Progressive Conservatism University On-Line

Hey folks, I've installed a new Amazon store based on products I would recommend to my readers. The link can be found under the new book I'm reading, above the Amazon search box. You can also click the picture below.

Now due to some restrictions in design, the store isn't all that I wanted it to be but at least the featured section, Progressive Conservatism 101 is a collection of my favorite must read books. Happy shopping people and hopefully I will be able to post a full article for Friday.

Progressive Conservatism University Book Store

Russia and Central Asian Allies Conduct War Games in Response to US Threats

There is a girl in my program, we'll call her Chicken Little, whom asks me on a nearly daily basis what is going on in the world. Of course every time I share some news with her she immediately proceeds to go running about the campus willy nilly screaming, "We're gonna die, we're all gonna die!"

I wish I could say that was an exageration, but alas, it is not.

Anywho, Chicken Little was asking me about Iran yesterday and I said that she needn't have to worry about having a war with Iran because Iran has no way of attacking the continental US. The war would be fought there, not here. However, after reading the below article, I'm starting to wonder if I've given this trusting girl with rather high anxiety sound political analysis.

According to this article, Russia and it's allies in Central Asia are ready to intervene when we attack Iran. Now that doesn't mean they'd attack us here at home necessarily, but imagine if they did...stranger things have happened in this world.

Barely acknowledged by the Western media, military exercises organized by Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan under the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, (CSTO) were launched on the 24th of August. These war games, officially tagged as part of a counter terrorism program, are in direct response to US military threats in the region including the planned attacks against Iran.

The Rubezh-2006 exercise, is scheduled to take place from August 24-29 near the Kazak port city of Aktau:

"It will be the first joint military exercise undertaken by CSTO countries, and will involve 2,500 members drawn from various armed services of member states, with Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan the principal participants. Uzbekistan, which has recently rejoined the CSTO, will send observers, while the two other pact members, Belarus and Armenia, will not be taking part .( IPWR News Briefing Central Asia)

Press reports from the region describe these war games as a response to US military presence and ambitions in Central Asia:

"The growing militarisation is connected with mutual mistrust among countries in the region, say analysts. Iranian media have speculated that the United States is using Azerbaijan to create a military counterweight to Iran on the Caspian. It is possible that the exercise conducted by the CSTO – in which Russia is dominant – represents a response to concerns about United States involvement in developing Kazakstan’s navy. Observers say Russia is leaning more and more towards the Iranian view that countries from outside should be banned from having armed forces in the Caspian Sea."

Experts say the US is trying to step up the pressure on Iran, as well as to defend its own investments in Azerbaijan and Kazakstan. It is also trying to guarantee the security of the strategically vital Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline.

A military presence on the Caspian would give the United States an opportunity to at least partially offset its weakening influence in Central Asia, as seen in the closure of its airbase in Uzbekistan, the increased rent it is having to pay for the Manas base in Kyrgyzstan, and the diplomatic scandal that resulted in the expulsion of two Americans from Kyrgyzstan.

According to analysts, genuine security in the region can be achieved only if the military interests of all five Caspian countries are coordinated. At an international conference in Astrakhan in July 2005, Russia proposed the formation of a Caspian naval coordination group, but to date the initiative has not had much of a response.(Ibid)

The entire region seems to be on a war footing. These CSTO war games should be seen in relation to those conducted barely a week earlier by Iran, in response to continued US military threats.

While Iran is not a member of the CSTO, it has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), of which China is a member. The SCO has a close relationship to the CSTO.

The structure of military alliances is crucial. In case of an attack on Iran, Russia and its CSTO allies will not remain neutral.

In April, Iran was invited to become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Sofar no concrete timetable for Iran's accession to the SCO has been set.

This enlargement of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which also includes observer status for India, Pakistan and Mongolia counters US military and strategic objectives in the broader region.

The conduct of the CSTO war games must be seen as a signal to Washington that an attack on Iran could lead to a much broader military conflict in which Russia and the member states of the CSTO could potentially be involved, siding with Iran and Syria. Also of significance is the structure of bilateral military cooperation agreements. Russia and China are the main suppliers of advanced weapons systems for Iran and Syria. Russia is contemplating the installation of a Navy base in Syria on the eastern Mediterranean coastline. In turn, the US and Israel have military cooperation agreements with Azerbaijan and Georgia.

So I Married a Career Woman

Rush Limbaugh spoke yesterday (8/23/06) about an article that briefly appeared in the careers section of Forbes.com entitled, “Don’t Marry a Career Woman,” by Michael Noer. As per usual with Limbaugh, he used this article as a blunt object to bludgeon notions popularly held by radical feminists, or as he calls them, “feminazi’s.” The article was a collection of statistical citations from a bevy of studies that looked that at the correlation between marriage and income.

Shortly after the article went up, it caused such a brouhaha in the blogosphere that it disappeared almost instantaneously. By the time Limbaugh opted to talk about the story and post it on his website, the link no longer worked. Luckily for me and others who wanted to see the article for themselves a fellow blogger managed to track the story down and post it in its entirety on his/her blog. The content of the article was also covered on Slate.com, Mother Jones, CNET News.com, as well as other news sites and blogs. As you can imagine, in most cases the opinions of this mans work fell short of complimentary. As a matter of fact, most thought his views were downright misogynistic and outdated.

When I heard Limbaugh talking about the article and reading from it, my first reaction was hysterical laughter. In my opinion, some of the assertions Noer makes, sound to me downright absurd. What made the piece even more ridiculous to me was an accompanying slideshow (also gone from Forbes.com) that insisted that if you married a career woman you would live in squalor because she doesn’t have enough time nor the compulsion to clean house and you would get sick. The whole thing sounded more comical than it did scientific.

Now I love a good marriage joke as much as the next man but this article was not meant to be satirical. Noer was attempting to put into words an argument for men to avoid marriage based on statistical evidence. From what I could glean while listening to Limbaugh, his evidence sounded contrary to my own beliefs, and if I might be so bold as to agree with Mother Jones, just a bit too patriarchal and misogynistic.

I sought out the article myself and here are some highlights:

While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner…If a host of studies are to be believed, marrying these women is asking for trouble. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do ( Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill ( American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier ( Institute for Social Research).

Noer defines a career woman as she who earns $30,000 per year. Now by that definition I wouldn’t even be considered as having a career seeing working in social services in Tampa earns a mere $27,000 (before licensure). My wife makes about 30K, more if she has good sales month and makes high commissions. This would make sense as she chose a career in the private sector and earns her living as a licensed optician. She makes a fairly high salary because she is in the business of selling products. I however am in the business of sucking up yours and her tax dollars (you have to love social services!) and therefore because I am dependant on the public dole, I make less money.

Now if Noer is correct my wife should be unhappy with me because of my fiscal inadequacies. The fact is that she, by her own admission is perfectly happy working and doesn’t care one way or the other whom makes the higher salary. If anything she finds it ironic, as many of my less educated friends do that even with a Masters degree I can’t break into the 30’s until I get licensed.

His first assertion that if my wife were to quit her job and stay home with the kiddies (or in our current case the puppies) would eventually make her miserable, may be statistically correct but is in reality a flawed belief. My wife, as well as others, would utilize her time as a full-time mother to volunteer in a host of programs. My cousin is actually one of those people. She quit being a web designer to be a full-time mother of two children. Now many in her position end up just being a “mom” and that more than anything else may lead to feelings of unhappiness. My cousin is not just a mom though. Though her children are toddlers, she divides her time selling Mary Kay products (for mad money), baking and designing cakes, teaching cake design classes, leading a Brownie troop, and other assorted community functions. The problem with many former career women is that they rely totally on a job to give them purpose rather than finding civic functions to occupy their ambitions, along with being a mother to children. My wife has said on numerous occasions that if she were a full-time mom she too would be an active community volunteer.

I think the part that I find most offensive is the bit about having a dirtier house. Any man that marries a woman, career minded or otherwise, expecting her to do all of the housework is just an asshole. There’s no better way for me to put this. Only the most spoil brat slob of a man can’t cook and clean for himself and therefore shouldn’t expect is new wife to just take over that responsibility in total. I lived away from my parents for a collective total of about 4 years. I cooked my own dinners, did my own laundry, vacuumed and dusted. It’s not the worst thing ever and to this day, I don’t mind having to do those things. Just because I’m married now, I don’t expect my wife, regardless of her career aspirations to become my slave. Again, statistically men may be finding career women less exuberant about keeping a clean house but that’s probably because many men are spoiled brats whom are taking their loved ones for granted.

All in all, I’m mostly in agreement with the critics of this article in believing that his intentions were to make an argument against married working women. The fact remains that if you both are honest and communicate with each other, it shouldn’t matter who does the dishes and who pays the mortgage.

Marines to Recall Troops to Active Duty

Now I've been saying for quite some time that because of the Iranian oil bourse and other issues, the US would eventually attack Iran, irregardless of the cost in lives or strategic advantage. This was backed up by a story that stated Dick Cheney was depending on this front in the so-called War on Terror to gain political capital in the forthcoming midterm elections. Another story has emerged citing the former chief of ISI, Maj. Gen (R) Hameed Gul of Pakistan who predicts, "America would definitely attack Iran and Syria simultaneously in October."

