pro-Castro socialist like Hugo Chavez.
To this I say, have you met the Saudi Arabians yet?
Look, New Orleans is very quickly sinking off the map and any help, whether it's from Chavez, Castro or the Prince of Darkness himself, should be readily accepted no matter what the underlying reasons are. Hell, we should be happy that any country feels compelled to lend a hand at all.
I received some calls today and I also heard on various radio programs about how we shelled out tons of dough for the Tsunami victims of SE Asia and various other disasters, but the rest of the world would be less likely or incapable of returning the favor. Well folks, other than food and shelter for the displaced citizens of the Big Easy, we also need oil. I haven't heard a peep from the Saudi's or the Russians. I got nothing from our good friends to the South, Mexico. Why not accept the helping hand of Hugo Chavez? It wouldn't be the first time we slept with the enemy. Again, need I remind you doubters about our continued relations with the French, the aforementioned Saudi's and my personal favorite, the Red Chinese.
Let us not forget that we are eternally grateful to the Russians for forbidding their Eastern European satellite nations from accepting the Marshal Plan. Lord only knows what tempest would have been unleashed if we had been taken up on offer to rebuild the countries behind the Iron Curtain. Chavez would probably be delighted if we refuse his help. He'd get great publicity and it would cost him nothing.
Beyond the terrible aftermath of Katrina and its unforeseen repercussions, it's high time we began to reconcile with Venezuela anyway. The fact that Chavez is a pro-Castro socialist and a Latin American rabble-rousing nationalist just is simply not enough to try and dismiss him. This space has posted story after story about the business deals being conducted between Caracas, Moscow, Tehran and Beijing. Every regime we ignore we ultimately push into the waiting arms of those who seek to disarm the United States.
Chavez may be making a cynical gesture by offering aid, oil and eye surgery but so what? Call his bluff, that's what I say. Make him live up to those words and then let's reassess. At the end of the day, as long as we're still married to oil, I say let's not look a gift horse in the mouth, even a cynical one such as being offered by Hugo Chavez.
Here's the story:
Caracas, Venezuela (AHN) - Last week Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez was attacking the U.S. for comments from 700 Club President, Pat Robertson, about calling for an assassination of the leader; Tuesday Chavez is offering aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
"We place at the disposition of the people of the United States in the event of shortages we have drinking water, food, we can provide fuel," Chavez tells Associated Press.
Chavez says fuel can be sent to the United States through a Citgo refinery that has not been affected by the hurricane. Citgo is owned by Venezuela's state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela. He also offers to send aid workers to the gulf coast.
Chavez made an offer last week for discount gasoline to poor Americans suffering from high oil prices and offered free eye surgery for Americans without access to health care.
Chavez is heavily criticized for his socialist/communist ties in Latin America and has had negative relations with Washington for years.
No sooner does Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez make an overture of alleged peace and help toward his fellow man do the pundits begin railing against the man. On the radio today I heard all sorts of things like how this is Chavez using the hurricane for political opportunism and how this is all a ploy to make the big bad US look bad and yadda yadda yadda. The talking heads added that we shouldn't do business, even in a crisis such as what's afflicted New Orleans, with a pro-Castro socialist like Hugo Chavez.
To this I say, have you met the Saudi Arabians yet?
Look, New Orleans is very quickly sinking off the map and any help, whether it's from Chavez, Castro or the Prince of Darkness himself, should be readily accepted no matter what the underlying reasons are. Hell, we should be happy that any country feels compelled to lend a hand at all.
I received some calls today and I also heard on various radio programs about how we shelled out tons of dough for the Tsunami victims of SE Asia and various other disasters, but the rest of the world would be less likely or incapable of returning the favor. Well folks, other than food and shelter for the displaced citizens of the Big Easy, we also need oil. I haven't heard a peep from the Saudi's or the Russians. I got nothing from our good friends to the South, Mexico. Why not accept the helping hand of Hugo Chavez? It wouldn't be the first time we slept with the enemy. Again, need I remind you doubters about our continued relations with the French, the aforementioned Saudi's and my personal favorite, the Red Chinese.
Let us not forget that we are eternally grateful to the Russians for forbidding their Eastern European satellite nations from accepting the Marshal Plan. Lord only knows what tempest would have been unleashed if we had been taken up on offer to rebuild the countries behind the Iron Curtain. Chavez would probably be delighted if we refuse his help. He'd get great publicity and it would cost him nothing.
Beyond the terrible aftermath of Katrina and its unforeseen repercussions, it's high time we began to reconcile with Venezuela anyway. The fact that Chavez is a pro-Castro socialist and a Latin American rabble-rousing nationalist just is simply not enough to try and dismiss him. This space has posted story after story about the business deals being conducted between Caracas, Moscow, Tehran and Beijing. Every regime we ignore we ultimately push into the waiting arms of those who seek to disarm the United States.
Chavez may be making a cynical gesture by offering aid, oil and eye surgery but so what? Call his bluff, that's what I say. Make him live up to those words and then let's reassess. At the end of the day, as long as we're still married to oil, I say let's not look a gift horse in the mouth, even a cynical one such as being offered by Hugo Chavez.
Here's the story:
Caracas, Venezuela (AHN) - Last week Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez was attacking the U.S. for comments from 700 Club President, Pat Robertson, about calling for an assassination of the leader; Tuesday Chavez is offering aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
"We place at the disposition of the people of the United States in the event of shortages we have drinking water, food, we can provide fuel," Chavez tells Associated Press.
Chavez says fuel can be sent to the United States through a Citgo refinery that has not been affected by the hurricane. Citgo is owned by Venezuela's state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela. He also offers to send aid workers to the gulf coast.
Chavez made an offer last week for discount gasoline to poor Americans suffering from high oil prices and offered free eye surgery for Americans without access to health care.
Chavez is heavily criticized for his socialist/communist ties in Latin America and has had negative relations with Washington for years.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Greenspan: End of home boom inevitable
This Post is also available at The Blogger News Network
This may be the most honest thing this man has uttered since becoming Federal Reserve Chairman 18 years ago (gosh, has it really been that long?). This is simple mathematics. It is no secret that the cost of living is skyrocketing (see the current oil debacle) while wages are decreasing. Everywhere you look more neighborhoods worth living in are being over-developed and gentrified so much that the average American simply cannot afford to live a moderate, middle-income life.
Many people my age (I'm 29) are either still living with their parents or are shacking up with their respective others out of sheer economics rather than actual desire. In order to pay for housing, transportation, food and clothing (without going insane on any of the above items) one has to have wages well over 35K or it becomes impossible to make ends meet. On the flip side of that, suppose you can scrape together a living that at least meets your basic needs, in order for the economy to grow and flourish, consumerism must expand exponentially. Simply put, we gots to buy stuff. It's Pet Rock-uber alles or bust!
Now when you take falling wages, shortages of jobs (no matter what Rush Limbaugh is telling you), and combine them with the rising cost of needs based resources such as housing, you can easily see where all of this going. The bubble is going to burst because reality cannot perpetrate a fraud forever. You cannot raise the cost of a needs based resource like housing so high that the average consumer cannot afford them. At some point the law of supply and demand must take effect and correct the marketplace.
This is what happened with the Internet bubble. People kept dumping oodles of cash into a market, which only served to inflate its worth. The problem was that adequate consumer spending did not back it. The demand was simply not there. At the peak of the Internet boom, the average consumer still thought Amazon was a B-grade schlock skin movie you might see on Cinemax at three in the morning. The average consumer still likes to actually go to the store and feel the item they were purchasing. Sure Internet sales have increased since then but the malls aren't exactly empty either. My point is that this market was inflated well beyond the consumer’s ability or willingness to support it.
That takes us back to housing. If we cannot afford to buy the house, we won't. When the market has too many unbought expensive (or relatively inexpensive for that matter) houses then the whole kitten caboodle will come crashing down. Not to mention that interest rates, as low as they are now, cannot stay this low forever. Markets fluctuate all the time. What comes up must go down. As long as this administration continues to push an agenda of corporate feudalism, there will never be enough consumers to support the rising housing markets.
One last item on this before I cite the article that spawned this rant. One of the other reasons that the Internet bubbled and then busted was that the much-ballyhooed Dot Com stocks were traded so fast and so furiously that they never developed any real value. It was all fake value dependant on the rate of trading. The same thing is happening in the housing market. People are buying houses and quickly turning them over for a fast profit. For the time being that's fine and dandy for those actively trading in the housing market but for the rest of us whom have our lives invested in the home we live in (like my fiancé), when the housing bubble does indeed burst, it will dramatically effect the value of the homes we live in now. After the inevitable bust, we will be shelling out ridiculous sums of money for relatively worthless property. Sure, those that got out early and already turned over their houses won't be affected but the rest of the country will most likely fall into at least a recession if not a depression altogether.
But don't just take my word for it, here's Cheaty McStealsurmoney, Mr. Alan Greenspan:
U.S. home prices could fall as the housing boom "inevitably" slows, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said on Saturday as he cast doubt on central banks' ability to sway such asset values.
Greenspan offered the warning about the U.S. housing market in concluding remarks to an annual Kansas City Fed symposium, his last as Fed chairman and one focused this year on a retrospective of his 18-year tenure.
In unusually explicit terms, the central bank chief gave his reading of challenges he sees facing his still-unknown successor and laid out his own views on issues such as inflation targeting, fiscal policy and economic imbalances.
"The housing boom will inevitably simmer down," Greenspan said in the prepared remarks. "As part of that process, house turnover will decline from currently historic levels, while home price increases will slow and prices could even decrease."
Greenspan said while he expects continuing debate over whether the Fed could and should use its power over interest rates to try to influence prices for assets such as stocks and homes, he did not think it was feasible to do so.
Read More
This may be the most honest thing this man has uttered since becoming Federal Reserve Chairman 18 years ago (gosh, has it really been that long?). This is simple mathematics. It is no secret that the cost of living is skyrocketing (see the current oil debacle) while wages are decreasing. Everywhere you look more neighborhoods worth living in are being over-developed and gentrified so much that the average American simply cannot afford to live a moderate, middle-income life.
Many people my age (I'm 29) are either still living with their parents or are shacking up with their respective others out of sheer economics rather than actual desire. In order to pay for housing, transportation, food and clothing (without going insane on any of the above items) one has to have wages well over 35K or it becomes impossible to make ends meet. On the flip side of that, suppose you can scrape together a living that at least meets your basic needs, in order for the economy to grow and flourish, consumerism must expand exponentially. Simply put, we gots to buy stuff. It's Pet Rock-uber alles or bust!
Now when you take falling wages, shortages of jobs (no matter what Rush Limbaugh is telling you), and combine them with the rising cost of needs based resources such as housing, you can easily see where all of this going. The bubble is going to burst because reality cannot perpetrate a fraud forever. You cannot raise the cost of a needs based resource like housing so high that the average consumer cannot afford them. At some point the law of supply and demand must take effect and correct the marketplace.
This is what happened with the Internet bubble. People kept dumping oodles of cash into a market, which only served to inflate its worth. The problem was that adequate consumer spending did not back it. The demand was simply not there. At the peak of the Internet boom, the average consumer still thought Amazon was a B-grade schlock skin movie you might see on Cinemax at three in the morning. The average consumer still likes to actually go to the store and feel the item they were purchasing. Sure Internet sales have increased since then but the malls aren't exactly empty either. My point is that this market was inflated well beyond the consumer’s ability or willingness to support it.
That takes us back to housing. If we cannot afford to buy the house, we won't. When the market has too many unbought expensive (or relatively inexpensive for that matter) houses then the whole kitten caboodle will come crashing down. Not to mention that interest rates, as low as they are now, cannot stay this low forever. Markets fluctuate all the time. What comes up must go down. As long as this administration continues to push an agenda of corporate feudalism, there will never be enough consumers to support the rising housing markets.
One last item on this before I cite the article that spawned this rant. One of the other reasons that the Internet bubbled and then busted was that the much-ballyhooed Dot Com stocks were traded so fast and so furiously that they never developed any real value. It was all fake value dependant on the rate of trading. The same thing is happening in the housing market. People are buying houses and quickly turning them over for a fast profit. For the time being that's fine and dandy for those actively trading in the housing market but for the rest of us whom have our lives invested in the home we live in (like my fiancé), when the housing bubble does indeed burst, it will dramatically effect the value of the homes we live in now. After the inevitable bust, we will be shelling out ridiculous sums of money for relatively worthless property. Sure, those that got out early and already turned over their houses won't be affected but the rest of the country will most likely fall into at least a recession if not a depression altogether.
But don't just take my word for it, here's Cheaty McStealsurmoney, Mr. Alan Greenspan:
U.S. home prices could fall as the housing boom "inevitably" slows, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said on Saturday as he cast doubt on central banks' ability to sway such asset values.
Greenspan offered the warning about the U.S. housing market in concluding remarks to an annual Kansas City Fed symposium, his last as Fed chairman and one focused this year on a retrospective of his 18-year tenure.
In unusually explicit terms, the central bank chief gave his reading of challenges he sees facing his still-unknown successor and laid out his own views on issues such as inflation targeting, fiscal policy and economic imbalances.
"The housing boom will inevitably simmer down," Greenspan said in the prepared remarks. "As part of that process, house turnover will decline from currently historic levels, while home price increases will slow and prices could even decrease."
Greenspan said while he expects continuing debate over whether the Fed could and should use its power over interest rates to try to influence prices for assets such as stocks and homes, he did not think it was feasible to do so.
Read More
Monday, August 29, 2005
Hit on New Orleans would likely cause gas prices to soar
First and foremost, prayers to the residents of New Orleans, greater Mississippi and Southern Alabama. May God spare you and your loved ones from this impending disaster.
A few weeks back I saw a movie on FX called "Oil Storm." It was shot in documentary style and the premise of it was that a hurricane hit NOLA, thrashing all of the Gulf offshore oil riggs. This starts the US on a course toward disaster because the price of oil skyrockets well out of the means of most average Americans. We then ink a deal with the Saudi's to increase oil imports, which causes a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda. We then send troops to secure Saudi oil fields and then they get attacked. Long story short, the US nearly goes to pieces, all because oil prices have become catastropically high. This of course was a fictional story based on the real possibility of a hurricane wrecking the Gulf oil digging facilities.
Truth is stranger than fiction. In the 4 times I've been to NOLA, I've heard each time that a good size hurricane (category 5) will most likely end the Big Easy. As if it were God's cruel joke, that day has come. I don't know if it's because of the inevitable cost in human lives or my own sentimental attachment to the city that has meant so much to my friends and fiance or if it's just the new contacts in my eyes but everytime I think about what Katrina will do to the city I love, I want to bawl my eyes out.
Don't get me wrong, my primary concern is the welfare of the residents that lie in the path of Katrina's destruction. But, to paraphrase Morgan Freeman from the movie, Deep Impact, "Tomorrow the waters will recede and we will rebuild." When this is over we as global citizens will have to come face to face with some very real and very dire circumstances. Because of zealous corporatism, lack of education and organization on the part of average Americans and plain old shortsighted greed, we in America are not prepared to deal with any significant change in our oil dependant economy. Prepare for the coming Oil Storm in the wake of Katrina.
Here's one story:
New Orleans stood dead in the path of Hurricane Katrina, but the entire nation will feel the brunt of the powerful storm if oil and gas operations in the Gulf get whacked.
