The Yes Men: A DVD Review

Once again, boy am I glad I joined Netflix!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond Temper Tantrums

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Condi to replace Cheney next year?

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

This from Worldnetdaily.com:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strip Club Artfully Slips by Anti-Nudity Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I Have Seen the Enemy and It Is Us"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatives Mobilize Against 'Law of the Sea' Treaty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Playing Chess in the Middle East

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Withdraws Ambassador From Syria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on this story tomorrow...

The Royal Rumble in Washington DC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global Warming Treaty Set to Take Effect

First the news, then some perspective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multi-Polarity and Oil: Venezuela

I've spent the last few columns lamenting the fates of Africans whom don't seem to register on the radars of any country that matters. However, if you have oil, that's your ticket to ride. If you have oil, you have a large bargaining chip. Oil is why we've allowed Saudi Arabia to get away with murder (figuratively and literally). Oil is one of two ways (the other being nuclear arms) to become a player on the world stage.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the US has enjoyed some degree of hegemony unrivaled by any country in the world. For reasons too complex for me to get into now, the US has given away a large part of its leverage while at the same time, a renewed, energized and firmly connected world seeks to change the shape of the board the US has been playing on. The European Union seeks to assert itself as the opposition party to US influence in the world at large. Iran and the Saudi Wahabbists seek to drive the US and probably the entire Western world from the Middle East entirely. Russia is grasping ever so tightly to its influence in former Soviet Republics including Central Asia. China seeks to be master of its South East Asian domain and is being tested by the recent North Korean nuclear crisis. All of this in the face of a US administration that is being dragged kicking and screaming into a world that has at once become too small to ignore and too big to control on its own.

This brings me to South America. We often forget about South America because since l90l, we've been employing President Roosevelt's "Big Stick" policy in South America. "Big Stick" comes from an African proverb "speak softly but carry a big stick and you will go far". The expression was initially used to describe Roosevelt's intervention in the Dominican Republic in l905. It didn't end in DR however and to varying degrees in continues today. The "Big Stick" was used most often during the Reagan years to combat the rise of Marxism/Soviet Communism in Latin America. And that brings me to Venezuela.

It is obvious to me that as the prevailing wisdom among the uneducated liberal masses is that there must be peace at all costs; world leaders are seeing a window of opportunity to flex their muscles and challenge US hegemony. President Chavez of Venezuela can't possibly be serious in thinking the US is going to initiate a land invasion of his country. He and his buddy Fidel Castro would have to be equally insane to think we're going to attack Cuba. First off, we had a mandate to go in and depose Saddam Hussein and the world went into apoplexy. Whatever capital we’ve got in the world community right now is not going to be spent on any Latin American country. We’ve got bigger, more pressing issues to contend with in Iran. I believe Chavez knows this and the situation makes for the perfect foil for him to declare independence from US influence.

It’s a pretty good strategy if you think about. Having taken a lesson from North Korea, if you act crazy enough the US will attempt to deal with you. Upon further Google research I found two articles that led to me believe that much of the rhetoric coming out of Caracas is mere posturing in the face of United States that, much like Bilbo Baggins from Fellowship of the Ring, is, “spread thin like butter over too much bread.” Chavez looks like the “big man” of Latin America and the US can’t do much about it because their focus is elsewhere.

To go back to my original statement about oil being the pumpkin coach that brings a country to the First World ball, there are two articles, as stated above, that seem to indicate Venezuela attempting to play the US against Russia.

From Forbes.com: Venezuela OKs Corocoro Oil Field Plan – “Venezuela has approved a plan for U.S. oil firm ConocoPhillips to develop the Corocoro oil field in eastern Venezuela, the state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. said Saturday.

The plan was approved after ConocoPhillips president James Mulva met with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Friday. The state oil company announced the agreement on its Web site Saturday.

ConocoPhillips planned to start drilling 14 wells at the site in December, but Venezuela put the project on hold amid a dispute over the company's business plan. The field, discovered by Conoco in 1999 and declared commercial in 2002, is a key component of Venezuela's plans to expand oil output.

The plan foresees 75,000 barrels a day in output by 2007, and 120,000 barrels a day by 2009.

"We are going to continue with this project. We are very pleased by the progress recorded by our investments in Venezuela," Mulva said, according to the statement posted on the PDVSA site.”

One story has Venezuela gearing up for an imminent attack and threatening to cut off the oil sales (see Saturday’s post) and yet another has us doing business in those same coveted oil fields.

Meanwhile, over in Russia as per Itarr-Tass News Agency: Venezuela interested in cooperation with Russia's LUKoil – “CARACAS, February 11 (Itar-Tass) - Venezuela is prepared to develop relations with Russia's LUKoil company, its President Vagit Alekperov told Tass on Thursday.

Venezuela expressed interest in contacts with the Russian company at a meeting Alekperov had with Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramires. Both sides expressed confidence that the two companies might discuss concrete contacts this year already, Alekperov said.