Some might say this is hogwash and the rantings of far left kooks or Islamic fanatics but you can't deny that the Marines recalling troops is more than mere coincidence. Granted the article says it's to back up the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but once cannot expect the DOD to outright admit they are deploying for an attack into Persia. Maybe I'm off, you be the judge:

The Marine Corps will soon begin ordering thousands of its troops back to active duty because of a shortage of volunteers for Iraq and Afghanistan _ the first involuntary recall since the early days of the war.

Up to 2,500 Marines will be brought back at a time, and there is no cap on the total number who may be forced back into service as the military helps fight the war on terror. The call-ups will begin in the next several months.

Advertisement
Advertising Info
The number of troops in Iraq has climbed back to 138,000 _ the prevailing number for much of last year. Troop levels had been declining this year, to a low of about 127,000, amid growing calls from Congress and the public for a phased withdrawal. Escalating violence in Baghdad has led military leaders to increase the U.S. presence there.

This is the first time the Marines have had to use the involuntary recall since the beginning of the Iraq combat. The Army, meanwhile, has issued orders recalling about 10,000 soldiers so far, but many of those may be granted exemptions.

Marine Col. Guy A. Stratton, head of the manpower mobilization section, estimated that there is a current shortfall of about 1,200 Marines needed to fill positions in upcoming deployments.

Some of the military needs, he said, include engineers, intelligence, military police and communications.

As of Tuesday, nearly 22,000 of the 138,000 troops in Iraq were Marines.

The call-up will affect Marines in the Individual Ready Reserve, a segment of the reserves that consists mainly of those who have left active duty but still have time remaining on their eight-year military obligations.

Generally, Marines enlist for four years, then serve the other four years either in the regular Reserves, where they are paid and train periodically, or in the Individual Ready Reserve. Marines in the IRR are obligated to report only one day a year but can be involuntarily recalled to active duty.

To date, about 5,000 Army IRR soldiers have mobilized, and about 2,200 of those are currently serving, according to Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman. Of those 2,200, about 16 percent are volunteers, he said. A typical Army enlistment obligation is also for eight years.

According to Stratton, there are about 59,000 Marines in the IRR, but the Corps has decided to exempt from the call-up those who are either in their first year or last year of the reserve status. As a result, the pool of available Marines is about 35,000.

The deployments can last up to two years, but on average would be 12 to 18 months, Stratton said. Each Marine who is being recalled will get five months to prepare before having to report.

President Bush authorized the recall on July 26. It is the first such recall since early 2003, when about 2,000 Marines were involuntarily activated for the initial ground war in Iraq.

"Since this is going to be a long war," said Stratton, "we thought it was judicious and prudent at this time to be able to use a relatively small portion of those Marines to help us augment our units."

Cheney orchestrated Israel’s losing war

This is one of those articles that sounds too crazy to be true but if it is then boy are we in trouble. Let me make myself clear here, I'm necessarily opposed to a war against Iran, if it were to be fought correctly. That is to say that if we were to carpet bomb its cities without regard to innocent lives as we did in World War II. The problem is we haven't fought a war that way since. The Korean, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars were all these protracted offensives where we attempted to limit civilian casualties and nation build as the bombs were still dropping. That has been proven to be a recipe for failure. However, since that's the only kind of war this administration seems capable (and I use that world loosely) to fight, then I oppose any aggresive move against Tehran. We have no will to win a war there, just as there's no will to win in Iraq. The other reason this article scares me and puts me squarely against military measures in Iran is that it appears to be motivated, at this time, by solely the mid-term elections. Thousands of Persians and Americans shouldn't have to die in order for the Republicans to continue to hold congress. As a strategic move to hamper world wide Islamic Nazism, it's fine if it is done correctly. As a political strategy for winning domestic elections it is a war crime.

Dick Cheney orchestrated Israel’s losing war against Hizbullah by authorizing George Bush and Condoleezza Rice to encourage Ehud Olmert to launch the war against Lebanon as a prelude to America’s forthcoming war against Iran.

Following briefings from top Israeli military officials, Cheney approved plans for an air war against Lebanon as a preliminary move to disarm Hizbullah in advance of America’s broader military objective - to launch an air war against Iran. Had the US launched its war against Iran without Olmert’s intervention in Lebanon, Hizbullah would have been free to attack Israel. Cheney’s plan was designed to disarm Hizbullah, but it was based on what now appears to have been a false assumption - that Israel would win their war in Lebanon.

According to Seymour Hersh, Israel’s tactical profile for disarming Hizbullah was modelled on US plans to disarm Iran. Following Cheney’s guidance, the Pentagon mapped out a comprehensive campaign of air strikes against Iran’s civilian infrastructure targeting airports, bridges, roads, power stations as well as military command and control centres and other key buildings identified as hostile territory. According to a former senior intelligence official who talked to Hersh, Israel’s attack on Lebanon and Hizbullah is a “mirror image” of US plans for its imminent war with Iran.

Responding to the pressure of time, Cheney and his circle of advisors urged the Israelis to launch their war against Lebanon at the earliest date possible in order to allow the US war against Iran to launch during George Bush’s presidency. Apparently, now that Israel has dealt its blow against Hizbullah, Bush and Cheney feel less constrained about ordering their war against Iran.

A former diplomat who talked to Hersh predicted that the Iran crisis “will really start at the end of August, when the Iranians will say no (sic),” to a UN deadline to halt their uranium enrichment project.

During the autumn campaign for midterm elections, it is becoming increasingly likely that Cheney will encourage Bush to order the launch of the Iran War – a ploy designed to rekindle support for their neoconservative strategy for world domination.

Following the defeat of Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, the Republicans have seized on the war against terror as their most effective political message for attacking their Democratic Party rivals. Most Democrats now favour a smooth and certain withdrawal of US forces from Iraq rather than the open-ended policy favoured by the Bush-Cheney White House that would leave troops in the field indefinitely.

Even though the cessation of hostilities was scheduled to take place in the early hours of this morning, both sides are prepared for the ceasefire to fail. But, the continuation of war between Israel and Lebanon will make no difference to Bush and Cheney’s plans to attack Iran, a scheme that is driven by political factors rather than geostrategic calculations.

Questions and Answers Regarding the Nature of War

The following questions are part of a special edition roundtable for the month of August at 411Mania.com/Politics. Normally if I contribute to one of these roundtable discussions I leave my entry as the sole province of 411 content. However, because these were such great and interesting questions that not only spell out beliefs concerning war and peace but also are pertinent to this time in political history, I thought I would post them here on PC as well. So without further ado, here are the roundtable questions an answers I that can also be read on 411Mania.com/Politics:

1). Is the concept of world peace dead? Was it ever alive?

There’s a great book that I read shortly after 9/11 that was intrinsic in changing the way I viewed the world and issue of war as part and parcel of it. That book was “Civilization and Its Enemies,” by Lee Harris. In that book Lee points out in many different ways that as long as human beings compete for resources there will always be war. War is as much a part of human nature and history as breathing and eating. Now while the Scots may have developed the social contract theory as a way of civilizing people and finding a plausible way of sharing resources, the fact of the matter is that sometimes even the promise of evenly shared resources is not enough to placate savage beings. For whatever the reasons are: religion, culture, psychodynamics, etc, some people would prefer to destroy rather than to build. More to the point, it is inherent in human nature to rise to the least common denominator and take the paths of least resistance. Certainly killing and destroying lie directly on the paths of least resistance rather than building and sharing do. For more on that, I suggest you watch infants socialize without the benefit of decent guardian watching.

This answers whether or not peace is possible and until the entire human race is on the same page ethically, culturally, and psychologically, world peace will always be impossible. However, the question was whether or not the concept of world peace is dead and was it ever alive to begin with. You need look no further than the writings of Karl Marx or the teachings of Jesus Christ to know that the CONCEPT of world peace has always been at the very a noble pursuit. Certainly the United Nations collective believe in the theory of world peace as an attainable goal and have stated this in much of their resolutions. Liberals from all walks of life cling to the belief that if they could just drive Israel and all Conservatives/Christians into the sea, then we could all live in a world of subjective moralist and judgment free society. So yes, the concept is alive and well and living the spirit of all of those people who stand in the streets protesting everything from the World Trade Organization to anything that dribbles out of the mouth of George W. Bush. It is a noble and yet naïve belief in the extreme.

2). Is war an unavoidable part of human nature?

As I stated above, war is definitely a part of human nature. It is unavoidable so long as there exists those whom are enemies of civilization (once again see Lee Harris’ “Civilization and Its Enemies”). Now in war there is an inherent definition of the act that assumes we have one group of people attempting to kill another group of people and take their land, resources, et al. Of course you can also war against somebody or something simply because they are perceived to be a threat to your existence. If you look at the history of collectivism, for example Stalinism, here one can see war played as the latter. Stalin systematically tried to eliminate all people, organizations and beliefs that were a threat to Soviet communism as he defined it. This method was copied in Cambodia as well as a whole of other places to various degrees of success. In looking just this definition of war, it is readily apparent that so long as one man perceives another to be a threat to his existence, a competitor is some form or fashion, then there will always be war. When man no longer finds threats of any kind looming in the shadows or actual threats cease to exist then, and only then will war follow into the pyre of extinct human ideas and concepts.