Roughly 30 percent of the oil and gas consumed in the United States flows along pipelines or is hauled in on tankers and barges in the Gulf Coast.
A major hit would disrupt fuel shipments and send prices soaring even higher right before the Labor Day holiday, when more than 34 million Americans are projected to hit the road.
Gas prices already are up an average 83 cents a gallon this year. Analysts predict that fears of a Katrina shortage could drive crude oil prices, which traded at around $66 a barrel on Friday, to as high as $70 this week. Every additional $1 per barrel translates into more than 2 cents in the price of a gallon of gasoline.
Read More
A few weeks back I saw a movie on FX called "Oil Storm." It was shot in documentary style and the premise of it was that a hurricane hit NOLA, thrashing all of the Gulf offshore oil riggs. This starts the US on a course toward disaster because the price of oil skyrockets well out of the means of most average Americans. We then ink a deal with the Saudi's to increase oil imports, which causes a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda. We then send troops to secure Saudi oil fields and then they get attacked. Long story short, the US nearly goes to pieces, all because oil prices have become catastropically high. This of course was a fictional story based on the real possibility of a hurricane wrecking the Gulf oil digging facilities.
Truth is stranger than fiction. In the 4 times I've been to NOLA, I've heard each time that a good size hurricane (category 5) will most likely end the Big Easy. As if it were God's cruel joke, that day has come. I don't know if it's because of the inevitable cost in human lives or my own sentimental attachment to the city that has meant so much to my friends and fiance or if it's just the new contacts in my eyes but everytime I think about what Katrina will do to the city I love, I want to bawl my eyes out.
Don't get me wrong, my primary concern is the welfare of the residents that lie in the path of Katrina's destruction. But, to paraphrase Morgan Freeman from the movie, Deep Impact, "Tomorrow the waters will recede and we will rebuild." When this is over we as global citizens will have to come face to face with some very real and very dire circumstances. Because of zealous corporatism, lack of education and organization on the part of average Americans and plain old shortsighted greed, we in America are not prepared to deal with any significant change in our oil dependant economy. Prepare for the coming Oil Storm in the wake of Katrina.
Here's one story:
New Orleans stood dead in the path of Hurricane Katrina, but the entire nation will feel the brunt of the powerful storm if oil and gas operations in the Gulf get whacked.
Roughly 30 percent of the oil and gas consumed in the United States flows along pipelines or is hauled in on tankers and barges in the Gulf Coast.
A major hit would disrupt fuel shipments and send prices soaring even higher right before the Labor Day holiday, when more than 34 million Americans are projected to hit the road.
Gas prices already are up an average 83 cents a gallon this year. Analysts predict that fears of a Katrina shortage could drive crude oil prices, which traded at around $66 a barrel on Friday, to as high as $70 this week. Every additional $1 per barrel translates into more than 2 cents in the price of a gallon of gasoline.
Read More
Friday, August 26, 2005
New Review: The Myth of Hitler's Pope
The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:When one mentions World War II, most people think of the Holocaust because of its monumental impact on the lives of millions of people. And if one were to play a word association game with the Holocaust, people would probably offer responses such as Jews, Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, and gas chambers.
What people might not offer as a response or even think about are the actions of the Catholic Church in respect to that tragic event. They certainly wouldn’t offer as a typical response the Holy See of that era, Pope Pius XII -- sometimes referred to as Hitler’s Pope.
Rabbi David G. Dalin has written an interesting book which concerns the life of Pope Pius XII and his hotly debated role in the attempted genocide of Europe’s Jews. “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis” (Regnery Publishing), lays out two parallel arguments. The main thesis is that Pope Pius XII, born Eugenio Pacelli, condemned Nazism, Hitler, and anti-Semitism at large. This runs counter to many critics who charge that Pius condoned HItler and was a Nazi sympathizer. The second argument is broader and puts forth the reasoning that throughout history, the papacy has been a friend to the Jews when the world persecuted and murdered them.
Read More
Thursday, August 25, 2005
This is What We're Up Against Folks...
Iranian female paramilitary militias (Basiji) parade, in front of supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, unseen, in Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, Aug. 24, 2005. Khamenei said Friday Iran wants to enrich its own uranium extracted from its mine to produce fuel for its nuclear reactors and doesn't want to depend on foreign countries for nuclear fuel. (AP Photo/Mehdi Ghasemi, ISNA)
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Good Morning Vietnam
This Post is also available at The Blogger News Network
Normally I find one article to either write a brief commentary on or it inspires me to write a full article. In the case of news coming out of Vietnam today, there are a few articles of interests.
Vietnam looks to online future with e-government
"Accordingly, the government approved a request by the Ministry of Post and Telematics (MPT), the General Statistics Office (GSO) and the municipal People’s Committees of Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City and Danang to borrow $93.7 million from the World Bank to launch the e-government project. Of the total, Hanoi will have the largest loan package of $35 million, which it will use to push the project in 12 districts.
Three local state offices comprising the Departments of Information Technology, and Planning and Investment, and the People’s Committee Office, will use the loan package to promote information technology and design the municipal e-government process and basic exchange portals.
Hanoi authorities aim to offer at least three-to-five G2B (government-to-business) services including a geographic information system (GIS) and online services to at least 15 per cent of its residents, as well as encouraging 35 per cent of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to use ICT.
Under the plan, website and exchange portals will be updated at least once a week. Eighty per cent of the content will be updated automatically while around 30 per cent of administrative procedures will be addressed online..."
Who knew the city of the future would be Hanoi of all places? Considering what happened to that country 30-40 years ago, this is a remarkable story. It also lends credence to the idea that in this Information Age, the world not only becomes exceptionally smaller but also, many Third World countries are given ample opportunity to climb the development ladder as information technology spans the globe at a rate on par with light itself. I know it's not a sexy sexy story but I find this fascinating. I hope more countries will be moving to a Vietnam-style e-government. Hell I'd be happy if I could just re-order my Social Security over the Internet rather than actually have to go to the office in person.
Vietnam sets plans to boost private funding into social sectors
"Vietnam would work out comprehensive policies to boost investment from private sources into the social development of the country’s southern region, a government leader announced Aug. 23.
The most crucial way to increase private investment to develop education, healthcare, culture, and sports in South Vietnam was to establish a proper legal framework, said Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister Pham Gia Khiem.
It would include a law governing the issue and further incentive policies to boost funding from private sources to the social sectors, he said.
Deputy PM Khiem said in the time to come, incentive policies needed to be more appropriate to ensure transparency and efficiency.
“Recently, investors have vied with each other to set up private clinics, while very few built hospitals, which are a higher priority for the south,” he said, “as our policies were insufficient.”
Mr. Khiem also said it was necessary to raise awareness to the issue, and ordered the ministries of health, culture, education, and sports to draw up plans to attract private investment into their sectors."
As a social worker, I'm all over this idea. Government, for lack of a better word, sucks! If it could be done with a minimal amount of graft, I would submit that all social institutions should be privatized. I have worked for state owned agencies and private agencies that bill Medicaid and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the private agencies run much more efficiently than any government run program. This sounds great for Vietnam. I'm a huge cheerleader for any country, even a Communist one, to liberalize its economy and allow private investment. Like my uncle says, you want America to rule the world? Give everyone rock-roll and blue jeans.
and lastly:
Vietnam enters final stage of WTO talks next month
"The mid-September round of multilateral talks on Vietnam's admission to the World Trade Organization is very important and decisive for Vietnam, a deputy trade minister said Monday in Hanoi.
Vietnam is now entering the final stage of the process for joining the WTO, said Deputy Minister Luong Van Tu, who is Head of the Vietnamese Government delegation to the WTO negotiations.
The country went through ten multilateral rounds and concluded bilateral talks with 20 partners, Tu said at the opening session of a two-day seminar on the challenges facing Vietnam in its regional integration strategy.
Vietnam would not face any major obstacles in its talks with the remaining partners, Tu said, adding that the talks with the US and Australia were “going smoothly.”
The early conclusion of talks with the European Union, a major trading partner with 25 member countries, had a positive impact on Vietnam's negotiations process, he stressed.
Vietnam’s achievements in the WTO negotiations were creating momentum for Vietnam in other areas of international economic and commercial cooperation, especially the Southeast Asian free trade area.
Experts asserted that joining the WTO would give Vietnam an equal position in negotiating with other nations on trade liberalization in each region – a strongly developing trend in the world now..."
The last time I reported on this I got a bunch of hate mail regarding American POW's alleged to still be in Vietnam. Here's my thing, if they are there then a pre-requisite for joining the WTO or any trade organization that does business with the West, especially the US, should be the safe return of those soldiers with reparations. Obviously if that's not true and there are no longer any POW's in 'Nam, then let's all stop fixating on the bloody Cold War and get with the times. The world is rapidly changing due to technology that makes South East Asia our friendly neighbor to the East. There has to be investment overseas, there has to be developmental lending, there has to be job relocation to cheaper worker environments and there has to be an acceptance of new competitive markets. Vietnam is one of those places that must be accepted and it appears that the process has already begun. I applaud them for joining us in the 21st Century.
For those that don't like what I'm saying and are already preparing some labor-respective retort to counter my "Corporatist" philosophy, I suggest that before you do, read up on the Basic Income Guarantee.
In the meantime, go Vietnam!
Normally I find one article to either write a brief commentary on or it inspires me to write a full article. In the case of news coming out of Vietnam today, there are a few articles of interests.
Vietnam looks to online future with e-government
"Accordingly, the government approved a request by the Ministry of Post and Telematics (MPT), the General Statistics Office (GSO) and the municipal People’s Committees of Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City and Danang to borrow $93.7 million from the World Bank to launch the e-government project. Of the total, Hanoi will have the largest loan package of $35 million, which it will use to push the project in 12 districts.
Three local state offices comprising the Departments of Information Technology, and Planning and Investment, and the People’s Committee Office, will use the loan package to promote information technology and design the municipal e-government process and basic exchange portals.
Hanoi authorities aim to offer at least three-to-five G2B (government-to-business) services including a geographic information system (GIS) and online services to at least 15 per cent of its residents, as well as encouraging 35 per cent of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to use ICT.
Under the plan, website and exchange portals will be updated at least once a week. Eighty per cent of the content will be updated automatically while around 30 per cent of administrative procedures will be addressed online..."
Who knew the city of the future would be Hanoi of all places? Considering what happened to that country 30-40 years ago, this is a remarkable story. It also lends credence to the idea that in this Information Age, the world not only becomes exceptionally smaller but also, many Third World countries are given ample opportunity to climb the development ladder as information technology spans the globe at a rate on par with light itself. I know it's not a sexy sexy story but I find this fascinating. I hope more countries will be moving to a Vietnam-style e-government. Hell I'd be happy if I could just re-order my Social Security over the Internet rather than actually have to go to the office in person.
Vietnam sets plans to boost private funding into social sectors
"Vietnam would work out comprehensive policies to boost investment from private sources into the social development of the country’s southern region, a government leader announced Aug. 23.
The most crucial way to increase private investment to develop education, healthcare, culture, and sports in South Vietnam was to establish a proper legal framework, said Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister Pham Gia Khiem.
It would include a law governing the issue and further incentive policies to boost funding from private sources to the social sectors, he said.
Deputy PM Khiem said in the time to come, incentive policies needed to be more appropriate to ensure transparency and efficiency.
“Recently, investors have vied with each other to set up private clinics, while very few built hospitals, which are a higher priority for the south,” he said, “as our policies were insufficient.”
Mr. Khiem also said it was necessary to raise awareness to the issue, and ordered the ministries of health, culture, education, and sports to draw up plans to attract private investment into their sectors."
As a social worker, I'm all over this idea. Government, for lack of a better word, sucks! If it could be done with a minimal amount of graft, I would submit that all social institutions should be privatized. I have worked for state owned agencies and private agencies that bill Medicaid and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the private agencies run much more efficiently than any government run program. This sounds great for Vietnam. I'm a huge cheerleader for any country, even a Communist one, to liberalize its economy and allow private investment. Like my uncle says, you want America to rule the world? Give everyone rock-roll and blue jeans.
and lastly:
Vietnam enters final stage of WTO talks next month
"The mid-September round of multilateral talks on Vietnam's admission to the World Trade Organization is very important and decisive for Vietnam, a deputy trade minister said Monday in Hanoi.
Vietnam is now entering the final stage of the process for joining the WTO, said Deputy Minister Luong Van Tu, who is Head of the Vietnamese Government delegation to the WTO negotiations.
The country went through ten multilateral rounds and concluded bilateral talks with 20 partners, Tu said at the opening session of a two-day seminar on the challenges facing Vietnam in its regional integration strategy.
Vietnam would not face any major obstacles in its talks with the remaining partners, Tu said, adding that the talks with the US and Australia were “going smoothly.”
The early conclusion of talks with the European Union, a major trading partner with 25 member countries, had a positive impact on Vietnam's negotiations process, he stressed.
Vietnam’s achievements in the WTO negotiations were creating momentum for Vietnam in other areas of international economic and commercial cooperation, especially the Southeast Asian free trade area.
Experts asserted that joining the WTO would give Vietnam an equal position in negotiating with other nations on trade liberalization in each region – a strongly developing trend in the world now..."
The last time I reported on this I got a bunch of hate mail regarding American POW's alleged to still be in Vietnam. Here's my thing, if they are there then a pre-requisite for joining the WTO or any trade organization that does business with the West, especially the US, should be the safe return of those soldiers with reparations. Obviously if that's not true and there are no longer any POW's in 'Nam, then let's all stop fixating on the bloody Cold War and get with the times. The world is rapidly changing due to technology that makes South East Asia our friendly neighbor to the East. There has to be investment overseas, there has to be developmental lending, there has to be job relocation to cheaper worker environments and there has to be an acceptance of new competitive markets. Vietnam is one of those places that must be accepted and it appears that the process has already begun. I applaud them for joining us in the 21st Century.
For those that don't like what I'm saying and are already preparing some labor-respective retort to counter my "Corporatist" philosophy, I suggest that before you do, read up on the Basic Income Guarantee.
In the meantime, go Vietnam!
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Big News in China
This Post is also available at The Blogger News Network
There are two stories of interest coming out of China this week, so far. The first one comes out of the New York Times and states that, “China's biggest state-owned oil company, the China National Petroleum Corporation, announced on Monday that it would pay $4.18 billion for a Canadian oil company with shares traded in New York and substantial reserves in Kazakhstan.
It is China's largest foreign acquisition yet, and more than twice what a Chinese computer company paid for I.B.M.'s personal computer business.
China National Petroleum outbid India's state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation in reaching a deal to acquire PetroKazakhstan, and it is not clear whether the Indian company will step up with a counterbid. Still, the process underlines the growing competition for oil resources by the world's two most populous countries, each of which is rapidly increasing oil imports.”
The other story, which has been percolating for a few days now concerns the first ever joint war games between Beijing and Moscow. This is from Chinadaily.com, “Their military drills, an exercise for the suppression of hypothetical ethnic conflict in an imaginary restive Central Asian country, signifies a new Russian-Chinese cooperation that could direct the shape of regional tension and disagreement in the future. The military drills mark a new friendly phase in a bilateral relationship that has often been characterized by open hostility.
The war games map out possible responses to an imaginary state engulfed in a wave of violence fuelled by ethnic and religious strife. Under great fanfare, they have repeated the urgency to ``fight against international terrorism, separatism and extremism’ in statements aimed at Taiwan and Chechnya.”
Normally I’d be bemoaning all of this and calling for our government to be vigilant against a clearly growing threat in the world. Not today my friends, not today. If this administration has taught me anything it’s that left to our devices we cannot be trusted to do the right things in the world for the right reasons. Like in most cases, we’re at our best when we’re threatened with our entire world collapsing around us.
If competition is what drives the marketplace then said marketplace is very soon going to go into overdrive. Let's face facts here, China is a megalith that isn't going anywhere and can only get bigger. Some analysts have it that China's economy will eventually out produce more than the US'. That'd be some feat wouldn’t it?
There are those in Washington who clearly see the role of the US as an entity that gently (or rather harshly) pushes and prods the world in a direction that maximizes its own benefits. In the past, it was the USSR that stood in our way but their only real threat was MADD (mutually assured destruction) by virtue of an ICBM launched at New York. The Soviets were never an economic threat nor would they ever be.
This War on Terror has really been an opportunity to take advantage of the "Unipolar Moment" and as I've stated in this space many, many times, that moment has come and gone. China is the new USSR without the economic basket case issue. Right now the only two ways China can be knocked down a peg is if either they can't contain its HIV/AIDS issue or there's open rebellion against the totalitarian government. The world won't let the former happen and the Chinese government has plenty of tanks to stop the latter from happening.
So we're right back where we were in the 50's. The Chinese are standing on the other side of the table and they have big tickets to the right dance. Simply put, they've got the manpower and they've got the skyrocketing economy to challenge the US. Provided they don't do something phenomenally stupid and try exterminating a particular race of people (Hitler I'm looking in your direction) they will only get stronger as will their challenge to the US.
Oddly enough, I’m in favor of China challenging the US and providing the stiff economic and diplomatic competition we’ve been sorely lacking. Don’t get me wrong, I still don’t want them to invade Taiwan nor do I want them seriously threatening the US with ICBM’s, however, threat of becoming the engine that drives the world economy is a laudable endeavor. It should (but if this administration is true to form it won’t) push the US to make the right kind of changes so that its not knocked out of its place as the current engine that drives the world economy.
The US also needs “an enemy” to stop it from doing precisely what the “neo-cons” have been alleging is good policy for some time now. Without a counter-balance to stop the US from going overboard (like some say it is in the Mid-East right now). If you look at how we’ve dealt with Iraq/Iran versus how we’ve handled North Korea, the difference is fairly apparent. In the former case there’s been no major backer to seriously stand in the way of the Washington carrying out all kinds of agendas written by wonks whom owe allegiance to Israel, the oil companies or a little bit of both and then some. France and the EU have tried to be the counter-weight to the US but it’s a miserable diplomatic and economic failure. That place is just waiting for the Islamofascists and angry Africans to set the entire continent on fire. The answer here is clearly China. Only in China can there be “an enemy” worthy of saving the US from itself.
Let me reiterate that I’m all in favor of Beijing throwing its weight behind global policy issues such as the de-nuclearization of North Korea so long as that’s as far as it goes. A while back there was scuttlebutt about the Chinese building up its armed forces for a clash with the US because of the clout it was building in the world. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not wishing for a war with the Chinese nor am I rooting against my own country. What I want is a counter-weight, not a new master.
There are two stories of interest coming out of China this week, so far. The first one comes out of the New York Times and states that, “China's biggest state-owned oil company, the China National Petroleum Corporation, announced on Monday that it would pay $4.18 billion for a Canadian oil company with shares traded in New York and substantial reserves in Kazakhstan.
It is China's largest foreign acquisition yet, and more than twice what a Chinese computer company paid for I.B.M.'s personal computer business.
China National Petroleum outbid India's state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation in reaching a deal to acquire PetroKazakhstan, and it is not clear whether the Indian company will step up with a counterbid. Still, the process underlines the growing competition for oil resources by the world's two most populous countries, each of which is rapidly increasing oil imports.”
The other story, which has been percolating for a few days now concerns the first ever joint war games between Beijing and Moscow. This is from Chinadaily.com, “Their military drills, an exercise for the suppression of hypothetical ethnic conflict in an imaginary restive Central Asian country, signifies a new Russian-Chinese cooperation that could direct the shape of regional tension and disagreement in the future. The military drills mark a new friendly phase in a bilateral relationship that has often been characterized by open hostility.
The war games map out possible responses to an imaginary state engulfed in a wave of violence fuelled by ethnic and religious strife. Under great fanfare, they have repeated the urgency to ``fight against international terrorism, separatism and extremism’ in statements aimed at Taiwan and Chechnya.”
Normally I’d be bemoaning all of this and calling for our government to be vigilant against a clearly growing threat in the world. Not today my friends, not today. If this administration has taught me anything it’s that left to our devices we cannot be trusted to do the right things in the world for the right reasons. Like in most cases, we’re at our best when we’re threatened with our entire world collapsing around us.
If competition is what drives the marketplace then said marketplace is very soon going to go into overdrive. Let's face facts here, China is a megalith that isn't going anywhere and can only get bigger. Some analysts have it that China's economy will eventually out produce more than the US'. That'd be some feat wouldn’t it?
There are those in Washington who clearly see the role of the US as an entity that gently (or rather harshly) pushes and prods the world in a direction that maximizes its own benefits. In the past, it was the USSR that stood in our way but their only real threat was MADD (mutually assured destruction) by virtue of an ICBM launched at New York. The Soviets were never an economic threat nor would they ever be.
This War on Terror has really been an opportunity to take advantage of the "Unipolar Moment" and as I've stated in this space many, many times, that moment has come and gone. China is the new USSR without the economic basket case issue. Right now the only two ways China can be knocked down a peg is if either they can't contain its HIV/AIDS issue or there's open rebellion against the totalitarian government. The world won't let the former happen and the Chinese government has plenty of tanks to stop the latter from happening.
So we're right back where we were in the 50's. The Chinese are standing on the other side of the table and they have big tickets to the right dance. Simply put, they've got the manpower and they've got the skyrocketing economy to challenge the US. Provided they don't do something phenomenally stupid and try exterminating a particular race of people (Hitler I'm looking in your direction) they will only get stronger as will their challenge to the US.
Oddly enough, I’m in favor of China challenging the US and providing the stiff economic and diplomatic competition we’ve been sorely lacking. Don’t get me wrong, I still don’t want them to invade Taiwan nor do I want them seriously threatening the US with ICBM’s, however, threat of becoming the engine that drives the world economy is a laudable endeavor. It should (but if this administration is true to form it won’t) push the US to make the right kind of changes so that its not knocked out of its place as the current engine that drives the world economy.
The US also needs “an enemy” to stop it from doing precisely what the “neo-cons” have been alleging is good policy for some time now. Without a counter-balance to stop the US from going overboard (like some say it is in the Mid-East right now). If you look at how we’ve dealt with Iraq/Iran versus how we’ve handled North Korea, the difference is fairly apparent. In the former case there’s been no major backer to seriously stand in the way of the Washington carrying out all kinds of agendas written by wonks whom owe allegiance to Israel, the oil companies or a little bit of both and then some. France and the EU have tried to be the counter-weight to the US but it’s a miserable diplomatic and economic failure. That place is just waiting for the Islamofascists and angry Africans to set the entire continent on fire. The answer here is clearly China. Only in China can there be “an enemy” worthy of saving the US from itself.
Let me reiterate that I’m all in favor of Beijing throwing its weight behind global policy issues such as the de-nuclearization of North Korea so long as that’s as far as it goes. A while back there was scuttlebutt about the Chinese building up its armed forces for a clash with the US because of the clout it was building in the world. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not wishing for a war with the Chinese nor am I rooting against my own country. What I want is a counter-weight, not a new master.
Monday, August 22, 2005
This Goes Out To the One I love
Bondage Bear
Which Dysfunctional Care Bear Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
My fiance will get a kick out of this...at least it's better than having Wicket the Ewok as my Star Wars celestial sign.
Hagel: Iraq war has destabilized Mideast, resembles Vietnam
I've said before that I thought invading Iraq was a worthy endeavor but the method we've chosen to do so is lacking in several areas. I hate to say but I agree with Hagel here. Because we've decided to this thing half-assed, as we did in Vietnam (because apparently we don't learn from our mistakes...Mr. Rumsfeld I'm looking in your direction) more soldiers and more innocent Iraqi civilians will probably die. That's sad because it didn't have to be this way.
Granted, my suggestion was to make Baghdad look like Berlin at the end of World War II, which certainly would have meant more dead Iraqi's (which is terrible) but in the final analysis, that was the only way to win this thing. Trying to rebuild the country while we're still bombing it isn't really effective. I've read Bob Woodward's "Bush at War" and I realize that Bush's heart was in the right place in thinking he could protect civilians while outsting the Hussein regime but that was a fools promise. In the end war has to be a devasting, ugly thing or don't bother. Trying any other way to fight the enemy looks like Vietnam, as this does.
Here's the article from CNN:
A leading Republican senator and decorated Vietnam War veteran said Sunday the Iraq war has destabilized the Mideast and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict a generation ago.
Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.
Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the Pentagon is preparing.
"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."
Hagel said "stay the course" is not a policy. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning," he said.
President Bush was preparing separate speeches this week to reaffirm his plan to help Iraq train its security forces while its leaders build a democratic government. In his weekly Saturday radio address, Bush said the fighting there protected Americans at home.
Polls show the public growing more skeptical about Bush's handling of the war.
In Iraq, officials continued to craft a new constitution in the face of a Monday night deadline for parliamentary approval. They missed the initial deadline last week.
Other Republican senators appearing on Sunday news shows advocated remaining in Iraq until the mission set by Bush is completed, but they also noted that the public is becoming more and more concerned and needs to be reassured.
Sen. George Allen, R-Virginia, disagreed that the U.S. is losing in Iraq. He said a constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms would provide a rallying point for Iraqis.
"I think this is a very crucial time for the future of Iraq," said Allen, also on ABC. "The terrorists don't have anything to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. All they care to do is disrupt."
Hagel, who was among those who advocated sending two to three times as many troops to Iraq when the war began in March 2003, said a stronger military presence by the U.S. is not the solution today.
"We're past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," Hagel said. "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have."
Allen said that unlike the communist-guided North Vietnamese who fought the U.S., the insurgents in Iraq have no guiding political philosophy or organization. Still, Hagel argued, the similarities are growing.
"What I think the White House does not yet understand -- and some of my colleagues -- the dam has broke on this policy," Hagel said. "The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are going to come together."
The Army's top general, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, said Saturday in an interview with The Associated Press that the Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq -- well over 100,000 -- for four more years as part of preparations for a worst-case scenario.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said U.S. security is tied to success in Iraq, and he counseled people to be patient.
"The worst-case scenario is not staying four years. The worst-case scenario is leaving a dysfunctional, repressive government behind that becomes part of the problem in the war on terror and not the solution," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday."
Allen said the military would be strained at such levels in four years yet could handle that difficult assignment. Hagel described the Army contingency plan as "complete folly."
"I don't know where he's going to get these troops," Hagel said. "There won't be any National Guard left ... no Army Reserve left ... there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years."
Hagel added: "It would bog us down, it would further destabilize the Middle East, it would give Iran more influence, it would hurt Israel, it would put our allies over there in Saudi Arabia and Jordan in a terrible position. It won't be four years. We need to be out."
Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said the U.S. is winning in Iraq but has "a way to go" before it meets its goals there. Meanwhile, more needs to be done to lay out the strategy, Lott said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"I do think we, the president, all of us need to do a better job, do more," Lott said, by telling people "why we have made this commitment, what is being done now, what we do expect in the process and, yes, why it's going to take more time."
Granted, my suggestion was to make Baghdad look like Berlin at the end of World War II, which certainly would have meant more dead Iraqi's (which is terrible) but in the final analysis, that was the only way to win this thing. Trying to rebuild the country while we're still bombing it isn't really effective. I've read Bob Woodward's "Bush at War" and I realize that Bush's heart was in the right place in thinking he could protect civilians while outsting the Hussein regime but that was a fools promise. In the end war has to be a devasting, ugly thing or don't bother. Trying any other way to fight the enemy looks like Vietnam, as this does.
Here's the article from CNN:
A leading Republican senator and decorated Vietnam War veteran said Sunday the Iraq war has destabilized the Mideast and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict a generation ago.
Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.
Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the Pentagon is preparing.
"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."
Hagel said "stay the course" is not a policy. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning," he said.
President Bush was preparing separate speeches this week to reaffirm his plan to help Iraq train its security forces while its leaders build a democratic government. In his weekly Saturday radio address, Bush said the fighting there protected Americans at home.
Polls show the public growing more skeptical about Bush's handling of the war.
In Iraq, officials continued to craft a new constitution in the face of a Monday night deadline for parliamentary approval. They missed the initial deadline last week.
Other Republican senators appearing on Sunday news shows advocated remaining in Iraq until the mission set by Bush is completed, but they also noted that the public is becoming more and more concerned and needs to be reassured.
Sen. George Allen, R-Virginia, disagreed that the U.S. is losing in Iraq. He said a constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms would provide a rallying point for Iraqis.
"I think this is a very crucial time for the future of Iraq," said Allen, also on ABC. "The terrorists don't have anything to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. All they care to do is disrupt."
Hagel, who was among those who advocated sending two to three times as many troops to Iraq when the war began in March 2003, said a stronger military presence by the U.S. is not the solution today.
"We're past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," Hagel said. "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have."
Allen said that unlike the communist-guided North Vietnamese who fought the U.S., the insurgents in Iraq have no guiding political philosophy or organization. Still, Hagel argued, the similarities are growing.
"What I think the White House does not yet understand -- and some of my colleagues -- the dam has broke on this policy," Hagel said. "The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are going to come together."
The Army's top general, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, said Saturday in an interview with The Associated Press that the Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq -- well over 100,000 -- for four more years as part of preparations for a worst-case scenario.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said U.S. security is tied to success in Iraq, and he counseled people to be patient.
"The worst-case scenario is not staying four years. The worst-case scenario is leaving a dysfunctional, repressive government behind that becomes part of the problem in the war on terror and not the solution," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday."
Allen said the military would be strained at such levels in four years yet could handle that difficult assignment. Hagel described the Army contingency plan as "complete folly."
"I don't know where he's going to get these troops," Hagel said. "There won't be any National Guard left ... no Army Reserve left ... there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years."
Hagel added: "It would bog us down, it would further destabilize the Middle East, it would give Iran more influence, it would hurt Israel, it would put our allies over there in Saudi Arabia and Jordan in a terrible position. It won't be four years. We need to be out."
Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said the U.S. is winning in Iraq but has "a way to go" before it meets its goals there. Meanwhile, more needs to be done to lay out the strategy, Lott said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"I do think we, the president, all of us need to do a better job, do more," Lott said, by telling people "why we have made this commitment, what is being done now, what we do expect in the process and, yes, why it's going to take more time."
Friday, August 19, 2005
New Review: Lipstick Jihad
The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:One of the many casualties in the “War on Terror” has been the dehumanization of our Arab/Muslim/Middle Eastern brothers and sisters. From 9/11 on, the enemy has been categorically identified as Middle Eastern, and anyone who fits that description has also had to defend themselves against being draped with the albatross of “terrorist.”