3). Are some wars better, or more just, than others?

I suppose that depends on whom you are asking. Hitler would tell you that due to circumstances resulting from the end of World War I, he was perfectly justified in commencing with the attempted genocide of the Jewish race and occupation of Europe. If the Chinese ever invade Taiwan they will insist that it is there right to do so as Taiwan rightfully belongs to them. If the Chinese ever make good on there threats to invade Japan, they will feel that the Rape of Nanking in World War II absolutely gives them that right to seek a war of revenge. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld believed they were justified in instituting “regime change” in Iraq because there were responsible for creating the monster that was Saddam Hussein in the first place. They would tell you (in a rare moment of honesty) that they were only cleaning up the mess they had made in the 80’s during the Iran-Iraq war and that furthermore, they were doing the Arab/Muslim world a favor by eliminating a local threat.

Point of view is certainly important but if you really want to nail this down to an objective answer than you must look at my previous two answers. There will always be those that find your existence to be a threat to their society, culture, hold on power, etc. Hell, if you were to follow around a group of adolescent girls they would show you in spades that perceived threats to ones integrity and happiness are in motion all the time. My wife, like most people, always points to examples of other people’s behavior she finds to be a threat to her happiness and if she had her druthers, she’d probably have them shot.

That being said, if you believe in your heart that you are good and have the right to pursue happiness as it is defined in social contract theory, than when that right is violently challenged, you are compelled to defend yourself. This is problem many people don’t seem to understand about the Israeli’s and especially this latest war in Lebanon. Hezbollah and Hamas were not unclear about their intentions; they very plainly wanted to remove the State of Israel from the map of the Middle East. When they had succeeded in doing that, just as soon as they had the means to do so, they would have killed every single Jew in the world as the Judeo religion and culture is perceived by them to be a threat to the existence of the Islamic world and tradition. Israel has been defending its right to exist since it was founded by first the League of Nations and then by the United Nations. Now people like to bitch and moan about how they choose to defend themselves in the face of unending attacks with the intent to commit genocide but that has little or nothing to do with the above question. Any war, including both the wars in Iraq and the last war in Lebanon are just because if they had not been fought, the enemy that resides and schemes in those lands would have eventually had the means to try and eliminate the Israeli’s from the planet and us. In short, war is justified in defense of ones right to exist. Of course by that definition then human civilization would most likely be in a perpetual war of some kind but that’s a column for another day.

4). If you could do one thing to make the world more peaceful, what would it be?

In the above answers I have defined war in terms of those whom are moved by a desire to destroy or whom are easily threatened by competition. Now as a social worker, therapist and a mandated reporter, I can tell you that much of this could be dealt away with if failures of the human condition could be healed forever. If I could do one thing to make the world more peaceful I would eliminate the existence of trauma, anxiety and depression from the realm of human psychodynamics. Take any one person you know who tends to be on the aggressive side and imagine what they would be like if they had never been abused, neglected or mistreated at any time of their life. In other words, I would eliminate mans inherent nature to be beastly to his fellow man in order to satiate his own need. Marx would tell you this could be done through social and economic means and he was proven wrong. Jesus would tell you that this could be accomplished through self-discipline and prayer. Though many try, not enough people have even attempted to follow in Jesus’ footsteps. No, the only way to remove anxiety, trauma and depression from the human condition and thus end war for eternity here on earth would be magic or the hand of God almighty. Since neither magic nor Gods hand are likely to show themselves in this lifetime and perform such a feat, I would suggest that war will be with until then end of human civilization.

Iran cinema booms as people crave smiles over style

Now that I'm not using Fridays to post book reviews, instead Friday may become "silly news day." Lighter faire for the faint of heart. I saw this article and laughed as it reminded me that politics and religion aside, we are all the same throughout the world. The good people of Persia should know that we here in America love crap film versus film that makes you think too.

International audiences have come to know Iranian cinema as a lyrical but slow-paced genre where horses slog through snowy Kurdish mountain passes and children spend two hours looking for a lost banknote.

Such arthouse films may win plaudits at festivals like Cannes, but they are not the sort of movies that break box office records in Tehran.

This summer's top film in the Islamic Republic was "Ceasefire," a saccharine comedy in which two sexy newly-weds get so competitive with each other that they have to consult a psychologist to avoid divorce.

"People who spend money and time coming to movies prefer to have fun and leave ... smiling instead of solving philosophical problems in dark theatres," said Pouria Vali, a 21-year-old regular film-goer who has seen "Ceasefire" twice.

The film took more than $1 million at the box office between May and July. Cinema tickets cost about a dollar in Iran.

"Most people like comedies because they do not have much to laugh about these days," said Navid Etminan, a 25-year-old student queuing up to watch the film.

"Artistic movies can reach out to foreign audiences, but not to ordinary people," he said.

INCREASED BOX-OFFICE SALES

The success of "Ceasefire" comes as Iranian cinemas enjoy a boom, fueled largely by a greater number of home-grown romantic comedies which have lured people back to the big screen.

Movie theatres took in more than $2 million between March and May this year, up 100 percent on the same period in 2005, state cinema authority Farabi said.

"The stories are far better in this year's films and that is the right way to get people onside," said Akbar Nabavi, cinema critic and documentary producer.

Romantic comedies fill a vacuum; people want to be amused but Hollywood's offerings often do not fit the bill in Iran, where censorship has been a constant factor since the 1979 revolution and even before.

State-imposed cultural restrictions mean many foreign films are heavily edited to meet the country's strict Islamic codes, or sometimes banned.

And although people can watch blockbuster comedies from the United States and elsewhere on pirated DVDs, many cannot understand them as they are not subtitled or dubbed.

There is also little appetite for home-grown films by such acclaimed figures as Abbas Kiarostami and Jafar Panahi -- among directors who have won praise abroad for using innuendo and metaphor, much like Eastern European directors who found ways to navigate the strictures of communist systems.

"People had got fed up with stupid political games and they showed their lack of interest by turning their backs on movies as symbols of the political trends," said Nabavi.

With 130 Iranian films looking for a screening each year, cinema managers tend to prefer crowd-pleasing comedies over harrowing tales of broken families.

WAR FILMS

While romantic comedies may be thriving, other genres are losing fans in a country with just 256 cinemas, 80 in Tehran.

During the 1980-1988 war with Iraq, Iranian cinema audiences were fed a heavy diet of war movies as directors had easy access to helicopters and tanks on the front-lines.

But Kamal Tabrizi, a pioneering comedy director who used to make war films, said Iran could no longer compete in this genre.

"Making a war movie or an action film has become harder and more expensive day by day in Iran, and the Iranian films cannot compete with their blockbuster American rivals," Tabrizi said.

"People have easy access to the new Hollywood movies and compare Iranian films to those. And they find the Iranian products weakly crafted," he said.

Iranian war epic "Duel," the most expensive Iranian film, failed to make a big impression at the box office when it was released in 2004.

Tabrizi's most notorious film was "The Lizard," a box office hit about a thief who escapes from prison by dressing up as a cleric. Ironically, the crook then becomes very popular as a preacher. Cinemas eventually pulled the film after religious hardliners called for it to be banned.

Iran's horror scene has also failed to take off, with little appetite for "Girls' Dormitory," a bloody tale with supernatural overtones about a killer preying on female students.

"A weak Iranian horror movie can only make people laugh," Tabrizi said.

So, for now Iranian cinema will continue to grow on the back of innocent romances.

"I have come to watch the cute superstars in "Ceasefire" and laugh a bit, and I think that is pretty much what everybody wants from a movie," said Tina, a 17-year-old student who bunked off an afternoon language class to watch the film.

Firm Has Plan To Import Hydrogen Cars From China

Why go to war when you can just as easily beat your enemies at their own game? The Chinese are poised to become the sole economic engine and safety net of the worlds economy. The below article states that a Chinese auto company is planning to start selling hydrogen cars in the US some time in 2008. If the bedrock for the world economy shifts from oil to hydrocarbons, the entire structure of world will shift with it, to China's benefit. RIght now the US has some degree of control over the Middle East because by buying their oil, we have some say in what their governments do. When oil is no longer a factor and these same companies need a benefactor, it won't be the US that's keeping them afloat, it will be China and their billion strong investments and strategic partnerships. While this article is great news for those of who have to decide between filling up their gas tank for and calling in sick to buy bread, in the long run it is quite simply a canary in the mineshaft that represents the fall of American economic superpowerdom.

The Chinese are coming.

They are bringing luxury cars to America. They also have ambitious plans to bring hydrogen-powered cars to the world.

Two recent announcements highlighted the developments.

Malcolm Bricklin, the man who brought Subaru and Yugo automobiles to the United States and who now heads the aptly named Visionary Vehicles in New York, revealed his partnership with a major East Coast dealership chain to begin U.S. distribution of cars manufactured by China's Chery Automobile Co. in late 2007.