Somewhere amidst the “Axis of Evil” rhetoric, many people seemed to forget that outside of the mullahs, Wahhabis, and other assorted jihadis, those who live in the Middle East are people just like us Westerners, with the same wants, needs, imperfections and rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
“Lipstick Jihad: A Memoir of Growing up Iranian in America and American in Iran,” by former Time Magazine Middle East reporter, Azadeh Moaveni, is a rare jewel that very much humanizes the aforementioned Middle Eastern people. The book is made up of equal parts memoir of Moaveni’s life both in America and in Iran, and equal parts social history of modern post-Islamic Revolution Iran. Along the way Moaveni not only introduces the reader to the finer points of modern Iran, but also introduces us to her family and friends through amusing anecdotes and poignant observations.
Read more
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Venezuela threatens to cut off oil exports to US
This Post is also available at The Blogger News Network
If you thought $2.50/gallon for the cheap stuff was bad, wait until you see what happens if Chavez makes good on his threat to cut off oil exports to the US and instead diverts oil exports to our good friends in Beijing. Let me say this, as much as I'm no fan of the Democrats on both foreign policy and social issues, I'm willing to say right now that I will vote for any person (including Hillary, God help me) that throws the entire weight of the federal government behind alternative fuel sources for transportation and tax incentives for the creation of more, cheaper, hybrid cars.
Do you hear me Washington? I'm now a one issue voter. Anyone whom is sincere in fixing the damn energy problem in the country without being completely beholden to "Big Oil" gets my vote. Now I don't think anyone will actually do it but since I keep getting called out for holding the Republicans water, let me reiterate my position here and now. I think that especially when it comes to our energy and border policies, the Bush administration is near treasonous. It's not incompetency, they are actively working against sane and conservative policies regarding both issues. If ignoring or actively working against solving both of those issues is an impeachable offense then by golly, I'll sign the petition to get it done.
Let me make myself perfectly clear, when it comes to oil and border security, George W. Bush is a monumental disgrace. But don't just take my word for it, here's leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez:
Venezuela has warned it could cut off oil exports to the US if provocations by Washington continue.
In an interview on state-run channel Venezolana de Television, Venezuelan Energy and Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez said on Tuesday that a possible boycott of petroleum exports to the US would affect Venezuela, but that would be "the price to pay" to uphold national sovereignty.
"We are willing to do it and ready to defend our rights," he said.
Venezuela, with the world's fifth-largest oil exports, has recently made overtures to China, amid continuing tensions between the US and the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Ramirez said that exports to the US could be diverted to the rapidly expanding Chinese economy. He said 14 fuel cargo ships with a capacity of two million barrels of petroleum went to China last year.
He added that Venezuela would have no problem placing the extra oil on international markets because "the world is avid" for the carbon-based fuels.
Venezuela exports 1.5 million barrels of petroleum and refined products daily to the US.
In recent weeks, the war of words has increased between US President George W Bush's administration and Chavez, a leftwing populist who has forged close relations with Cuba's communist regime.
Last week, Chavez suspended cooperation with the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) after accusing the US of spying on the Venezuelan government.
Chavez has taken to calling Bush "Mr Danger" and describing the Bush administration as the biggest threat to world security.
If you thought $2.50/gallon for the cheap stuff was bad, wait until you see what happens if Chavez makes good on his threat to cut off oil exports to the US and instead diverts oil exports to our good friends in Beijing. Let me say this, as much as I'm no fan of the Democrats on both foreign policy and social issues, I'm willing to say right now that I will vote for any person (including Hillary, God help me) that throws the entire weight of the federal government behind alternative fuel sources for transportation and tax incentives for the creation of more, cheaper, hybrid cars.
Do you hear me Washington? I'm now a one issue voter. Anyone whom is sincere in fixing the damn energy problem in the country without being completely beholden to "Big Oil" gets my vote. Now I don't think anyone will actually do it but since I keep getting called out for holding the Republicans water, let me reiterate my position here and now. I think that especially when it comes to our energy and border policies, the Bush administration is near treasonous. It's not incompetency, they are actively working against sane and conservative policies regarding both issues. If ignoring or actively working against solving both of those issues is an impeachable offense then by golly, I'll sign the petition to get it done.
Let me make myself perfectly clear, when it comes to oil and border security, George W. Bush is a monumental disgrace. But don't just take my word for it, here's leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez:
Venezuela has warned it could cut off oil exports to the US if provocations by Washington continue.
In an interview on state-run channel Venezolana de Television, Venezuelan Energy and Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez said on Tuesday that a possible boycott of petroleum exports to the US would affect Venezuela, but that would be "the price to pay" to uphold national sovereignty.
"We are willing to do it and ready to defend our rights," he said.
Venezuela, with the world's fifth-largest oil exports, has recently made overtures to China, amid continuing tensions between the US and the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Ramirez said that exports to the US could be diverted to the rapidly expanding Chinese economy. He said 14 fuel cargo ships with a capacity of two million barrels of petroleum went to China last year.
He added that Venezuela would have no problem placing the extra oil on international markets because "the world is avid" for the carbon-based fuels.
Venezuela exports 1.5 million barrels of petroleum and refined products daily to the US.
In recent weeks, the war of words has increased between US President George W Bush's administration and Chavez, a leftwing populist who has forged close relations with Cuba's communist regime.
Last week, Chavez suspended cooperation with the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) after accusing the US of spying on the Venezuelan government.
Chavez has taken to calling Bush "Mr Danger" and describing the Bush administration as the biggest threat to world security.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
'Able Danger' Barred From Informing FBI
Thanks to one of my regular commentors, Ottman, for this scoop:
An Army intelligence officer says his unit was blocked in 2000 and 2001 from giving the FBI information about a U.S.-based terrorist cell that included Mohamed Atta, the future leader of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer said the small intelligence unit, called ``Able Danger,'' had identified Atta and three of the other future Sept. 11 hijackers as al-Qaida members by mid-2000. He said military lawyers stopped the unit from sharing the information with the FBI.
The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks left the Able Danger claims out of its official report.
In an interview with Fox News Channel and The New York Times, Shaffer said the panel was not given all the information his team had gathered.
``I'm told confidently by the person who did move the material over that the 9/11 commission received two briefcase-size containers of documents,'' Shaffer said in the interview, part of which was aired by Fox News Tuesday night. ``I can tell you for a fact that would not be ... one-20th of the information that Able Danger consisted of during the time we spent.''
Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, has said the Sept. 11 commission did not adequately investigate the claim that four of the hijackers had been identified more than a year before the attacks.
Former commission chairman Thomas Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton said last week that the military official who made the claim had no documentation to back it up.
Shaffer rejected that remark. ``Leaving a project targeting al-Qaida as a global threat a year before we were attacked by al-Qaida is equivalent to having an investigation of Pearl Harbor and leaving somehow out the Japanese,'' he said.
An Army intelligence officer says his unit was blocked in 2000 and 2001 from giving the FBI information about a U.S.-based terrorist cell that included Mohamed Atta, the future leader of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer said the small intelligence unit, called ``Able Danger,'' had identified Atta and three of the other future Sept. 11 hijackers as al-Qaida members by mid-2000. He said military lawyers stopped the unit from sharing the information with the FBI.
The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks left the Able Danger claims out of its official report.
In an interview with Fox News Channel and The New York Times, Shaffer said the panel was not given all the information his team had gathered.
``I'm told confidently by the person who did move the material over that the 9/11 commission received two briefcase-size containers of documents,'' Shaffer said in the interview, part of which was aired by Fox News Tuesday night. ``I can tell you for a fact that would not be ... one-20th of the information that Able Danger consisted of during the time we spent.''
Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, has said the Sept. 11 commission did not adequately investigate the claim that four of the hijackers had been identified more than a year before the attacks.
Former commission chairman Thomas Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton said last week that the military official who made the claim had no documentation to back it up.
Shaffer rejected that remark. ``Leaving a project targeting al-Qaida as a global threat a year before we were attacked by al-Qaida is equivalent to having an investigation of Pearl Harbor and leaving somehow out the Japanese,'' he said.
US, Brazil, India and Russia must back UN moves against genocide
While I am not prone to lambasting my country for the horrible things it does around the world, preferring to instead keep all events in context, there are some instances in which I am overcome with shame. The following article states that the US, among other countries is actually blocking or seeking to water down a proposal by the UN to protect civilians against future instances of societal collapse leading to genocide. I don't think I need to point out the hypocrisy in spewing a bunch of rhetoric regarding freedom and democracy and then seeking to block a measure calling for the protection of civilians (genocide tends to do a good job in preventing freedom and democracy). I don't even know where to begin so here's the article in its entirety:
With one month to go until the UN summit in New York, the US, Brazil, India and Russia have been called upon to back a new agreement designed to stop genocides like Rwanda from ever happening again.
International agency Oxfam has named these powerful countries as they are currently lukewarm to - or are actively blocking - new measures designed to stop atrocities like genocide from taking place. The reforms will be discussed at the UN Summit in New York in exactly one month's time. Other countries seeking to block the measures include Syria, Iran, Cuba, Pakistan, Eqypt and Algeria.
Oxfam is pushing for a strong agreement on the responsibility of states to protect civilians from large-scale atrocities such as genocide and ethnic cleansing. If agreed this would establish a new standard and oblige the international community to act were there to be another Rwanda or a similar mass murder of civilians where the government was unwilling or unable to do anything to stop the bloodshed. The Rwandan government, supported by dozens of others around the world, has led the calls for a strong agreement but those opposing it are refusing to back down.
“It is hard to overstate how important this is. In one months time the biggest meeting of world leaders in history could endorse a new standard which could help stop a future Rwanda from happening. Today we've taken the step of exposing the governments blocking the agreement so people around the world can call on them to change their minds. We urge these governments to urgently reconsider their position and agree to protect civilians from mass murder and atrocities. The international community must never again allow genocide or mass murder to go unchecked,” said Nicola Reindorp, Head of Oxfam in New York.
India, Brazil and Russia are currently actively opposing strong language on the responsibility to protect civilians. Oxfam is also concerned that the US government, although supporting the ‘responsibility to protect' in principle is currently pushing a watered down proposal.
By contrast key governments supporting the call for strong language include Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Nigeria, Kenya, Chile, Peru, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Canada and the EU.
The current draft outcome document states that the UN has a ‘shared responsibility to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner,' to, ‘help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.' However opposition from the blockers could still dilute the commitment rendering it meaningless.
“This is a moral issue of huge importance and will establish a new standard that could help save millions of lives. Those supporting the responsibility of states to protect civilians must stick to their principles and those opposing it must think again. Brazil, India, Russia and the US must play their part in helping to stop the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians,” added Reindorp.
Contact
For further information contact:
UK: Brendan Cox on cell: + 44 7957 120 853
US: Laura Rusu on + 1 202 496 3620 or cell: + 1 202 459 3739
The current draft wording on the ‘responsibility to protect is below':
* 118. We agree that the protection of populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity lies first and foremost with each individual State. We also agree that this responsibility to protect entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement. We accept this responsibility and agree to act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the efforts of the United Nations to establish an early-warning capability. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the obligation to use diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, including under Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we recognize our shared responsibility to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and in co-operation with relevant regional organizations, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities be unwilling or unable to protect their populations. We stress the need to continue consideration of the concept of the responsibility to protect within the sixtieth session of the General Assembly.
* 119. We invite the permanent members of the Security Council to refrain from using the veto in cases of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
* 120. We support the implementation of the United Nations Action Plan to Prevent Genocide and the work of the Secretariat to this end.
http://www.oxfam.org
With one month to go until the UN summit in New York, the US, Brazil, India and Russia have been called upon to back a new agreement designed to stop genocides like Rwanda from ever happening again.
International agency Oxfam has named these powerful countries as they are currently lukewarm to - or are actively blocking - new measures designed to stop atrocities like genocide from taking place. The reforms will be discussed at the UN Summit in New York in exactly one month's time. Other countries seeking to block the measures include Syria, Iran, Cuba, Pakistan, Eqypt and Algeria.
Oxfam is pushing for a strong agreement on the responsibility of states to protect civilians from large-scale atrocities such as genocide and ethnic cleansing. If agreed this would establish a new standard and oblige the international community to act were there to be another Rwanda or a similar mass murder of civilians where the government was unwilling or unable to do anything to stop the bloodshed. The Rwandan government, supported by dozens of others around the world, has led the calls for a strong agreement but those opposing it are refusing to back down.
“It is hard to overstate how important this is. In one months time the biggest meeting of world leaders in history could endorse a new standard which could help stop a future Rwanda from happening. Today we've taken the step of exposing the governments blocking the agreement so people around the world can call on them to change their minds. We urge these governments to urgently reconsider their position and agree to protect civilians from mass murder and atrocities. The international community must never again allow genocide or mass murder to go unchecked,” said Nicola Reindorp, Head of Oxfam in New York.
India, Brazil and Russia are currently actively opposing strong language on the responsibility to protect civilians. Oxfam is also concerned that the US government, although supporting the ‘responsibility to protect' in principle is currently pushing a watered down proposal.
By contrast key governments supporting the call for strong language include Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Nigeria, Kenya, Chile, Peru, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Canada and the EU.
The current draft outcome document states that the UN has a ‘shared responsibility to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner,' to, ‘help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.' However opposition from the blockers could still dilute the commitment rendering it meaningless.
“This is a moral issue of huge importance and will establish a new standard that could help save millions of lives. Those supporting the responsibility of states to protect civilians must stick to their principles and those opposing it must think again. Brazil, India, Russia and the US must play their part in helping to stop the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians,” added Reindorp.
Contact
For further information contact:
UK: Brendan Cox on cell: + 44 7957 120 853
US: Laura Rusu on + 1 202 496 3620 or cell: + 1 202 459 3739
The current draft wording on the ‘responsibility to protect is below':
* 118. We agree that the protection of populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity lies first and foremost with each individual State. We also agree that this responsibility to protect entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement. We accept this responsibility and agree to act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the efforts of the United Nations to establish an early-warning capability. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the obligation to use diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, including under Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we recognize our shared responsibility to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and in co-operation with relevant regional organizations, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities be unwilling or unable to protect their populations. We stress the need to continue consideration of the concept of the responsibility to protect within the sixtieth session of the General Assembly.
* 119. We invite the permanent members of the Security Council to refrain from using the veto in cases of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
* 120. We support the implementation of the United Nations Action Plan to Prevent Genocide and the work of the Secretariat to this end.
http://www.oxfam.org
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Art of the Protest
This Post is also available at The Blogger News Network
The Cindy Sheehan brouhaha has alarmingly similar elements to the Terry Schiavo fiasco. At first I didn’t want to talk about either one. I figure if the media is going to beat a story to death there’s a good bet that there’s real news elsewhere if you look hard enough for it. What happened with Schiavo that made me bother to pay attention is when is “jumped the shark” sort of speak and became this ridiculous political issue that it didn’t have to be. When congress is convening emergency sessions to pass a law over one woman and yet can’t get a comprehensive energy or border policy together, I feel compelled to throw my two cents in. It would appear that something equally stupid has occurred in the non-news story of the grieving mother, Mrs. Cindy Sheehan.