The first models, mid-size luxury sedans priced in the manner of economy cars, will be sold in Arlington, Va., through a retail network set up by Rothrock Motor Sales of Allentown, Pa.

The dealership chain, operated by the father-and-son team of David and Bruce Rothrock, owns stores in Pennsylvania's Lehigh and Delaware valleys. But the Rothrocks are in an expansionist mode. In addition to setting up shop in Virginia, they also are moving into the Florida communities of Palm Beach, Orlando and Winter Park. And they are expanding out West by establishing retail outlets in San Gabriel Valley, Calif.

The aggressively entrepreneurial Rothrocks are Bricklin's kind of people — “precisely the type of partners we are looking for at Visionary Vehicles,” Bricklin said in prepared remarks. As shareholders in Visionary Vehicles, the Rothrocks will play a major role in the company's product offering and pricing decisions, Bricklin said.

Over the past three years, Bricklin has been pursuing a plan to establish a U.S. Chery Automobile distribution network made up of 250 dealers, each contributing $1 million or more to join. Visionary's goal with the Chery car, made in Wuhu, China, is based on a classic Bricklin formula: Import a precedent-setting automobile at a low price, hype it to the max and generate enough sales to create a new market segment or, at least, establish a new brand.

That strategy worked well for Bricklin in 1968 when he began selling the Japanese-made Subaru 360 subcompact car through a network of 20 U.S. dealers. It did not work as well a few years later with his importing Italy's Fiat X-9. Nor did it stand him in good stead in 1985 with his ill-fated importing of the Yugoslavian Yugo.

With the Chinese, Bricklin has something he did not have with the Italians or Yugoslavs — the commitment of the government of the People's Republic of China to turn its burgeoning automotive industry into a global success.

That commitment was demonstrated in another automotive development in China last week that could profoundly change the nature of the automobile as we have come to know, love and loathe it. Ballard Power Systems, based in Vancouver, British Columbia, signed a memorandum of understanding with Shanghai Fuel Cell Vehicle Powertrain Co. to supply up to 20 fuel-cell stacks and related equipment to be installed in a demonstration fleet of 100 fuel-cell vehicles owned by the Shanghai Municipal Government.

A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that produces energy through a reaction between hydrogen and oxygen. It is regarded as a clean, efficient energy system that relies on renewable resources.

The Shanghai government hopes to have its 100 fuel-cell cars operating by the end of 2007. Those models mark the first phase of the plan to put 1,000 hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles on Shanghai's roads by 2010 and to have 10,000 operating by 2012.

That kind of aggressiveness in the development and deployment of hydrogen fuel-cell cars and trucks could make China a world leader in hydrogen fuel-cell technology, Ballard officials said.

“We believe China could be a key market driving the commercialization of automotive fuel-cell technology, and, as such, we are very pleased to announce this next step in our ongoing activities in China,” said Noordin Nanji, Ballard's vice president for marketing.

Bottom line: The Chinese dragon is revving its engines. American, European, South Korean and Japanese car companies that have seen tough competition in recent years haven't seen anything yet.

IRAN NUCLEAR: FOCUS - TEHRAN PREPARES ECONOMIC WEAPON

Bernard Lewis wrote in the Wall Street Journal (as reprinted on Drudge and Newsmax.com) that Iran may be planning some sort of cataclysmic response to the UN demanding that it stop enriching uranium. This is supposed to correspond with the Muslim version of the rapture. Google "Hidden Imam" if you want to know about it. In the meatime, assuming that the world will not begin to end on August 22, there's a more important issue to deal with.

Pre-emptively bombing Iran will throw us directly into a World War, which nobody wants. There's a million analysts out there that will tell you all the various reasons why it won't happen. Maybe Israel will do something, as some signs point to, but probably not. So barring any unforseen calamity stemming from Iran itself, the only other option for the Western world to punish Iran with for going forward with uranium enrichment is UN sanctions. Now even if Russia and China were to agree to such a thing, which they won't, AKI has some information related to why France and other EU nations most likely won't agree to sanctions in the end as well.

So, this tells us a few things: First that the UN is completely toothless. It couldn't disarm Hezbollah and it can't stop Iran from making an atomic bomb. That's the sum total of the UN's effectiveness. It simply exists to plant egg squarely on the face of the US and nothing more. It's only a matter of time before Iran does in fact get the bomb and so long as they don't actually use it or do something equally insane, the world cannot and will not stop them, bottom line.

Iran has practically rejected a UN security council resolution threatening economic sanctions if it fails to suspend uranium enrichment by 31 August. And as a document obtained by Adnkronos International (AKI) suggests, Iran means to show how much the West has to loose if a boycott is imposed.

The 11-page document prepared by authorities in Tehran offers an analysis of Iran's economic relations with Western countries using data from Iran's central bank, the Bank Markazi. The document rethorically poses as its main question: "who will have the courage to boycott the Islamic Republic?"

Europe would lose some 13 billion euros in exports and 10 billion in imports a year, mainly in gas and petrol, the document estimates.

As far as Italy, Iran's main commercial partner in Europe is concerned, cutting ties with Iran would bring a loss amounting to two annual budgets, a fact recognised recently by Italian foreign minister Massimo D'Alema.

Relations between the Islamic Republic and the West however are not limited to commercial exchanges.

Iran has debts worth 27 billion dollars with European banks. Moreover, the Iranian government has 25 billion dollars deposited in banks in Europe which could be withdrawn any time soon, causing significant debts.

Ten major oil companies including Italy's ENI have invested 15 billion dollars in South Pars, the world's largest gas field in the Persian Gulf off Iran. China has signed investment accords in the energy sector worth 25 billion dollars.

Finally, the document talks about the 'oil weapon'. Today 40 oil companies, including three from Italy, import every day 2.5 million barrels of crude oil. Japan, with its 541,000 barrels imported each day, would be the hardest hit.

The economy of South Korea, whose exports to Iran in the past three years totalled 26 billion dollars, would be hugely damaged by a boycott on Tehran.

Overall, experts who drafted the document eestimated that were Iran to stop exporting crude oil and gas, the price of oil a barrel would amount to a minimum of 100 dollars but could reach 125 dollars.

IRAN NUCLEAR: FOCUS - TEHRAN PREPARES ECONOMIC WEAPON

Bernard Lewis wrote in the Wall Street Journal (as reprinted on Drudge and Newsmax.com) that Iran may be planning some sort of cataclysmic response to the UN demanding that it stop enriching uranium. This is supposed to correspond with the Muslim version of the rapture. Google "Hidden Imam" if you want to know about it. In the meatime, assuming that the world will not begin to end on August 22, there's a more important issue to deal with.

Pre-emptively bombing Iran will throw us directly into a World War, which nobody wants. There's a million analysts out there that will tell you all the various reasons why it won't happen. Maybe Israel will do something, as some signs point to, but probably not. So barring any unforseen calamity stemming from Iran itself, the only other option for the Western world to punish Iran with for going forward with uranium enrichment is UN sanctions. Now even if Russia and China were to agree to such a thing, which they won't, AKI has some information related to why France and other EU nations most likely won't agree to sanctions in the end as well.

So, this tells us a few things: First that the UN is completely toothless. It couldn't disarm Hezbollah and it can't stop Iran from making an atomic bomb. That's the sum total of the UN's effectiveness. It simply exists to plant egg squarely on the face of the US and nothing more. It's only a matter of time before Iran does in fact get the bomb and so long as they don't actually use it or do something equally insane, the world cannot and will not stop them, bottom line.

Iran has practically rejected a UN security council resolution threatening economic sanctions if it fails to suspend uranium enrichment by 31 August. And as a document obtained by Adnkronos International (AKI) suggests, Iran means to show how much the West has to loose if a boycott is imposed.

The 11-page document prepared by authorities in Tehran offers an analysis of Iran's economic relations with Western countries using data from Iran's central bank, the Bank Markazi. The document rethorically poses as its main question: "who will have the courage to boycott the Islamic Republic?"

Europe would lose some 13 billion euros in exports and 10 billion in imports a year, mainly in gas and petrol, the document estimates.

As far as Italy, Iran's main commercial partner in Europe is concerned, cutting ties with Iran would bring a loss amounting to two annual budgets, a fact recognised recently by Italian foreign minister Massimo D'Alema.

Relations between the Islamic Republic and the West however are not limited to commercial exchanges.

Iran has debts worth 27 billion dollars with European banks. Moreover, the Iranian government has 25 billion dollars deposited in banks in Europe which could be withdrawn any time soon, causing significant debts.

Ten major oil companies including Italy's ENI have invested 15 billion dollars in South Pars, the world's largest gas field in the Persian Gulf off Iran. China has signed investment accords in the energy sector worth 25 billion dollars.

Finally, the document talks about the 'oil weapon'. Today 40 oil companies, including three from Italy, import every day 2.5 million barrels of crude oil. Japan, with its 541,000 barrels imported each day, would be the hardest hit.

The economy of South Korea, whose exports to Iran in the past three years totalled 26 billion dollars, would be hugely damaged by a boycott on Tehran.