First, anyone who has lost a loved one in the Iraq War or any other military intervention has my most heartfelt sympathy and condolences. The untimely death of a family member, especially ones child, is especially sad, no matter what the circumstances are. With respect to her son’s passing in combat, I understand where her grief and anger are coming from and if that were the extent of it, I wouldn’t be writing this column.
However, this whole episode where she’s decided to confront President Bush, again, over her sons death stopped being about her grief almost from the moment of it’s inception. Granted, I’m no mind reader but I believe the following exchange from MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olberman” on August 13th, is very telling of this woman’s true intent to date:
OLBERMANN: The nature of the media coverage you're getting now, the response from other families of soldiers killed in Iraq, all of that, from the perspective of your protest there, in a way, isn't it really better if President Bush doesn't meet with you?
SHEEHAN: I would think so, yes. I think it's great. And if he would come out right now, it would really defuse the momentum, and I don't want to give them any hints. And I think that's something they've probably already thought about.
But, you know, but we're here. We're committed. We're staying the whole month of August, and then we're moving to Washington, D.C. And we're going to have a 24-hour vigil on his front lawn to keep the pressure on. The pressure is there. Sixty-two percent of Americans want our troops home. And this is giving them a voice to stand up and be counted and say, You know, we want our country back, and we want our troops home.
Wouldn’t it be better if Bush didn’t meet with you? If her purpose was to go down there and confront him to try and put some closure on a terribly tragic event then her answer is absolutely inconsistent with her stated intent. At the beginning of the interview she states, “I don't want the President's sympathy. You know, I want to talk to him, and I want answers to my questions. And I want him to tell me the noble cause that my son died for. And I want him to stop using my son's name and the name of the other lost loved ones and Gold Star Families for Peace. We want him to stop using our children's name to justify the continued killing.”
No, apparently you don’t really want that madam. It would appear that she is using the circumstances of her son’s death to make a political statement. It’s kind of macabre for her to play to the part of a grieving mother and then hide behind that character in order for her to have bullet proof cover while make statements like this from her August 8, 2005, address to the Veterans For Peace Convention, “Then we have this lying bastard, George Bush, taking a 5-week vacation in a time of war. You know what? I'm never going to get to enjoy another vacation, because of him… But do you think George Bush will interrupt his vacation and go visit the families of those 20 marines that have died in Ohio this week? No, because he doesn't care, he doesn't have a heart. That's not enough to stop his little playing cowboy' game in Crawford for 5 weeks… So anyway that filth-spewer and warmonger, George Bush was speaking after the tragedy of the marines in Ohio, he said a couple things that outraged me,” and it goes on and on like that.
This reminds of me of someone saying nasty things over the Internet in an AOL chat-room because they know the target of their written wrath can’t really harm them. Look at how this debate has already broken down. All of the leftwing press and talking heads fixate on this poor grieving mother without providing any other context besides that she’s a grieving mother and therefore due some special treatment by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. When someone from the right criticizes her, it’s automatically a smear. In my opinion, that not only makes her fraud, it makes her coward as well.
If she were being honest she would be in Crawford stating forthright that she is there to protest the war, despite her sons death, not because of it. She’d have all my respect in the world if she were honest enough to say that this is solely about her hatred of Bush and the Iraq War and that her son’s part in it was circumstantial. Instead she’s hiding behind a well-crafted grieving mask.
Protest is a fine thing. I’ve been to a few myself in my younger days. What I’ve learned is that making a loud statement is good but in the end you want people to take you seriously so that they’ll actually implement the changes you are suggesting. That begins with intellectual honesty. Don’t tell me you are here for one thing and then demand something else. Sheehan says in one breath that she just wants answers about why we’re in Iraq and then in the next goes on about demanding the troops come home now. That’s inconsistency at it’s best, in my opinion.
My one wish is that the left in this country would learn that punk-attitude isn’t enough to make significant change in the world. Being a snot-nosed, obnoxious protester doesn’t garner interest from any important people. It just looks nice on TV. Instead, if you insist on throwing tantrums, like the one in Crawford or the equally absurd WTO/Anti-Globalization protests, then you’ve just given the audience whom you are trying to convince permission to just dismiss you like the children you are (or behaving like).
Again, I’m sorry for Mrs. Sheehan but I cannot take her seriously when she cannot remain consistent in her own universe.
The Cindy Sheehan brouhaha has alarmingly similar elements to the Terry Schiavo fiasco. At first I didn’t want to talk about either one. I figure if the media is going to beat a story to death there’s a good bet that there’s real news elsewhere if you look hard enough for it. What happened with Schiavo that made me bother to pay attention is when is “jumped the shark” sort of speak and became this ridiculous political issue that it didn’t have to be. When congress is convening emergency sessions to pass a law over one woman and yet can’t get a comprehensive energy or border policy together, I feel compelled to throw my two cents in. It would appear that something equally stupid has occurred in the non-news story of the grieving mother, Mrs. Cindy Sheehan.
First, anyone who has lost a loved one in the Iraq War or any other military intervention has my most heartfelt sympathy and condolences. The untimely death of a family member, especially ones child, is especially sad, no matter what the circumstances are. With respect to her son’s passing in combat, I understand where her grief and anger are coming from and if that were the extent of it, I wouldn’t be writing this column.
However, this whole episode where she’s decided to confront President Bush, again, over her sons death stopped being about her grief almost from the moment of it’s inception. Granted, I’m no mind reader but I believe the following exchange from MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olberman” on August 13th, is very telling of this woman’s true intent to date:
OLBERMANN: The nature of the media coverage you're getting now, the response from other families of soldiers killed in Iraq, all of that, from the perspective of your protest there, in a way, isn't it really better if President Bush doesn't meet with you?
SHEEHAN: I would think so, yes. I think it's great. And if he would come out right now, it would really defuse the momentum, and I don't want to give them any hints. And I think that's something they've probably already thought about.
But, you know, but we're here. We're committed. We're staying the whole month of August, and then we're moving to Washington, D.C. And we're going to have a 24-hour vigil on his front lawn to keep the pressure on. The pressure is there. Sixty-two percent of Americans want our troops home. And this is giving them a voice to stand up and be counted and say, You know, we want our country back, and we want our troops home.
Wouldn’t it be better if Bush didn’t meet with you? If her purpose was to go down there and confront him to try and put some closure on a terribly tragic event then her answer is absolutely inconsistent with her stated intent. At the beginning of the interview she states, “I don't want the President's sympathy. You know, I want to talk to him, and I want answers to my questions. And I want him to tell me the noble cause that my son died for. And I want him to stop using my son's name and the name of the other lost loved ones and Gold Star Families for Peace. We want him to stop using our children's name to justify the continued killing.”
No, apparently you don’t really want that madam. It would appear that she is using the circumstances of her son’s death to make a political statement. It’s kind of macabre for her to play to the part of a grieving mother and then hide behind that character in order for her to have bullet proof cover while make statements like this from her August 8, 2005, address to the Veterans For Peace Convention, “Then we have this lying bastard, George Bush, taking a 5-week vacation in a time of war. You know what? I'm never going to get to enjoy another vacation, because of him… But do you think George Bush will interrupt his vacation and go visit the families of those 20 marines that have died in Ohio this week? No, because he doesn't care, he doesn't have a heart. That's not enough to stop his little playing cowboy' game in Crawford for 5 weeks… So anyway that filth-spewer and warmonger, George Bush was speaking after the tragedy of the marines in Ohio, he said a couple things that outraged me,” and it goes on and on like that.
This reminds of me of someone saying nasty things over the Internet in an AOL chat-room because they know the target of their written wrath can’t really harm them. Look at how this debate has already broken down. All of the leftwing press and talking heads fixate on this poor grieving mother without providing any other context besides that she’s a grieving mother and therefore due some special treatment by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. When someone from the right criticizes her, it’s automatically a smear. In my opinion, that not only makes her fraud, it makes her coward as well.
If she were being honest she would be in Crawford stating forthright that she is there to protest the war, despite her sons death, not because of it. She’d have all my respect in the world if she were honest enough to say that this is solely about her hatred of Bush and the Iraq War and that her son’s part in it was circumstantial. Instead she’s hiding behind a well-crafted grieving mask.
Protest is a fine thing. I’ve been to a few myself in my younger days. What I’ve learned is that making a loud statement is good but in the end you want people to take you seriously so that they’ll actually implement the changes you are suggesting. That begins with intellectual honesty. Don’t tell me you are here for one thing and then demand something else. Sheehan says in one breath that she just wants answers about why we’re in Iraq and then in the next goes on about demanding the troops come home now. That’s inconsistency at it’s best, in my opinion.
My one wish is that the left in this country would learn that punk-attitude isn’t enough to make significant change in the world. Being a snot-nosed, obnoxious protester doesn’t garner interest from any important people. It just looks nice on TV. Instead, if you insist on throwing tantrums, like the one in Crawford or the equally absurd WTO/Anti-Globalization protests, then you’ve just given the audience whom you are trying to convince permission to just dismiss you like the children you are (or behaving like).
Again, I’m sorry for Mrs. Sheehan but I cannot take her seriously when she cannot remain consistent in her own universe.
Monday, August 15, 2005
Iran wages undeclared war against coalition
I have been jumping up and down for months now about how we are at secretly at war with Iran and it's only a matter of time before the secret is out. As I've posted in the past, Scott Ritter seems to think as I do. To be sure, what I'd like to see happen is that well before the mullahs ever get their hands on a nuclear weapon, the people of Iran overthrow the Islamic regime and approximate a secular government in short order. I would hope that this could be done with little to no Western influence unless explicitly called for by the Iranian reformists themselves. What I'm trying to avoid by beating these sorts of stories to death is a full-scale war against the mullah regime because inevitably, more innocent Iranian civilians will die than Islamic fundamentalists. If we're attacked that's one thing and it would be a horrible but unavoidable tragedy for us to level Tehran. My hope is that if I and others beat the drum continuously and loud enough, we can stop Iran from becoming the next Iraq.
However, the mullahs don't make that prospect very likely. There have been a litany of sources that cite the mullahs as having a solid hand in the wreaking havoc throughout Iraq. They have been cited, along with the Saudi's, in inciting the insurgency and generally prolonging the entire rebuilding process. The following article is yet another piece of evidence that shows Tehran clearly poking at America to see if we'll bite back. It's obvious this thing with Iran is going to come to some sort of head because it's clear that overt confrontation, on their terms is exactly what the mullahs want. For their part, I'm certain that there are those in Washington that equally want direct confrontation with Tehran and are chomping at the bit for the next adventure.
As usual, I will continue to beat the drums and do my part to stop that from happening, for what it is worth.
Here's the article:
At least nine British soldiers have been murdered in Iraq by terrorists working for the radical Islamic regime in neighbouring Iran, it was reported last night.
US and British military intelligence officers told Time magazine that the three British troops killed in Amarah last month were among the victims of the undeclared war between Iran and the West.
"One suspects this would have to have a higher degree of approval [in Teheran]," a senior American officer told the weekly.
A British officer expressed astonishment at the reluctance to confront Iranian interference in Iraq.
"It's as though we are sleepwalking," he was quoted as saying.
The allegations will aggravate tension between the western allies and Iran still further. The two sides are already at loggerheads over Iran's shadowy nuclear programme and fears that it is trying to develop atomic weapons.
The British dead in Amarah, 2nd Lieut Richard Shearer, 26, Pte Leon Spicer, 26, and Pte Phillip Hewett, 21, of 1st Bn, Staffordshire Regiment, were killed by a sophisticated roadside bomb.
According to a leaked military intelligence paper, the men were victims of a hitherto unknown Iranian-controlled terrorist group led by a man called Abu Mustafa al-Sheibani
He is described as the leader of a 270-man organisation established by Iran's radical Revolutionary Guard to kill coalition troops in Iraq.
Soon after the Anglo-US invasion two years ago Teheran despatched up to 12,000 men organised under the banner of the Badr brigade into Iraq and arranged support for other armed groups, western intelligence believes.
One was allegedly a cell of the Mujahedin for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, linked to the Revolutionary Guard.
A British military intelligence paper seen by Time suggested that this group could have been behind the mob attack on a Royal Military Police post in Majarr al-Kabir in June 2003 in which six RMP soldiers were murdered.
Of most concern to coalition intelligence officers is the growing relationship between Teheran and the new Iraqi government of Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
The level of distrust was revealed in the statement of one western diplomat, who told the magazine: "We have to think that anything we tell or share with the Iraqi government ends up in Teheran."
However, the mullahs don't make that prospect very likely. There have been a litany of sources that cite the mullahs as having a solid hand in the wreaking havoc throughout Iraq. They have been cited, along with the Saudi's, in inciting the insurgency and generally prolonging the entire rebuilding process. The following article is yet another piece of evidence that shows Tehran clearly poking at America to see if we'll bite back. It's obvious this thing with Iran is going to come to some sort of head because it's clear that overt confrontation, on their terms is exactly what the mullahs want. For their part, I'm certain that there are those in Washington that equally want direct confrontation with Tehran and are chomping at the bit for the next adventure.
As usual, I will continue to beat the drums and do my part to stop that from happening, for what it is worth.
Here's the article:
At least nine British soldiers have been murdered in Iraq by terrorists working for the radical Islamic regime in neighbouring Iran, it was reported last night.
US and British military intelligence officers told Time magazine that the three British troops killed in Amarah last month were among the victims of the undeclared war between Iran and the West.
"One suspects this would have to have a higher degree of approval [in Teheran]," a senior American officer told the weekly.
A British officer expressed astonishment at the reluctance to confront Iranian interference in Iraq.
"It's as though we are sleepwalking," he was quoted as saying.
The allegations will aggravate tension between the western allies and Iran still further. The two sides are already at loggerheads over Iran's shadowy nuclear programme and fears that it is trying to develop atomic weapons.
The British dead in Amarah, 2nd Lieut Richard Shearer, 26, Pte Leon Spicer, 26, and Pte Phillip Hewett, 21, of 1st Bn, Staffordshire Regiment, were killed by a sophisticated roadside bomb.
According to a leaked military intelligence paper, the men were victims of a hitherto unknown Iranian-controlled terrorist group led by a man called Abu Mustafa al-Sheibani
He is described as the leader of a 270-man organisation established by Iran's radical Revolutionary Guard to kill coalition troops in Iraq.
Soon after the Anglo-US invasion two years ago Teheran despatched up to 12,000 men organised under the banner of the Badr brigade into Iraq and arranged support for other armed groups, western intelligence believes.
One was allegedly a cell of the Mujahedin for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, linked to the Revolutionary Guard.
A British military intelligence paper seen by Time suggested that this group could have been behind the mob attack on a Royal Military Police post in Majarr al-Kabir in June 2003 in which six RMP soldiers were murdered.
Of most concern to coalition intelligence officers is the growing relationship between Teheran and the new Iraqi government of Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
The level of distrust was revealed in the statement of one western diplomat, who told the magazine: "We have to think that anything we tell or share with the Iraqi government ends up in Teheran."
Friday, August 12, 2005
New Review: The End of Blackness
The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:Race is one of the trickiest subjects to discuss in mixed company today in America. It’s hard enough for two people of the same race to have a frank discussion about a complex topic; trying to accomplish this feat with people of different races without the conversation devolving into something out of a daytime trash talk show is a monumentally difficult task.