Overall, experts who drafted the document eestimated that were Iran to stop exporting crude oil and gas, the price of oil a barrel would amount to a minimum of 100 dollars but could reach 125 dollars.

Conn. firm touts hydrogen power progress

Yesterday was a fiasco for the American oil business. Nobody can afford the price of gas as it is and certainly a $.30 jump in price will only make problems worse for a majority of Americans. With that in mind, here's a small piece of possibly good news for the future...if we make it that far.

A Connecticut company has won a federal grant to test new technology that it says can produce clean hydrogen power for cars and industrial companies at a cost competitive with gasoline.

President Bush has touted hydrogen power as a way to reduce the country's dependence on oil from volatile countries. But hydrogen is three to four times as expensive to produce as gas, according to federal government estimates cited by FuelCell Energy Inc.

FuelCell Energy, based in Danbury, makes fuel cells that generate electricity for power plants while also creating excess hydrogen. The new technology involves converting the extra hydrogen into a purer form that can be used to power cars or for industrial purposes, such as powering chemical production.

The company, which already has used the technology on a small unit at the University of Connecticut Global Fuel Cell Center, won a $1.36 million grant from the U.S. Department of Defense last week to produce a larger version.

"We actually become an enabler for the hydrogen highway," said Dan Brdar, the company's chief executive. "It clearly opens a whole new market segment for us."

Government investments in such technology are vital to make hydrogen power a reality, said U.S. Rep. John Larson, D-Hartford.

"I think it's extraordinarily important," said Larson, a strong advocate of hydrogen power. "This moves us a long way in that direction."

The company expects to begin deploying the technology for industrial use in about two years. Company officials eventually hope to use the hydrogen for cars as well.

The military hopes to use the hydrogen from the fuel cells to power utility trucks such as forklifts and eventually military vehicles, said Frank Holcomb, project leader for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Officials will evaluate the reliability of the technology and whether it can produce a sufficient amount of hydrogen, Holcomb said.

"We know hydrogen and the hydrogen infrastructure are coming," Holcomb said. "This is just one step to getting us a little bit closer to that. We want to start dabbling in the technology now because we see some of the benefits to it."

The company says its technology will save up to half the energy required by conventional methods to convert the hydrogen for power. That should enable the company to meet government targets to produce hydrogen for $3 to $4 per kilogram, down from $4 to $6, Brdar said.

The unit that will be produced as a result of the federal grant will provide enough hydrogen to run a fleet of 300 cars, Brdar said.

Walter Nasdeo, an analyst for Ardour Capital Investments in New York who follows the company, said using the technology for cars may still take some time.

"I think it's very important as another step in the development of this whole hydrogen-oriented infrastructure we're striving for here," Nasdeo said. "It makes it that much closer to reality."

The prototype at UConn has produced top quality hydrogen, said Kenneth Reifsnider, director of the fuel cell center.

"This brings it to a community of industrial and commercial users that otherwise wouldn't consider hydrogen as a source of energy," Reifsnider said. "This has the potential to bring cost down to a much lower level."

The company's stock traded on Nasdaq Friday afternoon at $8.46, down 21 cents. The stock has traded between $7.90 and $15 over the past year.

Final Review: Parish Priest

Well folks, my tenure with Pop and Politics has come to an end. Last May I was informed that my old boss would no longer be working with the website as its home base was moving from the University of San Francisco to the University of Southern California. While I was on my honeymoon I was contacted by the new editor who was willing to raise my rate of pay for each book review provided that I pitched each one to him and he pre-approved of it. This was a minor inconvienance as I usually picked my own books and the previous editor never had an issue with what I submitted. But I'm not a hard guy to get along with so I agreed to his terms.

The first review I submitted was for the new ECW book. When he posted it, I noticed that it had been considerably rewritten. However, since it was just a wrestling book and the basic tenor was consistent I didn't really care. When I submitted my second effort, "Parish Priest," by Douglas Brinkley and Julie M. Fenster, the issue of his over editing not only got worse, he completely changed the voice of the piece from fairly even handed, as most of my reviews are, to an editorial bashing the Catholic Church.

Not maybe I don't know a lot about the journalism world, as he seems to think, but I would think that an editors job is to correct grammar and such, make editorial suggestions, and essentially help you punch up your work, not completely rewrite it as his own editorial opinion piece. Again, I could be wrong but I doubt it.

So here's the entire exchange, including my review vs. the review he rewrote, use your own judgement as to whether I have a legitimate gripe or not. Either way, I will no longer be review books for Pop and Politics.com:

Dear [Editor]
As I'm sure you know, I have been reviewing books for your site for over a year now. I agreed to continue my tenure under the new editor, John Tomasic, with the caveat that he would choose the books I would review. I've since submitted two reviews and both were rewritten such to the point that the voice of the narration was no longer mine. The last one, Parish Priest, was not only renamed but so badly rewritten that it didn't even come close to what I submitted in the first place. More over, John rewrote the review with such a bias that it not only insulted my wife and I (we are Roman Catholic) I'm now afraid to send anymore lest he add unwanted editorial opinions to them.

You are obviously obliged to accept or reject at will any of my submissions but to rewrite something I've written, not send it back for my approval and then attach my name to it is unprofessional in the extreme. If you would like me to continue sending book reviews I would demand that from now on, editorial changes be limited to grammar, punctuation and removal of paragraphs as was the case under Jean Chen. If not then I cannot in good conscience allow my work to be changed and then falsely present views that are not in truth mine.

I have included below the original review I submitted. Please read it and compare my voice to the one posted under the title Peoples Priest. Lastly, please let me know if we should continue this working relationship that I believe has beneffitted both of us for a year and half.

Thank you for your time,

Mark Radulich, MSW

The new editor responded to this e-mail instead of the person whom I had intended the e-mail for:

Mark--

Thanks for voicing your concerns and thank you for your contributions over the past year to the website. I'm sorry you found the edits to your recent pieces objectionable. I did indeed retitle the piece and alter your voice and that was by intention. We
obviously hold different opinions, both as to what constitutes good editing as well as to what constitutes good writing. We also clearly have had different experience in publishing. I am happy to remove your name from the piece(s) if you desire.

Please also extend an apology to your wife.

Thanks again. I wish you the best in the future, one
Catholic to another.

Sincerely,

[Editor]

And now for my review:

Parish Priest: Father Michael McGivney and American Catholicism by Douglas Brinkley and Julie M. Fenster

Religion has always been regarded as a rather taboo subject. It is not something one should be talking about in polite company, so they say. In today’s multiculturalist water-cooler society, one man’s DaVinci Code or Gospel of Judas is another mans heresy. The topic of religion is by its nature divisive. The Muslims believe there’s is the one and only true god, as do the Jews, as do the many denominations of Christians, let alone the Hindu’s, Buddhists and other assorted spiritual societies. Many by the millions have murdered their brothers to underscore this fact. Needless to say, the subject of religion and what it means to people is not to be taken lightly.

Christianity, as it is practiced by Catholics world wide, has had more than an eventful existence. The Catholic Church has been both worshipped as the glue that has kept a society together when all else had fallen to pieces, and it has been vilified as a morally corrupt institution bent on imperialism, slavery and child abuse (depending on the era in question). Some, like comedian Bill Maher, have said Catholicism numbs the mind and makes sheep out of men, while other laud the Catholic church for giving them purpose and sense of belonging.

Ultimately, your view of the Catholic Church will be shaped by the people in your life that are catholic themselves. Obviously if you have angry or neglectful parents whom are also catholic or the local parish priest is any degree of unsavory, your view of the religion will be skewed negatively. By the same token, if you’ve had a supportive upbringing in the Catholic Church and those involved were positive influences than your opinion of said religion will usually follow suit. Like all human institutions, it is that people involved that make all of the difference.

Sometimes all it takes is one special person to make a difference. Douglas Brinkley, author of the Senator and former presidential candidate John Kerry biography, “Tour of Duty,” with Julie M. Fenster, author of “Mavericks, Miracles, and Medicine,” has written a book that is one part biography of the life Father Michael McGivney and one part history of the Catholic church in America. “Parish Priest: Father Michael McGivney and American Catholicism,” is a wonderful and true story that encapsulate both the best parts of organized and the American dream. It is a story about how one truly blessed man lived the word of his god and set about helping an entire community and in doing so, changing the landscape of American society where Catholics were concerned.

McGivney was a tireless local, parish priest who worked out of New Haven, Connecticut in the late 1800’s. He’d been the son of Irish immigrants and had heard the call of his lord early on. He pursued the priesthood with tireless vigor in a landscape where there was much lingering resentment toward both the Irish as well as the wave of Catholics that were immigrating to America. When he finally came into his own and was assigned a parish, recognized immediately the power his religious institution had to help men mend their ways and leave the more guttural parts of society behind i.e. consuming alcohol to the exclusion of taking care of oneself and his family. One way in which he accomplished this was to direct and produce plays featuring members of his congregation so they would have a fun and enthralling distraction away from the local watering hole. This act made Father McGivney beloved among his parishioners.