Taking on this challenge is lawyer and journalist Debra J. Dickerson, who has written an important and profound book, “The End of Blackness: Returning the Souls of Black Folk to Their Rightful Owners.” This 2004 publication will remain a timeless polemic as long as our schizophrenic debate about the meaning of race defines American discourse. Her main thesis is simply that in order for black Americans to come up and truly take their place as full citizens in both mind and deed, they must forgive whites for slavery and Jim Crow, rather than wait for perpetual repentance and apologies. She contends that whites have done all they are going to do as far as apologizing and making up for their horrific mistreatment of blacks since the Age of Exploration. The future for black Americans, according to Dickerson, is in forgiveness.
Dickerson is very fair in her criticisms of both whites and blacks. She unabashedly points out what whites have done to keep blacks pegged in a certain societal place and why said whites feel compelled to act in this way. By the same token, she also uses vivid portraits of history to paint a picture of the antebellum South and life under the tyranny of Jim Crow in comparison to life for the average black citizen circa 2003-2004. (Read more)
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Former Alaska governor Jay Hammond dies at 83
Who was Jay Hammond and why does this matter? I'm willing to bet that is what you are asking.
"Hammond, a Republican governor from 1974 to 1982, championed the Alaska Permanent Fund, the state investment account created with oil royalties, and the annual dividends paid from it to nearly all state residents.
Last year's dividend check was $919.84."
I first heard of Jay Hammond when he was invited to talk about the Alaska Permanent Fund at a US BIG conference I attended in 2004. With respect to the Basic Income Guarantee, there was a lot of high falootin jibber jabber by intellectual Green-type folks that waxed philisophical about how to implement the BIG in the US. Like most expansive groups of people they couldn't agree on what the best way to do it was or even if guaranteed income was the answer. Some favored a Basic Jobs Guarantee and of course looked to the Federal government to fund such a program.
After a few days of haughy taughty talk I was relieved to hear such a down to earth fellow address this issue with clarity and in a language that could be easily understood. Using oil as the base, Gov. Hammond implemented something akin to the BIG and after some tweaking it became one of the best things to happen to Alaska. This policy was groundbreaking and should have been followed up on by every state in the union. Instead, years later we got "Welfare to Work," and we're no closer to reducing the poverty gap than we were 30 years ago.
I'm sad to learn of his passing. I'm even sadder that his Alaska Permanent Fund has been summarily ignored in the rest of the US and the debate over how to end poverty still straddles between the total socialists and the Darwinian corporatists.
RIP Jay Hammond.
"Hammond, a Republican governor from 1974 to 1982, championed the Alaska Permanent Fund, the state investment account created with oil royalties, and the annual dividends paid from it to nearly all state residents.
Last year's dividend check was $919.84."
I first heard of Jay Hammond when he was invited to talk about the Alaska Permanent Fund at a US BIG conference I attended in 2004. With respect to the Basic Income Guarantee, there was a lot of high falootin jibber jabber by intellectual Green-type folks that waxed philisophical about how to implement the BIG in the US. Like most expansive groups of people they couldn't agree on what the best way to do it was or even if guaranteed income was the answer. Some favored a Basic Jobs Guarantee and of course looked to the Federal government to fund such a program.
After a few days of haughy taughty talk I was relieved to hear such a down to earth fellow address this issue with clarity and in a language that could be easily understood. Using oil as the base, Gov. Hammond implemented something akin to the BIG and after some tweaking it became one of the best things to happen to Alaska. This policy was groundbreaking and should have been followed up on by every state in the union. Instead, years later we got "Welfare to Work," and we're no closer to reducing the poverty gap than we were 30 years ago.
I'm sad to learn of his passing. I'm even sadder that his Alaska Permanent Fund has been summarily ignored in the rest of the US and the debate over how to end poverty still straddles between the total socialists and the Darwinian corporatists.
RIP Jay Hammond.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
'Pakistan still exporting terror'
This Post is also available atThe Blogger News Network
It would seem like our policies to fight the War on Terror are at best schizophrenic and at worst, just plain dumb. Sorting through the international news today I found an opinion piece that stated in brief, "...Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are now finding themselves in the same boat on issues of global terrorism. Pakistan's ISI continues to provide support to the Taliban and such Jehadi groups as the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed, whose cadres are being arrested worldwide for inciting and promoting terrorism. There are strong suspicions that government-backed Saudi charities such as the Al Harmain Islamic Foundation, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, and the International Islamic Relief Organisation continue to fund extremist and terrorist activities worldwide and disturb peace and harmony in pluralistic societies."
Not to mention this number from the title link, "A prominent Pakistani leader has embarrassed both Washington and Islamabad by disclosing that Pakistan's military government continues to run terrorist training camps and is infiltrating militants into Afghanistan despite professing to be a US ally in the war on terrorism."
We can't win this way. I've said this before but it apparently needs repeating; unless the governments (and their respective militaries) of the vast Muslim nations begin to take seriously the threat of terrorism and then do something decisive about it, we're just waiting for a cataclysmic attack to happen. This is like shooting heroin. Sure you'll live long enough to suffer greatly, but no matter how you slice you're still just waiting to die a miserably painful death.
We cannot continue to do business with the Saudi's and the Pakistani's while they play both roles of ally and enemy. We are just spinning our wheels in a perpetual war with an entrenched enemy that lives on the battlefield and isn't afraid to die so long as they drag us down with them.
But maybe I'm being too naive in asking for the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to pick our side and put an end to their sly support of Islamic terrorism against the West. Maybe what is really called for here is what some have been calling for in Iran; open revolt.
The fact of the matter is that in all reality, short of nuking every country from Somalia to Malaysia, the US can't win the War on Terror. We're good at wars where we can kill innocent people in the name of a higher cause (see World War II) but we're really bad at fighting entrenched, homegrown, asymmetrical armies funded by larger, host countries (see Vietnam/Soviet Union) where we're trying not to kill innocent people. The Jihadi's may have declared war on the West but the fight has to actually come from the Arabs/Muslim/Persians themselves. If the moderate/secular populations of the greater Middle East cannot see it is in their benefit to arrest Islamic fundamentalism then we're left with a perpetual never-ending war with an enemy that cannot be contained. This is the path to inevitable nuclear war.
This is a call to all Arabs/Muslims/Persians with a stake in not living as serfs, slaves and the walking dead. This is your war. You are caught between the radicals that won't listen to reason, don't want peace and will murder you if you get in their way, and a West that is slowly but surely losing patience and can blow this entire planet up 100 times over. Let's not lose complete perspective here; at any given time the US alone could end life, as we know across Eurasia and Africa. Maybe our current president isn't so encourage to do that but let another 9/11 with nuclear implications happen and you can bet your sweet bippy whomever is in the White House will press that big red button.
I should not be reading through Google news searches that "Pakistan is still exporting terror." I should not be reading that the Saudi Royal family, "with whom relations couldn't be better with the US" is still exporting terror. Yesterday I called for the US to grow and start facing reality. Today I'm demanding the same of our Arab/Muslim/Persian brothers and sisters; nevermind Israel/Palestine, nevermind the Shah and the CIA, and nevermind the Crusades; evolve, grow up or surely we will all suffer.
It would seem like our policies to fight the War on Terror are at best schizophrenic and at worst, just plain dumb. Sorting through the international news today I found an opinion piece that stated in brief, "...Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are now finding themselves in the same boat on issues of global terrorism. Pakistan's ISI continues to provide support to the Taliban and such Jehadi groups as the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed, whose cadres are being arrested worldwide for inciting and promoting terrorism. There are strong suspicions that government-backed Saudi charities such as the Al Harmain Islamic Foundation, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, and the International Islamic Relief Organisation continue to fund extremist and terrorist activities worldwide and disturb peace and harmony in pluralistic societies."
Not to mention this number from the title link, "A prominent Pakistani leader has embarrassed both Washington and Islamabad by disclosing that Pakistan's military government continues to run terrorist training camps and is infiltrating militants into Afghanistan despite professing to be a US ally in the war on terrorism."
We can't win this way. I've said this before but it apparently needs repeating; unless the governments (and their respective militaries) of the vast Muslim nations begin to take seriously the threat of terrorism and then do something decisive about it, we're just waiting for a cataclysmic attack to happen. This is like shooting heroin. Sure you'll live long enough to suffer greatly, but no matter how you slice you're still just waiting to die a miserably painful death.
We cannot continue to do business with the Saudi's and the Pakistani's while they play both roles of ally and enemy. We are just spinning our wheels in a perpetual war with an entrenched enemy that lives on the battlefield and isn't afraid to die so long as they drag us down with them.
But maybe I'm being too naive in asking for the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to pick our side and put an end to their sly support of Islamic terrorism against the West. Maybe what is really called for here is what some have been calling for in Iran; open revolt.
The fact of the matter is that in all reality, short of nuking every country from Somalia to Malaysia, the US can't win the War on Terror. We're good at wars where we can kill innocent people in the name of a higher cause (see World War II) but we're really bad at fighting entrenched, homegrown, asymmetrical armies funded by larger, host countries (see Vietnam/Soviet Union) where we're trying not to kill innocent people. The Jihadi's may have declared war on the West but the fight has to actually come from the Arabs/Muslim/Persians themselves. If the moderate/secular populations of the greater Middle East cannot see it is in their benefit to arrest Islamic fundamentalism then we're left with a perpetual never-ending war with an enemy that cannot be contained. This is the path to inevitable nuclear war.
This is a call to all Arabs/Muslims/Persians with a stake in not living as serfs, slaves and the walking dead. This is your war. You are caught between the radicals that won't listen to reason, don't want peace and will murder you if you get in their way, and a West that is slowly but surely losing patience and can blow this entire planet up 100 times over. Let's not lose complete perspective here; at any given time the US alone could end life, as we know across Eurasia and Africa. Maybe our current president isn't so encourage to do that but let another 9/11 with nuclear implications happen and you can bet your sweet bippy whomever is in the White House will press that big red button.
I should not be reading through Google news searches that "Pakistan is still exporting terror." I should not be reading that the Saudi Royal family, "with whom relations couldn't be better with the US" is still exporting terror. Yesterday I called for the US to grow and start facing reality. Today I'm demanding the same of our Arab/Muslim/Persian brothers and sisters; nevermind Israel/Palestine, nevermind the Shah and the CIA, and nevermind the Crusades; evolve, grow up or surely we will all suffer.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Iran, Syria, Iraq to develop regional cooperation
What does one make of a statement like this? The Iranian mullahs are after the atomic bomb and Syria has decided to marry its fate to them, for better or for worse. If the Shia in Iraq decide to marry their fates to the mullahs, come what may, we'll have a whole new set of problems in the Middle East, not to mention a nightmare scenario with regards to Israel.
Though, reading the article, all three nations are talking about stopping terrorism and moving together to put down the insurgency. Specifically they cite the recent, "...assassination of Egyptian and Iranian diplomats in Iraq, the mass murder of civilians and children in terrorist operations and attacking Bahraini and Pakistani officials..." as serious bones of contention.
The question thus becomes, "Is this all just a clever ruse to throw the West off track or has someone in the Middle Eastern leadership finally woken up?" The cynic in me says the former but I'm praying for the latter.
Here's the story:
Iranian Interior Minister Abdolvahed Mousavi Lari, his counterpart from Iraq Bayan Baqir Jabr and the Syrian Minister of Interior Ghazi Kanan called for tripartite cooperation on regional issues.
During a meeting, the three ministers discussed the procedure for implementing 20-point final statement issued by Iraqi neighboring states, according to IRNA.
The ministers also examined ways of preventing illegal trafficking through the borders of the three countries.
The statement, issued at the end of the second session of Iraqi neighboring states in Istanbul on July 18-19, called for implementing UN Resolution 1546 on the legal procedure of formation of a government in Iraq and complete withdrawal of the occupying forces from the country.
The session was held at Istanbul Cheraghan palace.
The statement condemns global arrogance and terrorism in Iraq under any condition and calls upon the member states to assist the Iraqi government to establish security and tranquility in the country.
Helping the Iraqi security and military forces, cooperating to stop cross-border movements and preventing presence of terrorist groups across the country are included in Istanbul statement.
The signatories of the statement condemned the assassination of Egyptian and Iranian diplomats in Iraq, the mass murder of civilians and children in terrorist operations and attacking Bahraini and Pakistani officials.
Meanwhile, the statement calls for expediting the trial of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and his assistants.
Though, reading the article, all three nations are talking about stopping terrorism and moving together to put down the insurgency. Specifically they cite the recent, "...assassination of Egyptian and Iranian diplomats in Iraq, the mass murder of civilians and children in terrorist operations and attacking Bahraini and Pakistani officials..." as serious bones of contention.
The question thus becomes, "Is this all just a clever ruse to throw the West off track or has someone in the Middle Eastern leadership finally woken up?" The cynic in me says the former but I'm praying for the latter.
Here's the story:
Iranian Interior Minister Abdolvahed Mousavi Lari, his counterpart from Iraq Bayan Baqir Jabr and the Syrian Minister of Interior Ghazi Kanan called for tripartite cooperation on regional issues.
During a meeting, the three ministers discussed the procedure for implementing 20-point final statement issued by Iraqi neighboring states, according to IRNA.
The ministers also examined ways of preventing illegal trafficking through the borders of the three countries.
The statement, issued at the end of the second session of Iraqi neighboring states in Istanbul on July 18-19, called for implementing UN Resolution 1546 on the legal procedure of formation of a government in Iraq and complete withdrawal of the occupying forces from the country.
The session was held at Istanbul Cheraghan palace.
The statement condemns global arrogance and terrorism in Iraq under any condition and calls upon the member states to assist the Iraqi government to establish security and tranquility in the country.
Helping the Iraqi security and military forces, cooperating to stop cross-border movements and preventing presence of terrorist groups across the country are included in Istanbul statement.
The signatories of the statement condemned the assassination of Egyptian and Iranian diplomats in Iraq, the mass murder of civilians and children in terrorist operations and attacking Bahraini and Pakistani officials.
Meanwhile, the statement calls for expediting the trial of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and his assistants.
Monday, August 08, 2005
The Politics of No
This Post is also available atThe Blogger News Network
You can say this about the Iranian Mullah’s, at least they are consistent. Once again the Iranian’s have been given plum after plum by the European Union and once again, Whitey has been snubbed. I absolutely marvel at events like this. I stand befuddled by the fact that the Mullah’s aren’t even popular enough with their own populace, save the thugs they employ as morality police, but yet they are savvy enough to bring down mighty and powerful first world nations like the much ballyhooed “EU-3,” Great Britain, France, and Germany. I’d say something completely juvenile like, “In your face Europe,” except that I’m actually on their side and this latest rejection by the Mullahs of Iran constitutes not just a serious danger but a major setback in attempting to de-nuclearize the global village.
According to CNN.com, “Iran insisted Sunday it would resume uranium conversion this week after rejecting European Union incentives to end its nuclear fuel work, and said it was not worried about being referred to the United Nations for possible sanctions.”
The aforementioned plums the EU offered were a package of economic and political incentives. Some of the economic incentives were improved trade relations with the EU, and guarantee of alternative nuclear fuel sources from Europe and Russia. The 35-page EU proposal also contained an offer of help with developing a civilian nuclear program in Iran. This generous proposal was designed to persuade Tehran to halt nuclear fuel work for good and specifically stop enriching uranium, which would eventually find its way into an ICBM.
The Mullah’s in their infinite wisdom decided to reject the proposal because, according to them, it did not recognize Iran's right to enrich uranium. They added that they intend to restart the Isfahan nuclear plant, a major site of contention, just as soon as IAEA surveillance equipment is in place.
However, hope is at hand…the Mullahs will still negotiate with the EU! (Place sarcasm here)
The next step for the EU and the Iranian Mullahs is for the former to refer the latter to the United Nations Security Council. Of course nothing in politics, global or otherwise is a simple process. The EU has called an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) board of governors for Tuesday to discuss referring Iran to the Security Council if it goes ahead with plans to break U.N. seals and resumes work at the Isfahan uranium conversion plant.
The Iranians have said, “We ain’t skereed, East Siiiiide!” or something like that.
"Although we think referral of Iran's case to the Security Council would be unlawful and politically motivated, if one day they refer Iran's case...we won't be worried in the least," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi.
So now the game of chicken has begun between East and West. Really it’s been going on all along, probably since the advent of modern Saudi Arabia and Israel, but we’ll say this is the beginning of the most recent round. This whole affair where the West offers everything but their own abdication and the kitchen sink to the Muslim leaders and they respond with a cacophony of, “No’s” is not new. It’s the summation of how Israeli-Palestinian peace-talks have gone since Arab nations stopped formerly declaring war the Jews.
The biggest example of how the Muslims have used, “No,” as their overall strategy in thinking they can defeat the West occurred at the Camp David peace summit in July of 2000. At Camp David, Israel offered generous concessions in order to pacify Yasser Arafat and finally create a Palestinian homeland. Mind you, since the splitting of Palestine between them and Israel in the mid-20th century, the Palestinians have been offered their own country on the prime part of the real estate time and time again. Their answer was usually an anti-Semitic and petulant, “No!”
At Camp David, it has been said that if Yasser Arafat had accepted the offer made by then President Bill Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, it was entirely likely that the nation of Israel would not exist today; such was the near suicidal generosity of the West and Israel. Subsequent negotiations after Camp David with even more concessions were met with yet another round of resounding, “No’s.” At the time, former Saudi Ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar even said of Arafat, “If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won't be a tragedy, it will be a crime.”
Other than saying no to everything, Arafat’s strategy for trying to make peace with the West was starting a new round of homicide bombings against Israeli civilians and topping it off with a revisionist history of what went down at Camp David.
And why shouldn’t the Arabs/Muslims just keep on saying, “No,” until they are sufficiently in control of their own destiny? Their leadership has no respect for their own people, so sanctions and starvation aren’t going to work. This of course has been the problem with North Korea thus far. There’s no pressure on the people or person who actually makes the decisions because he isn’t in jeopardy of losing his seat of power nor is he starving. Much like in Vietnam of yesteryear or Iraq today, nobody has to give up…they live there. They’ve got forever and a day to fight for what they believe is right. We’re the interlopers whom are just chomping at the bit to return to the normalcy of isolationism.
In addition, no matter how many sanctions you place on a country or how many times you refer them to the perpetually flaccid United Nations, said country will always find a way to flout the constriction/punishment. They will have cohorts whom are willing to trade with them despite world opinion and common sense dictating otherwise, such as in North Korea and China; or you’ll have a situation like with the UN Oil-For-Food program which allowed former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to pee in the face of justice for nearly a decade. Again, I’m sure the Mullahs are studious students of history whom have learned much from Vietnam, Iraq, Yasser Arafat and Iraq.
Quite simply put, it’s good politics to just keep saying, “No,” because eventually the West will either make a suicidal offer or you’ll just have more time to kill even more Westerners on whatever timetable you please. The West is going to have some deep, deep problems because half of us think that you can reason with murderers just because they are currently smiling at you and the other half believe you should kill the murderer, his family, and burn down his neighborhood and kill everyone that looks like him. As usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle. At some point the West has to maintain the line in sand and make the ugly choices. At some point, we must all grow up and accept that the Iranian Mullahs, just like Arafat, don’t really want to make peace or compromise. This is a stalling tactic to make widespread murder and we’re standing for it like slack-jawed yokels.
You can say this about the Iranian Mullah’s, at least they are consistent. Once again the Iranian’s have been given plum after plum by the European Union and once again, Whitey has been snubbed. I absolutely marvel at events like this. I stand befuddled by the fact that the Mullah’s aren’t even popular enough with their own populace, save the thugs they employ as morality police, but yet they are savvy enough to bring down mighty and powerful first world nations like the much ballyhooed “EU-3,” Great Britain, France, and Germany. I’d say something completely juvenile like, “In your face Europe,” except that I’m actually on their side and this latest rejection by the Mullahs of Iran constitutes not just a serious danger but a major setback in attempting to de-nuclearize the global village.
According to CNN.com, “Iran insisted Sunday it would resume uranium conversion this week after rejecting European Union incentives to end its nuclear fuel work, and said it was not worried about being referred to the United Nations for possible sanctions.”
The aforementioned plums the EU offered were a package of economic and political incentives. Some of the economic incentives were improved trade relations with the EU, and guarantee of alternative nuclear fuel sources from Europe and Russia. The 35-page EU proposal also contained an offer of help with developing a civilian nuclear program in Iran. This generous proposal was designed to persuade Tehran to halt nuclear fuel work for good and specifically stop enriching uranium, which would eventually find its way into an ICBM.
The Mullah’s in their infinite wisdom decided to reject the proposal because, according to them, it did not recognize Iran's right to enrich uranium. They added that they intend to restart the Isfahan nuclear plant, a major site of contention, just as soon as IAEA surveillance equipment is in place.
However, hope is at hand…the Mullahs will still negotiate with the EU! (Place sarcasm here)
The next step for the EU and the Iranian Mullahs is for the former to refer the latter to the United Nations Security Council. Of course nothing in politics, global or otherwise is a simple process. The EU has called an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) board of governors for Tuesday to discuss referring Iran to the Security Council if it goes ahead with plans to break U.N. seals and resumes work at the Isfahan uranium conversion plant.
The Iranians have said, “We ain’t skereed, East Siiiiide!” or something like that.
"Although we think referral of Iran's case to the Security Council would be unlawful and politically motivated, if one day they refer Iran's case...we won't be worried in the least," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi.
So now the game of chicken has begun between East and West. Really it’s been going on all along, probably since the advent of modern Saudi Arabia and Israel, but we’ll say this is the beginning of the most recent round. This whole affair where the West offers everything but their own abdication and the kitchen sink to the Muslim leaders and they respond with a cacophony of, “No’s” is not new. It’s the summation of how Israeli-Palestinian peace-talks have gone since Arab nations stopped formerly declaring war the Jews.
The biggest example of how the Muslims have used, “No,” as their overall strategy in thinking they can defeat the West occurred at the Camp David peace summit in July of 2000. At Camp David, Israel offered generous concessions in order to pacify Yasser Arafat and finally create a Palestinian homeland. Mind you, since the splitting of Palestine between them and Israel in the mid-20th century, the Palestinians have been offered their own country on the prime part of the real estate time and time again. Their answer was usually an anti-Semitic and petulant, “No!”
At Camp David, it has been said that if Yasser Arafat had accepted the offer made by then President Bill Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, it was entirely likely that the nation of Israel would not exist today; such was the near suicidal generosity of the West and Israel. Subsequent negotiations after Camp David with even more concessions were met with yet another round of resounding, “No’s.” At the time, former Saudi Ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar even said of Arafat, “If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won't be a tragedy, it will be a crime.”
Other than saying no to everything, Arafat’s strategy for trying to make peace with the West was starting a new round of homicide bombings against Israeli civilians and topping it off with a revisionist history of what went down at Camp David.
And why shouldn’t the Arabs/Muslims just keep on saying, “No,” until they are sufficiently in control of their own destiny? Their leadership has no respect for their own people, so sanctions and starvation aren’t going to work. This of course has been the problem with North Korea thus far. There’s no pressure on the people or person who actually makes the decisions because he isn’t in jeopardy of losing his seat of power nor is he starving. Much like in Vietnam of yesteryear or Iraq today, nobody has to give up…they live there. They’ve got forever and a day to fight for what they believe is right. We’re the interlopers whom are just chomping at the bit to return to the normalcy of isolationism.
In addition, no matter how many sanctions you place on a country or how many times you refer them to the perpetually flaccid United Nations, said country will always find a way to flout the constriction/punishment. They will have cohorts whom are willing to trade with them despite world opinion and common sense dictating otherwise, such as in North Korea and China; or you’ll have a situation like with the UN Oil-For-Food program which allowed former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to pee in the face of justice for nearly a decade. Again, I’m sure the Mullahs are studious students of history whom have learned much from Vietnam, Iraq, Yasser Arafat and Iraq.
Quite simply put, it’s good politics to just keep saying, “No,” because eventually the West will either make a suicidal offer or you’ll just have more time to kill even more Westerners on whatever timetable you please. The West is going to have some deep, deep problems because half of us think that you can reason with murderers just because they are currently smiling at you and the other half believe you should kill the murderer, his family, and burn down his neighborhood and kill everyone that looks like him. As usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle. At some point the West has to maintain the line in sand and make the ugly choices. At some point, we must all grow up and accept that the Iranian Mullahs, just like Arafat, don’t really want to make peace or compromise. This is a stalling tactic to make widespread murder and we’re standing for it like slack-jawed yokels.
Friday, August 05, 2005
"Jesus" by Leith Anderson: a review
This review was written in partnership with Mind and Media.The story of Jesus outside of its theocratic implications is a fascinating tale all by itself. As someone who has read an over abundance of secondary and tertiary sources with respect to Jesus Christ and the Christian religion as a whole, I have found that reading the actual New Testament to be an exercise in frustration. The language used to tell Jesus’ story, I believe, tends to distract from the fact that his is a very telling and timeless story.
Enter, “Jesus: An Intimate Portrait of the Man, His Land, and His People,” by Leith Anderson. What Anderson has here done is to take all four of the New Testament Gospels and synthesized them into a readable and linear story. It’s a biography of the life of Jesus that does more than repeat the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Rather it contextualizes the life of Jesus and the historical setting in which he was born, taught, proselytized, and was ultimately executed in. Throughout the narrative Anderson offers in-text notes and descriptions that offer an added flavor to the overall story. From Jesus and his disciples to Pilate and the Sanhedrin, every character becomes vibrant and lively, thus drawing the reader back in time.
One aspect of the story that really stood out to me was just how human Jesus was, as written by Anderson. I think people; especially Christians obviously, tend to view Jesus in other-worldly terms as if he was something beyond human in terms of emotions and behavior. This makes sense to some degree seeing as those who believe frame Jesus as the Son of God and their personal savior. However, assigning him divine behavior in a vacuum of time where there were real people with real problems I believe does more to dehumanize Jesus than it does paint a picture of somebody I can personally identify with (as my lord and savior).
What Anderson has done is given Jesus his human personality back from those whom would seek to offer a politically palatable picture of the Son of Man. Anderson’s Jesus laughed and joked with his disciples as well as prostitutes and beggars. Jesus got annoyed with seemingly stupid questions and having to repeat himself to the same disbeliever’s ad nauseum. This Jesus one can truly believe was hurt by Judas’ betrayal and Peter’s denial of Jesus (three times). The reader is there with Jesus as he struggles with his own sense of self-preservation and his obligation to the Father (God). Whether or not you follow the faith of Jesus Christ, the story being told is emotionally very real and worth the price of admission itself.
As stated above, Anderson takes a lot of time explaining the socio-political setting of the Roman Empire and the occupied nation of Israel. I think that typical Christians tend to focus on Jesus dying for the sins of man and tend not contextualize the reasons why he was persecuted and then executed beyond being prophesized in Jewish tradition. For example, Anderson writes the Sanhedrin as a body of leadership not unlike the Catholic hierarchy or the modern American congress. That is to say that they weren’t inherently evil but rather consumed with hanging on to power and playing the game of politics to their own benefit. That’s not malevolence or worthy of anti-Semitism, that’s pragmatism. Though the chapter that deals with Jesus’ crucifixion does in fact show those who made up the Sanhedrin in conflict with themselves as they begin to think that they may have actually just killed David’s heir, the Messiah. It is that kind of humanization that I think was somewhat absent from Mel Gibson’s, “The Passion of the Christ,” but is very present in Anderson’s, “Jesus.”
Another aspect of the biography is the clear presentation of Jesus’ teachings throughout Palestine. Again, many Christians tend to focus too acutely on what biblical scholars have send Jesus’ message was such that it tends to breed man’s inhumanity to man in many aspects of societal life. Because of the plain language being used and, ostensibly, directly quoting the words of the man himself, to me his teachings become coherent to the average reader. Jesus ran with one major theme that is humbleness and self-sacrifice. Again and again Jesus told anyone that would listen that it was the meek that would inherit the earth, not the all-powerful kings. He said over and over that one should distance themselves from indulgence rather than swimming in large pools of temptation. Well isn’t that what we’ve been saying throughout modern society at least since the 60’s? If Jesus were alive today he’d be a clinical social worker rather than a street preacher or a rabbi. I swear I’ve said much of the same thing to clients in drug rehab.
Overall, I would highly recommend this book to anyone with a modicum of interest in Jesus Christ or the gestation of the Christian religion that does not have the time or the patience to plod through the New Testament. It’s a fine book for believers and non-believers alike. Though, for those who are either atheists or at the very least, people who do not accept any of the Christian leaps of faith (Immaculate Conception, miracles, resurrection, etc.) you’ll have to suspend your disbelief for 360 pages. However, if over a billion people can read the new Harry Potter, there’s no reason to skip out on this book.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Grenade Attack Ends Cockfight
So help me God, I swear I'm not making this up.
Is nothing sacred in this world?
Here's the story, pardon me while I sit back in pensive wonderment:
Assailants threw grenades into a crowded cockfighting ring before dawn yesterday in this western Mexican city, killing four people and wounding 25 others.
Two people were killed at the scene of the attack and two more died while receiving medical treatment.
The ring was located at a racetrack in Tonala, located outside Guadalajara, Mexico's second-largest city.
The explosions tossed chairs and sent onlookers fleeing from the scene, which was strewn with blood.
"There wasn't any fighting, we just heard two explosions all of a sudden and everybody left," said Gabriel Alvarez, who returned to the track later in the day to recover a truck he left in the rush to escape the blasts.
Is nothing sacred in this world?
Here's the story, pardon me while I sit back in pensive wonderment:
Assailants threw grenades into a crowded cockfighting ring before dawn yesterday in this western Mexican city, killing four people and wounding 25 others.
Two people were killed at the scene of the attack and two more died while receiving medical treatment.
The ring was located at a racetrack in Tonala, located outside Guadalajara, Mexico's second-largest city.
The explosions tossed chairs and sent onlookers fleeing from the scene, which was strewn with blood.
"There wasn't any fighting, we just heard two explosions all of a sudden and everybody left," said Gabriel Alvarez, who returned to the track later in the day to recover a truck he left in the rush to escape the blasts.
"10 years away from nuclear bomb": report
OK, if this is true then we have a little bit of time to settle the issue once and for all with the Iranians. Assuming somebody somewhere stops the Bush administration from having their war in Iran, Bush will be long out of office before the Iranians become anything that approximates a real threat.