His greatest achievement however came later on and it is due to this great deed that there is a movement to canonize the good father. In the 1800’s, a widely held belief and practice that came to America in the bosom of Adam Smith’s capitalism was a term widely referred to as “rugged individualism.” Rugged individualism is the belief that all individuals, or nearly all individuals, can succeed on their own and that government help for people should be minimal. The phrase is often associated these with policies of the Republican party as espoused by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, and was widely used by the Republican president Herbert Hoover in the 1900’s. However, well before the stock market crash, merchants and manufacturers in America used this belief in rugged individualism to frame their business in a laissez faire model that usually meant the workers would inevitably receive short shrift.

If a good man fell on hard times and couldn’t feed his family there was no social worker (in many cases) to come to the rescue. In the time of Michael McGivney there was no Social Security, no housing projects, no welfare, no WIC, and no child survivor benefits. If the man of house died, then either mom went out to work or the children would be placed in orphanages. Many Catholic families faced a torrent of diseases and unsafe working conditions on top of wars and discriminatory violence that perpetually threatened to rip catholic society a sunder. McGivney saw this and made the connection that the church did not exist to solely dispense spiritual comfort but also to help destitute families in need of concrete services.

Father Michael McGivney’s legacy lies in his creation of an organization you may be aware of but more than likely your grandfather, as did mine, was intimately aware of. That organization is called the Knights of Columbus. More than just a lodge or a place where old men go to get the heck away from their nagging wives, it was an institution designed to help those bothers and sisters whom had fallen on hard times and were in need of help. The Knights used insurance to keep a steady stream of cash flowing into the hands of catholic families that were either stricken by tragedy or unemployment. McGivney’s Knights would come to redefine what it meant to be a Catholic in America by indelibly tying the fabrics of helping ones neighbor through hard times with the practice of ones spiritual life. In other words, just going to church services didn’t make you a good catholic, helping sister Mary down the block with her 6 children after her husband Sal died of typhoid did.

With all of the cynicism and outright animosity directed at the Catholic Church from snarky comedians to elitist secular liberals to truly betrayed parishioners, this book comes at a most crucial time. It is a stark reminder that organized religion; especially the Catholic Church is not all bad, not by long stretch. When there’s nobody else who will help you, in most cases there will always be the church that will ask no more of you than mutual respect and faith. This is the lesson Brinkley and Fenster teaches us in their new book about the life of Father Michael McGivney, “Parish Priest.”

And finally, his rewrite of my review:

People's Priest

Catholicism seems to feed off its bad reputation. Proven time and again to be a less-than-perfect institution, the church has been rightly vilified as morally corrupt and worldly. It has suffered legitimate charges of imperialism, hypocrisy, avarice, madness, child abuse, torture, of aiding and abetting in the vastly exploitative triangle trade in African slaves and in the near-genocide of the Jews. As if that's not bad enough, politically incorrect Bill Maher in a rare moment of political correctness recently told television audiences that catholicism numbs the mind and makes sheep of men!
And yet the Church goes on, the mother of all Christianity and the foundation of most western thought, one way or another, either by direct lineage or by way of protest. Critics say that the fact that the Church has survived so long is testament to its failure-- that it could never have survived in such Roman splendor without rejecting the gospels and embracing the devil. Defenders say the fact that the Church has survived the horror of human administration is evidence of divine favor.

Douglas Brinkley and Julie Fenster seem to believe that views of the Church are mostly shaped by the actions of catholic people. Their book, Parish Priest, is part biography of Father Michael McGivney and part history of catholicism in America, a narrative of how the teachings of the Church have mixed with the culture of the United States.

McGivney was priest in New Haven, Connecticut, in the late-1800s. The son of Irish immigrants, he pursued the priesthood against a backdrop of resentment toward the era's massive numbers of catholic immigrants to the US, which until then was a nation of protestant leaders, African slaves and disappearing native Americans. When he was eventually named pastor of his own parish, he focused his energies on supporting families, cajoling husbands and fathers to play a larger roll at home, producing and directing plays featuring members of the congregation to move local entertainment away from the pubs. But supporting families was only a first step in extending his faith into the world.

McGivney flew in the face of ascendant nineteenth-century social philosophy, which was based on the idea of rugged individualism or the belief that people must succeed or fail on their own, that government should play a minimal role. The idea of course remains powerful today and forms the heart of the approach to policymaking espoused by popular rightists such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilley. President Hoover stood by the idea even after the dawn of the Great Depression and American merchants and manufacturers for the first hundred years or so of the industrial age based their businesses on the idea, maintaining that their only real responsibility toward employees was to provide work and wages, and as much of the former and as little of the latter as possible.

There was no worker compensation, no benefits, no social workers even. There was no Social Security, no housing projects, no welfare, no child survivor benefits. When fathers died, mothers went to work and the children often went to orphanages. It was catholics by in large who formed the industrial workforce of the time. They didn't come t the US to be farmers. They lived packed together in the underbuilt cities of the Dickens era. In addition to disease and unsafe working conditions, they faced discriminatory violence and turned in large numbers to substance abuse. McGivney, like the "neo-catholics" working in France's urban centers at the time and the worker priests of the post-WWII era, saw society as a large family and came to believe the clergy couldn't stop at providing spiritual comfort.

McGivney’s legacy lies in his creation of the Knights of Columbus. A mystery mostly to people under sixty today, the organization set up insurance accounts to pay medical expenses and carry people through stretches of unemployment. Looked down upon by business leaders as a rival source of influence, labeled "socialist" and ridiculed as a foreign organization with sinister ties to the Pope, McGivney’s Knights redefined what it meant to be catholic in America by tying notions of social justice to spiritual faith. Suddenly, just going to church didn’t make you a good catholic; you were compelled also to help where you could-- to look after the widow McGuiness and her six children after her husband Sal died of typhoid fever, to put your drinking money into the neighborhood insurance fund and, ultimately, to demand more of your employer and your country.

This book comes as part of a wave of recent titles that, in the face of deeply wounded parishioners and crumbling catholic social networks, seek to remind readers of the profound positive influence the Church has played in our lives, whether we're believers or not.

Fruits, veggies now on WIC grocery lists

As my wife and I read this article something rather dark and brooding occurred to us...this story was less about the value and content changes of the Womens, Infants, and Childrens food program (WIC) and more about the bevy of lobbyists employed to make the changes, or oppose them in the first place. In short, had the Hershey's lobby got in on the act, WIC would be paying for your Mr. Goodbars! I'm serious, every other line features some remark by a lobbyist either celebrating that their product is now covered by WIC or lamenting the fact that there's was cut. Now I ask you, how did it come to pass that this program that is supposed to help mothers in need of services take care of their children became a venue for Washington food lobbyist to peddle their wares? I mean, it's not as bad as say the oil lobbies stopping energy efficient cars from being manufactured but it does make for some interesting reading.

Fruits, vegetables and whole grains are being added to grocery lists for low-income mothers and children under a federal program that helps feed more than half the babies in the U.S.

The foods will be covered by the Women, Infants and Children program under changes proposed Friday.

WIC now pays about $35 monthly for staples such as juice, eggs, cheese and milk, but the program will pay for less of those products to cover the new foods' cost.

The revisions follow the advice of the federally chartered Institute of Medicine, which said the WIC program needs to reflect changes in science and society since it was created three decades ago.

The addition of fruits, vegetables and whole grain products also tracks changes last year to the government's own dietary guidelines.

"The WIC food package has not been revised or updated since 1980," said Kate Coler, the Agriculture Department deputy undersecretary who oversees the program. "We thought it was a prudent time to have a scientific review of the package."

The department aims to add the new foods without changing the overall cost.

The shopping list has gone largely unchanged since WIC began in the 1970s. In the meantime, food availability has grown, obesity has become a major public health threat and WIC itself has grown dramatically, reaching 8 million people nationwide.

Knowledge about nutrition has also advanced.

That's an impetus for updating the list of WIC foods. The government proposes to add fruits and vegetables and cut the amount of juice by half or more.

Anti-hunger advocates are enthusiastic about the changes.

"Overall, we're really happy about this food package. We think for WIC clients, this is going to make a huge difference," said Geri Henchy, director of early childhood nutrition at the Food Research and Action Center.

"In low-income neighborhoods, those are really nice kind of luxury treats that a mother could bring home through WIC," she said.

Juice makers said the juice reductions are much too severe. Allowing more juice would help ensure kids are getting the vitamin C they need and discourage kids from drinking soda or other sweetened drinks, said Jim Callahan, spokesman for Welch's.

Hunger groups expressed some disappointment over the Agriculture Department's decision to pay for fewer fruits and vegetables than recommended by the institute.

The program would pay for $6 worth of fruits and vegetables for children and $8 for women. These totals are about $2 less than the institute recommended, keeping the program's cost unchanged from current levels.

Under the WIC program, people receive vouchers or food checks that can be redeemed at stores for infant formula and specific foods worth about $35 a month, depending on who is receiving the food. People can be at or slightly above the federal poverty level, depending on the state. A family of four with income averaging $37,000 would qualify.

Under the proposed changes, the monthly value would increase for women and infants but drop for children ages 1 through 5, which is another sore point with nutrition groups. Children 1 through 5 are the majority of people in the program.

The program also offers nutrition education, health and social service referrals and breast-feeding support.