However, out intelligence gathering capabilities, from what I understand, have gone down the pooper in the last 20 years or so. Further to point, from what I've been reading, we can't get solid information out of the Middle East, especially Iran. We don't have nearly enough Arab/Persian operatives or even folks that speak Arab or Farsi. Sure the new report says 10 years but is it real or is it propaganda. They wouldn't be the first country to state they were X amount of years from the atomic bomb and then one fine day, poof, there it is in record time. I remain skeptical and watchful of our friends in the Persian Gulf.
And speaking of which, would the good people of Iran make with the street level rebellion already, times-a-wastin'.
Here's the story:
Iran is some 10 years away from manufacturing highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear device, The Washington Post said Tuesday quoting officials with access to a new intelligence review.
Ordered by the National Intelligence Council in January, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran doubles the amount of time the White House believes Iran is away from building a nuclear weapon from five years in the previous estimate in 2001, the daily said.
The estimate, designed to alert the US president to national security developments, said there were credible indicators that Iran's military was conducting clandestine work, but nothing to indicate they were related to a nuclear weapons probram, according to sources familiar with the report.
The report also expresses uncertainty about whether Iran's ruling clerics have made a decision to build a nuclear arsenal, although it agrees that, left to its own devices, Iran would pursue the nuclear weapons path.
On Iran's political future, the estimate is unsure whether Iran's ruling clerics would still be in power by the time the country is capable of producing fissile material.
The US administration keeps "hoping the mullahs will leave before Iran gets a nuclear weapons capability," said a US official familiar with the intelligence review.
Iran on Monday informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it would soon resume uranium ore conversion, a move that risks plunging talks with the European Union into crisis and exposing Tehran to UN Security Council action.
However, out intelligence gathering capabilities, from what I understand, have gone down the pooper in the last 20 years or so. Further to point, from what I've been reading, we can't get solid information out of the Middle East, especially Iran. We don't have nearly enough Arab/Persian operatives or even folks that speak Arab or Farsi. Sure the new report says 10 years but is it real or is it propaganda. They wouldn't be the first country to state they were X amount of years from the atomic bomb and then one fine day, poof, there it is in record time. I remain skeptical and watchful of our friends in the Persian Gulf.
And speaking of which, would the good people of Iran make with the street level rebellion already, times-a-wastin'.
Here's the story:
Iran is some 10 years away from manufacturing highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear device, The Washington Post said Tuesday quoting officials with access to a new intelligence review.
Ordered by the National Intelligence Council in January, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran doubles the amount of time the White House believes Iran is away from building a nuclear weapon from five years in the previous estimate in 2001, the daily said.
The estimate, designed to alert the US president to national security developments, said there were credible indicators that Iran's military was conducting clandestine work, but nothing to indicate they were related to a nuclear weapons probram, according to sources familiar with the report.
The report also expresses uncertainty about whether Iran's ruling clerics have made a decision to build a nuclear arsenal, although it agrees that, left to its own devices, Iran would pursue the nuclear weapons path.
On Iran's political future, the estimate is unsure whether Iran's ruling clerics would still be in power by the time the country is capable of producing fissile material.
The US administration keeps "hoping the mullahs will leave before Iran gets a nuclear weapons capability," said a US official familiar with the intelligence review.
Iran on Monday informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it would soon resume uranium ore conversion, a move that risks plunging talks with the European Union into crisis and exposing Tehran to UN Security Council action.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Bush Sidesteps Senate, Installs Bolton as U.N. Envoy
Well despite the fact that many people didn't want Mr. Mustache as our UN envoy, and despite the Senate Democrats successfully stalling long enough that some thought Bush might reconsider, as per usual, the Bush Administration got their man.
And a busy man he'll be, what with planning an war against Iran and demolishing the UN and all. Not to mention all the hard work he has to put in utilizing his role at the UN to get the average American voter to believe that despite Terry Schiavo and a number of other atrocities Congressional Republicans have committed, us "Security Voters" should still vote Republican come the mid-term 2006 elections. Yes, busy indeed.
Here's the article:
President Bush sidestepped the U.S. Senate on Monday and installed controversial nominee John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, saying the post was "too important to leave vacant any longer."
Speaking at the White House, Bush said he was sending Bolton, a 56-year-old lawyer, to the United Nations with his "complete confidence."
The appointment constituted what is known as a recess appointment. It ended a five-month impasse with Senate Democrats who had accused the conservative Bolton of twisting intelligence to suit a hawkish ideology and of abusing subordinates.
Bush has the power to fill vacancies without Senate approval while Congress is in recess. Under the Constitution, the recess appointment will last until after the Senate adjourns in the fall of next year.
Speaking at a White House Roosevelt Room ceremony flanked by the mustachioed Bolton and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Bush said that "a majority of U.S. senators agree that he is the right man for the job. Yet, because of partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators, John was unfairly denied the up or down vote that he deserves."
In a brief acceptance speech, Bolton, who has a long history of criticizing the United Nations, said he was "profoundly honored, indeed humbled by the confidence" the president had shown in him.
Bush had refused to give up on Bolton even though the Senate had twice voted to sustain a filibuster against him.
Senate Democrats quickly criticized the president's move.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), called it a "devious maneuver" that only "further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility."
"The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues," Kennedy said. "It's bad enough that the administration stonewalled the Senate by refusing to disclose documents highly relevant to the Bolton nomination. It's even worse for the administration to abuse the recess appointment power by making the appointment while Congress is in this five-week recess."
Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, a senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said: "The president has done a real disservice to our nation by appointing an individual who lacks the credibility to further U.S. interests at the United Nations. I will be monitoring his performance closely to ensure that he does not abuse his authority as he has in the past."
In New York, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he looked forward to working with Bolton as he does with the 190 other ambassadors at the United Nations. About the recess appointment, Annan said: "I think it is the president's prerogative, and the president has decided to appoint him through this process." (More)
And a busy man he'll be, what with planning an war against Iran and demolishing the UN and all. Not to mention all the hard work he has to put in utilizing his role at the UN to get the average American voter to believe that despite Terry Schiavo and a number of other atrocities Congressional Republicans have committed, us "Security Voters" should still vote Republican come the mid-term 2006 elections. Yes, busy indeed.
Here's the article:
President Bush sidestepped the U.S. Senate on Monday and installed controversial nominee John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, saying the post was "too important to leave vacant any longer."
Speaking at the White House, Bush said he was sending Bolton, a 56-year-old lawyer, to the United Nations with his "complete confidence."
The appointment constituted what is known as a recess appointment. It ended a five-month impasse with Senate Democrats who had accused the conservative Bolton of twisting intelligence to suit a hawkish ideology and of abusing subordinates.
Bush has the power to fill vacancies without Senate approval while Congress is in recess. Under the Constitution, the recess appointment will last until after the Senate adjourns in the fall of next year.
Speaking at a White House Roosevelt Room ceremony flanked by the mustachioed Bolton and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Bush said that "a majority of U.S. senators agree that he is the right man for the job. Yet, because of partisan delaying tactics by a handful of senators, John was unfairly denied the up or down vote that he deserves."
In a brief acceptance speech, Bolton, who has a long history of criticizing the United Nations, said he was "profoundly honored, indeed humbled by the confidence" the president had shown in him.
Bush had refused to give up on Bolton even though the Senate had twice voted to sustain a filibuster against him.
Senate Democrats quickly criticized the president's move.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), called it a "devious maneuver" that only "further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility."
"The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues," Kennedy said. "It's bad enough that the administration stonewalled the Senate by refusing to disclose documents highly relevant to the Bolton nomination. It's even worse for the administration to abuse the recess appointment power by making the appointment while Congress is in this five-week recess."
Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, a senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said: "The president has done a real disservice to our nation by appointing an individual who lacks the credibility to further U.S. interests at the United Nations. I will be monitoring his performance closely to ensure that he does not abuse his authority as he has in the past."
In New York, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he looked forward to working with Bolton as he does with the 190 other ambassadors at the United Nations. About the recess appointment, Annan said: "I think it is the president's prerogative, and the president has decided to appoint him through this process." (More)
US, China launching strategic dialogue in Beijing
It may have come to be; the uni-polar moment is over in both fact and philosophy. The sense I've gotten this morning after reading through my usual Google news searches is that the US is trying very hard to do proper business with Russia and China in all gobal affairs where twains meet. The below story sums it up but there are others as well. Russia is pressuring the Iranians to stay at the table with the EU; China has drafted a de-nuclear roadmap for N. Korea, which calls for normalization between the US and N. Korea as well as Japan and N. Korea. This plan is being backed by the Russians as well, so long as the N. Koreans rejoin the IAEA. I still believe there are many in Washington that are committed to fighting the "Ruskies aka Commies" until their last dying breath, which is fine because those people will probably not live too much longer as they made their bones in the Cold War.
Is war with either Russia or China possible no matter how much dialogue and diplomacy is employed? Sure, all things possible. But war has to come from the very last resort where either diplomacy has completely gone down in flames or there are actual missiles headed toward NY and Moscow is in flames (20 points if you know what movie I stole that from). What the below story as well as the others cited tells me is that the uni-polar moment has passed. We are sharing the stage with Russia and China, more so China. Like all things, we adapt and evolve or we stay stagnant and get passed over by the better creatures.
Here's the story:
Top diplomatic officials from the United States and China kicked off annual series of strategic dialogues today in Beijing, in an endeavor by the two major countries to iron out their trade and military differences.
Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick met with his Chinese counterpart, Vice Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo in talks meant to "facilitate bilateral relations," the Xinhua News Agency said.
Mr. Zoellick met Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on Sunday for more than 90 minutes of talks ahead of the two-day strategic dialogue.
While Beijing and Washington cooperate in many fields on the world stage, including the ongoing six-party talks in Beijing to try to defuse the North Korean nuclear crisis, relationship has been strained in recent months amid U.S. worries about China's military buildup and the proposed takeover of the oil company Unocal Corp. by the Chinese oil major CNOOC, the Associated Press reported.
U.S. President George W. Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao agreed to open a strategic dialogue with meetings twice a year at an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Chile last year, the China Daily has learned.
The bilateral talks are the first in what is meant to be a regular series of high-level contacts, with Beijing and Washington taking turns as hosts. China refers to the meetings as a "strategic dialogue," while the United States calls them a "senior dialogue."
Mr. Zoellick, who attended a regional security conference in Vientiane, Laos, last week, said in weekend a stopover in Hong Kong that he would discuss foreign policy and economics with senior Chinese officials during his Beijing visit.
"I hope we'll enable the U.S. and China to get a better sense of where there are points of mutuality, which I believe to be many, to work co-operatively, and also where we have differences how best to manage them," the Associated Press quoted him as saying then.
Speaking to reporters in Hong Kong Saturday, Mr. Zoellick said he would try to focus during the dialogue on the bigger picture of the relationship.
"We'll try to step back from the individual items on the agenda and see how we can integrate the topics," according to a transcript of his comments on a State Department information Web site, usinfo.state.gov.
Concerning economic cooperation, Mr. Zoellick is expected to confer with senior officials of China's National Development and Reform Commission, a super-ministry in charge of coordinating economic policy and guiding investment and energy policy, Reuters reported.
Earlier this month, China helped ease frictions between the two powers by decoupling its currency, the yuan, from the U.S. dollar.
The Bush administration had been pressing Beijing to revalue the yuan, formerly pegged at about 8.28 to the dollar, arguing that the peg system was giving Chinese exporters huge trade advantages.
China now sets the yuan's value in reference to a basket of major world currencies, and it is now worth about 8.1 to the dollar.
The Associated Press quoted some news reports as saying that China¡¯s central bank had briefed American officials in advance of its plan to drop yuan's link to the dollar two weeks ago, which was believed as an indication of an attempt by Beijing to solicit support from Washington.
U.S. legislators have been worried about a bid by CNOOC for California-based Unocal Corp, which they claim presents risks to American security.
Meanwhile, a growing list of American giant corporations have acquired major assets in China. In June, the Bank of America (BoA) bought a 9 per cent stake of the China¡¯s Construction Bank, with a bill of US$3 billion, making the US bank the largest single foreign investor in China's banking sector so far.
Is war with either Russia or China possible no matter how much dialogue and diplomacy is employed? Sure, all things possible. But war has to come from the very last resort where either diplomacy has completely gone down in flames or there are actual missiles headed toward NY and Moscow is in flames (20 points if you know what movie I stole that from). What the below story as well as the others cited tells me is that the uni-polar moment has passed. We are sharing the stage with Russia and China, more so China. Like all things, we adapt and evolve or we stay stagnant and get passed over by the better creatures.
Here's the story:
Top diplomatic officials from the United States and China kicked off annual series of strategic dialogues today in Beijing, in an endeavor by the two major countries to iron out their trade and military differences.
Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick met with his Chinese counterpart, Vice Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo in talks meant to "facilitate bilateral relations," the Xinhua News Agency said.
Mr. Zoellick met Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on Sunday for more than 90 minutes of talks ahead of the two-day strategic dialogue.
While Beijing and Washington cooperate in many fields on the world stage, including the ongoing six-party talks in Beijing to try to defuse the North Korean nuclear crisis, relationship has been strained in recent months amid U.S. worries about China's military buildup and the proposed takeover of the oil company Unocal Corp. by the Chinese oil major CNOOC, the Associated Press reported.
U.S. President George W. Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao agreed to open a strategic dialogue with meetings twice a year at an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Chile last year, the China Daily has learned.
The bilateral talks are the first in what is meant to be a regular series of high-level contacts, with Beijing and Washington taking turns as hosts. China refers to the meetings as a "strategic dialogue," while the United States calls them a "senior dialogue."
Mr. Zoellick, who attended a regional security conference in Vientiane, Laos, last week, said in weekend a stopover in Hong Kong that he would discuss foreign policy and economics with senior Chinese officials during his Beijing visit.
"I hope we'll enable the U.S. and China to get a better sense of where there are points of mutuality, which I believe to be many, to work co-operatively, and also where we have differences how best to manage them," the Associated Press quoted him as saying then.
Speaking to reporters in Hong Kong Saturday, Mr. Zoellick said he would try to focus during the dialogue on the bigger picture of the relationship.
"We'll try to step back from the individual items on the agenda and see how we can integrate the topics," according to a transcript of his comments on a State Department information Web site, usinfo.state.gov.
Concerning economic cooperation, Mr. Zoellick is expected to confer with senior officials of China's National Development and Reform Commission, a super-ministry in charge of coordinating economic policy and guiding investment and energy policy, Reuters reported.
Earlier this month, China helped ease frictions between the two powers by decoupling its currency, the yuan, from the U.S. dollar.
The Bush administration had been pressing Beijing to revalue the yuan, formerly pegged at about 8.28 to the dollar, arguing that the peg system was giving Chinese exporters huge trade advantages.
China now sets the yuan's value in reference to a basket of major world currencies, and it is now worth about 8.1 to the dollar.
The Associated Press quoted some news reports as saying that China¡¯s central bank had briefed American officials in advance of its plan to drop yuan's link to the dollar two weeks ago, which was believed as an indication of an attempt by Beijing to solicit support from Washington.
U.S. legislators have been worried about a bid by CNOOC for California-based Unocal Corp, which they claim presents risks to American security.
Meanwhile, a growing list of American giant corporations have acquired major assets in China. In June, the Bank of America (BoA) bought a 9 per cent stake of the China¡¯s Construction Bank, with a bill of US$3 billion, making the US bank the largest single foreign investor in China's banking sector so far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)