Proposed changes include:

_The amount of juice would be cut from up to 9 ounces daily to 4 ounces for children ages 1 through 5.

_Milk would be cut from up to 3 cups daily to 2 cups for children 1 through 5. New substitutions would allow soy milk and tofu for people who have milk allergies or trouble digesting lactose.

_Whole grain bread would be added to the list. Substitutions such as corn tortillas and brown rice would be allowed to reflect the cultural diversity of those served by WIC.

WIC encourages mothers to breast-feed their babies by offering more foods, particularly for women whose children aren't getting formula through the program. Those women currently can get one vegetable, carrots, as well as canned tuna.

The new list would increase the amount of canned fish to 30 ounces and add canned salmon as an option. The president of the U.S. Tuna Foundation, Anne Forristall Luke, applauded the plan.

"Canned tuna is a convenient, affordable and nutritious food we all grew up on and is unrivaled in its nutritional benefits," she said.

WIC pays for canned white, light, dark or blended tuna packed in water or oil.

The expanded food list was outlined Friday in a proposed change to the WIC program. The Agriculture Department will accept comments from the public over the next three months. Final approval is expected next year.

Iran working with N.Korea on missiles: Institute

What can one say here? The N. Koreans seem to be setting for an eventual attack on Japan and the US (soldiers stationed in Japan). Because the West is so handicapped for all of the reasons I mentioned earlier this week (oil), nothing will be done about it until it is too late. There's not much more I can add to this, it's just an FYI for those that are trying to pay attention.

North Korea has been working closely with Iran to develop its long-range ballistic missiles, possibly using Chinese technology, and is building large bases to prepare for their deployment, a South Korean state-run think tank said.

North Korea is also building new sites near the Demilitarized Zone with the South for short-range missiles and is deploying missiles with improved precision that can strike most of Japan, the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security (IFANS) said in a report.

"The development of Taepodong-2 is conducted jointly with Iran, and it is possible China's technology is used in the development of the Taepodong-2 engine," said the IFANS report, which Reuters obtained on Thursday.

The collaboration on the long-range Taepodong-2 is part of an international network, including Pakistan, that made it possible for the impoverished North to develop and deploy missiles despite scarce resources and limited testing, the study said.

With more than 1,000 missiles of various ranges, North Korea has come to have the world's fourth-largest arsenal and is at the center of ballistic missile proliferation, IFANS said, "not only in terms of the weapons themselves but also the technology."

North Korea fired seven missiles on July 5, including the Taepodong-2, which U.S. officials said failed seconds into its flight and fell into waters between Japan and the Korean peninsula.

Christopher Hill, the top U.S. envoy to talks on the North's nuclear program, said last month one or more Iranians watched the North's missile launch, deepening concerns about the ties between two countries with troubling nuclear capabilities.

The Taepodong-2 is the product of joint efforts with Tehran, coinciding with Iran's development of the Shehab-5 and 6 missiles, the report said. "It is highly possible that design and technology from China, which has an arms trade with Iran, were used."

The Taepodong-2's failure was probably because its first-stage booster rocket did not separate, the report said, the latest in a series of problems with the missile, including an explosion during an engine test in 2002.

TACTICAL MISSILES

The Iranian connection in the North's missile program dates back to the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, when Pyongyang tested and began shipping its Scud-type missiles to Iran, the report said.

The Scud-based arsenal continues to be a threat because, through modification, the weapons "have achieved leaping progress in terms of precision, high mobility and quick firing rates," the IFANS report said.

The North's purchase of out-dated Soviet submarines in the 1990s, with launch and stabilization systems intact, has raised concern that North Korea might be trying to arm submarines with tactical missiles, it said.

The North is building a missile command base 50 km (30 miles) north of the Demilitarized Zone for as many as 30 mobile launch pads for the Scud-type Hwasong missiles that can hit military and industrial targets deep in the South, IFANS said.

"With the deployment of Rodong and SSN-6 missiles and the pursuit to deploy the Taepodong-2, the North is pushing ahead with the construction of new sites and silos" on the east coast and on the border with China, the IFANS report said.

Strip cardio brings spice to workouts

Turns out my twitter, AKA my lovely wife actually knew about this before I got a hysterical phone call from my mortified and somewhat socially conservative buddy in Massapequa, NY. Now had it not been for my wifes explanation of why "pole dancing" was the new Tai-Bo, todays post would be about the moral decay of society in which stripper dancing is lauded as acceptable behavior. Instead I'm just quietly stunned and my wife is positively glowing in her own wealth of pop-culture girl-power knowledge.

Of course my buddy in NY is and forever shall be mortified...this is also why don't talk about girls and instead talk about wrestling and politics folks...now without further ado, picture your granny the next time she trots off to the senior center and takes up pole dancing over water aerobics...yes folks, my worst fears have been realized as we are entering the Age of Grandma on Pole matches : )

Teri Hatcher is doing it. So is Carmen Electra. But your accountant, your doctor and even - gasp! - your mom?

We're talking about classes in which everyday women release their inner vixen by learning moves inspired by ... well ... strippers.

Pole dancing, cardio stripping and variations in between have been popular on the coasts for several years now, but the classes are just now making their way to the Midwest.

When Sheila Kelley appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show in 2003 to promote her S-Factor book on the subject, viewers nationwide got to see what all the fuss was about.

"I think when people saw it on Oprah they said, 'Oprah's doing it, so it must be OK,' " says Angela Farrar, who teaches the cardio strip fit class at the Fitness Studio in the Lifestyle Center in Clayton, Mo.

Suzie Peiffer launched a pole dancing class about six months ago.

"I like to tell people it's not dirty," Peiffer says. "Nothing comes off. It's exercise; it's fitness. It's fun, and it can tone the body from head to toe. And it boosts your self-esteem so you feel so much better about yourself as a woman. There's a real empowerment there. And what's wrong with that?"

Peiffer's class meets three times a week in a studio next to her home in St. Charles, Mo. She has two poles on which the women take turns trying out their moves.

"We have all ages and all sizes that come here," she says. "It's a really diverse group."

Fitness Studio co-founder Stacie Mullen decided to bring the class to St. Louis in March after looking at the latest trends in fitness.

"Women want one of two things when looking for a workout. One is an affordable personal trainer; the other is the excitement of a new workout, and that's what we offer here," Mullen says.

Both women say they are adding classes to meet demand.

The class at the Fitness Studio meets twice a week in a dimly lighted room in the lower level of the Lifestyle Center. A disco ball and stripper poles in the middle of the room help add to the atmosphere, as do songs such as Don't Cha by the Pussycat Dolls and Pour Some Sugar on Me by Def Leppard.

Farrar, a certified fitness trainer, says she encourages women to let their hair down and wear high heels as they dance.

"They are optional, but they make you feel sexier," she says.

"Half of this is heel management," jokes Kathy Geise, 43, coming out of a tough session. "My quads are killing me. I'm shaking. But it's all about the heels."

The workout:

Besides giving women a chance to feel sexy and self-confident, the workout itself is the main draw for many of them.

"My butt has totally come up," says Farrar, 35. "I've been teaching for 16 years, and I've never found anything that works the butt, hips and thighs like this. Every girl wants to dance and have fun and be sexy, but this is a great workout, too. When I'm finished I'm completely drenched in sweat. ... I think there's a misconception that this is a fluff workout, but we work hard."

Peiffer says the arms get a great workout in her classes. "I'm 125 pounds," says the 49-year-old mother of four. "So every time I lift myself on the pole, I'm lifting 125 pounds."

In Farrar's class, the women seem to catch on to the routines quickly. After working through some new moves and reviewing old ones, the women do workouts with a chair or with the poles in the room.

The routines cover an amazing amount of deep squats and bending from the waist, not to mention hip rolls and sexy poses.

"The husbands love it," says Peiffer. "I've never known a husband to object to letting their wife come to this class."

Motivations: "It's just so much fun," says Amy Purtle, 32, who hasn't missed a class of Farrar's since it started. "It's helped me be in touch with my self-image. I'm more comfortable with myself now."

Geise, a medical sales rep, agrees with Purtle. "It's all about embracing the feminine, embracing your goddess energy."

Behind the Fires of Lebanon Lies an Oil World War

Since the first Gulf War, peace activists have cried in the streets, “No war for oil, no war for oil!” until they were blue in the face. This is of course meant to insinuate that the US government under a Republican administration will sweep into an Arab nation and “steal that oil.” Yes, in the minds of many liberals throughout the world, the American military is commanded by Exxon/Mobile to solely seek out the oil fields of peaceful sovereign nations and steal their precious crude. In this rationale there’s never any other reason save for greed and imperialism.

What I find difficult to understand about this is why when protesters lament the big, bad USA and their designs to control the oil market, nobody seems to bother looking at how other countries weaponize the oil market as well. Does anyone really believe that OPEC had only defensive measures in mind when they instituted an oil embargo in 1973? You may recall that the embargo by OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, was triggered because of overt American support for Israel at the time of the Yom Kippur War (which Israel didn’t start mind you). The embargo was an attack, no different than planes being crashed into skyscrapers, on the economies of the Western world and the United States specifically. It was a particularly potent weapon as it changed geopolitics throughout the modern for decades to come and the way we conduct business in the Middle East today.

The most basic principle that divides a people is the division between the “haves” and the “have not’s”. If you’ve got oil, you too can have a seat at table where the world is ordered. If you need oil then you are the mercy of the former entities. If you’ve got big bucks to spend on oil, then you become the belle of the ball. For many years, the US had a controlling interest in how the world worked because it was the largest net importer of oil from around the world. The US single-handedly brought many countries out of the Dark Ages due mostly to the amount of oil they bought. By the same token, the US also was able to forcibly guide the policies of said nations because they controlled the purse strings. In the post-WWII era, oil played second to the spread of Communism where global strategy was concerned. Today however, Communism is dead and oil is kingmaker.

Behind this crisis in the Middle East between Hezbollah, Hamas and the arch foe of Muslims worldwide, Israel, lies an international battle for oil. Yes, to some degree there is that element of religious fundamentalism and the belief that the only good Jew is a dead Jew (right Mel?) but if you look at all of the ancillary evidence, you can see that the reason Islamic hatred of Israel is fomented is due to greater concerns.

Ronald Reagan often gets credited for ending the Cold War and defeating the Soviet Union/Communism. That analysis is half right. He did in fact outspend and ultimately bankrupt the Soviet Union, which caused its break-up and the spread of some western-style democracies throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia. However, when the Berlin Wall came crashing down, the Cold War did not end. It momentarily paused while the Soviets reconverted back to Russians and the world was able to redefine itself. In a way, by stopping the spread of atheist Communism, the US inadvertently made itself the sole focus of Islamic fundamentalism and more to the point, allowed for weaker nations to become stronger by weaponizing the one resource that could bring the might US economy to its knees, oil.

With Communism dead (aside from a few stationary holdouts like Cuba) globalization as an economic policy and free markets blossomed everywhere from Latin America to the Far East. Industrialization, modernization, militarization beget free trade agreements and outsourcing that in the end made many much stronger and the US a bit weaker (loss of jobs in the industrial sector etc.) But the real chink on our armor revealed itself when billion strong newly industrialized nations like China and India opened up their newly fattened wallets and began outstripping the US as net importers of oil too. Now the formerly invincible United States of America faced quite a quandary. How does one promote free markets while still staying the main impetus of economic growth around the world? It is that very question that lies at the center of why the Middle East is on fire today.

As I mentioned earlier, the Cold War didn’t end, it went into intermission while the Russians changed clothes. Many moons after they converted from being dirty Communists to capitalist pigs, the Russians under our “good friend” Vladimir Putin (formerly of the KGB) have figured out how to battle the US and have restarted the Cold War.

A defining characteristic of the first Cold War was how both Super Powers set up satellite or client nations across the globe. These were countries that were autonomous to some degree but basically owed their allegiance, protection and ability to exist i.e. pay bills to the parent Super Power (Russia or the US). Though the Soviet Union is gone and many of those former client states have become fully autonomous nations (like the Ukraine) Russia is back in the business of offering protection for strategic positioning.

For example, according to Global Research.ca Russia is deepening the port of Tartus ( Syria) where it has a naval materiel and technical supplies center…Russia has had a naval materiel and technical supplies center in Tartus since the 1970s. Vladimir Zimin, advisor on the staff of the Russian Embassy in Syria, says that the port is being made deeper at present...All this may be regarded as evidence of Russia's determination to make Syria a bridgehead for boosting its influence with Middle East. The materiel and technical supplies center may eventually gain the status of a base of the Black Sea Fleet.

Defense Ministry sources, speaking anonymously, hint that Moscow has some far-reaching plans indeed. A group of ships under the missile cruiser Moskva (Black Sea Fleet flagship) is to be formed within the next three years. The group will be stationed in the Mediterranean Sea on the permanent basis...But a source in the Naval Main Command said that establishment of a fully-fledged base in Tartus could help Russia with warships and tenders withdrawn from Sevastopol in the Crimea. In fact, once the bottom of the Tartus port is deepened, the port will be able to receive all ships of the Black Sea Fleet without exception.

Defense Ministry sources point out that a naval base in Tartus will enable Russia to solidify its positions in the Middle East and ensure security of Syria. Moscow intends to deploy an air defense system around the base - to provide air cover for the base itself and a substantial part of Syrian territory…Russia and Damascus reached an agreement on modernizing Syria's air defenses. Its medium-range S-125 air defense systems will be upgraded to the Pechora-2A level. The upgrade will certainly improve Syrian air defense, which uses hardware supplied to Syria back in the 1980s. Moscow is prepared to offer Syria more sophisticated medium-range Buk-M1s as well. Close-range Strelets systems sold to Damascus last year are all the Syrian air defense system has to show by way of sophisticated gear at this point…Syria wants more than that. A contract for modernization of 1,000 T-72 tanks was drawn and signed. Yesterday, Arms-TASS news agency reported successful tests of T-90C tanks "in a certain Middle East country" and Rosoboroneksport's negotiations over their sale. Other Russian-Syrian arms talks under way concern two Amurs (Project 1650 diesel submarines), some SU-30MKI fighters along with YAK-130s, and modernization of MIG-29 frontal fighters. Damascus also aspires for a consignment of the latest Pantsir-C1 air defense systems designed in Tula.

Establishment of a base in Tartus and rapid advancement of military technology cooperation with Damascus make Syria Russia's instrumental bridgehead and bulwark in the Middle East…It goes without saying that appearance of the Russian military base in the region will certainly introduce corrections into the existing correlation of forces. Russia is taking the Syrian regime under its protection. It will almost certainly sour Moscow's relations with Israel. It may even encourage the Iranian regime nearby and make it even less tractable in the nuclear program talks.

Another piece of evidence and further proof that the battle for securing oil recourses is what’s really driving the Middle Eastern crisis comes out of Venezuela. I reported on my blog that, “The Russian Federation and Venezuela on July 27, 2006 have negotiated and approved the sale of 24 aircraft and 53 helicopters—about a $1 billion (U.S.) deal—to Venezuela, as part of an ongoing landmark event, defying the American threats and demands to halt all weapons transfers and any future deals between Russia and Venezuela. Russia has already supplied and started delivering portions of a 100,000 Kalashnikov automatic rifles ordered by Venezuela and Russian attack helicopters to Venezuela. This deal has further entrenched Russian-Venezuelan cooperation, partnership, and the strategic shift of Russia replacing the United States as the military hardware supplier of Venezuela. The securing of this military hardware agreement between Russia and Venezuela is a sign of the fermenting geo-strategic confrontation or rivalry between the Russia and the United States.”

Now aside from the military implications, this is important news because Venezuela occasionally threatens and someday probably will divert oil exports from the US to Russia’s strategic ally, China. In order for this to happen, China has to build refineries in Venezuela and essentially make the exchange profitable for Caracas to ship oil to Asia rather than the much shorter distance of the US. In fact, on July 12th of this year, Venezuela-owned Citgo Petroleum Corp. opted to stop distributing gasoline to 1,800 independently owned U.S. stations, including all Citgo stations in Kentucky and nine other states. It wasn’t the end of the world for us as this deal wasn’t all that profitable to either side but it does signal interesting times ahead for US-Latin American relations.

So what does this have to do with Lebanon? It is simple math really. The conflict in Lebanon erupted when Hezbollah, funded by Iran, attacked Israel and captured two of its soldiers. In the past, this usually led to prisoner exchanges that typically greatly benefited the Muslim terrorists. In this case, the Israeli’s opted to disassemble Hezbollah in Lebanon once and for all. This we all know (or at least should know).

What one must ask about the above is, who gave the orders for Hezbollah to attack Israel? Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah would have you believe that his organization is acting independently. That can hardly be the case when the mullahs in Tehran control the purse strings. So it is assumed that Iran gave the orders to Nasrallah to spit in the eye of Ehud Olmert, the acting Prime Minister of Israel. Maybe the Israelis would act as usual and give Hezbollah everything they want including the kitchen sink, or maybe they would do as they are currently doing tonight.

Resident derelict nut job Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad probably doesn’t care all that much either way. What he was trying to do, and to some degree succeeding, was to either shift the attention of the Western world from trying to halt his nuclear program, or at the very least, hedge is bargaining posture. You see, with Lebanon in flames the Western world is loathe to aggravate the conflict by upsetting yet another Muslim country. Ahmadinejad has deftly succeeding in both of these endeavors.

How did he manage to check the mighty US you are now probably asking? Again, you must do the math. Syria and Iran have a mutual protection pact with one another. Syria is essentially a client state of Russia. Iran and Russia are strategic and economic allies. Iran, Venezuela, and Russia are all allies. Then of course there is China. Simply put, Iran now has the chutzpa to challenge the West with impunity because they have Russia, China and Venezuela backing them up. As stated earlier, all three nations are a threat to the US’ economy and national security, in that order.

For those looking for a cease-fire in Lebanon, the answer is not to handicap Israel, but to divorce us from oil. When oil dependence is a thing of the past, the Cold War will then be truly over.