Venezuela has unique oil and gas deposits, and therefore, it is of interest to all world oil companies, Alekperov said. The Russian company is interested in oil development in the area of the Orinoco River and the Gulf of Venezuela where tenders are expected in the near future, Alekperov said.

A Memorandum on understanding between LUKoil and the Petroleos de Venezuela companies was signed in November 2004 when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez paid a visit to Moscow.”

This is the behavior of a country that is attempting to position itself as regional leader. Venezuela is using oil the way North Korea is attempting to use nuclear missiles, with the end result being high recognition and place on the world stage. In short, Venezuela is attempting to break the “Big Stick” of the US forever more.

We shall see how this all develops as time goes on. After all, Venezuela has neighbors such as Brazil and Columbia and they’re not so anxious to tell the US what to do with itself nor are they so anxious to embrace Castro as Chavez has.

Chávez arming to fight attack by U.S.

With so much attention on the Middle East and the occasional outburst from North Korea, imagine my surprise when I read this in the Miami Herald:

"Venezuela is shifting its military doctrine to set the United States as its No. 1 enemy, and President Hugo Chávez has spoken of guerrilla warfare, as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, if U.S. forces invade his country.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has long been known for his harsh anti-Bush rhetoric. But now he's stepping up military plans and weapons purchases to match his combative tone, and he is worrying U.S. policymakers.

Within the past two weeks the leftist populist leader has called himself a ''socialist'' and ''Fidelista,'' and offered a muscular new course for his self-described ''revolution'' on behalf of Venezuela's poor.

''I propose that we move to the offensive, just like the imperialists have moved to the bloody and ruthless offensive. If you don't believe me, look at Iraq . . .'' Chávez told a news conference in Brazil late last month.

''We have to embrace socialism as a thesis,'' he continued, in what observers said was his most direct public reference to his socialist views. He later added that any attack on Cuba or Venezuela ``would be an attack on both.''

The article goes on to say that, "...his latest comments worry U.S. policymakers, mostly because they coincide with his push to obtain new weaponry and forge a new national military doctrine that would prepare his country for a war of resistance against a possible U.S. invasion.

Simultaneously, Chávez has said he is placing the 50,000 soldiers of the military reserve directly under his control and organizing his civilian supporters into armed militias to be known as ``popular defense units.''

However, "U.S. officials have dismissed the idea of a military attack on Venezuela, they have expressed concern over Chávez' new stance since Venezuela remains the fourth-largest supplier of oil to the United States.

Earlier this week, the State Department's assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere affairs, Roger Noriega, challenged Chávez's efforts to create the militias and his purchase of 40 Russian helicopters and 100,000 AK-47 assault rifles.

Noriega told a TV interviewer that the weapons could end up in ''the hands of some criminal and irregular groups'' -- an apparent reference to leftist guerrillas in neighboring Colombia with whom Chávez has been accused of sympathizing.

Vice President José Vicente Rangel responded swiftly to Noriega's comments, saying they had ''the deliberate goal of provoking Venezuela'' and that the new guns would replace old weaponry.

The heightened U.S.Venezuela tensions coincide with new strategies for bilateral relations in both countries.

After years of Washington's trying to avoid confrontations with Chávez, a new U.S. ''policy review'' is expected soon to recommend trying to isolate Venezuela from its neighbors."

I'll bet. Well, it was only a matter of time before our policy of treating Latin America like second class citizens would come back to bite us on the tush. I'll have more on what's been happening in Venezuela on Monday once I do some more research on how exactly this problem came to be in the first place.

Abbas Heads to Gaza to Confront Militants

This from the AP: "GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas will meet Saturday with militant leaders to push them to honor a days-old cease-fire marred by mortar and rocket attacks on Israeli targets, according to an aide.

The Islamic militant group Hamas said it would only stop attacks when it was satisfied Israel would release prisoners and stop pursuing militants.

Abbas' planned meetings with Hamas and the Islamic Jihad faction were the latest sign of his commitment to keeping intact the cease-fire he and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared Tuesday to end 4 1/2 years of bloodletting.

On Thursday, he fired top security commanders after Hamas bombarded Jewish settlements in Gaza with mortars and rockets. And the central committee of his Fatah movement announced a state of emergency in the Palestinian security forces in an effort to prevent new attacks."

Absolute peace is next to impossible between Palestine and Israel. All of the snarky bloggers whom have reacted to the news out of the Middle East regarding HAMAS' reaction to the peace talks between Abbas and Sharon by being sarcastic and pessimistic have as usual missed the bigger picture. God only knows if the majority of Jews and Arabs in the Middle East will ever "get along" and frankly my dear Scarlett, it doesn't matter if they do. What does matter and is evidenced by the above article is that when the terrorist groups like HAMAS attack, the PLO will be there to intercede and appropriately deal with them. In other words, Abbas has to do what Arafat was unwilling to do; oppose the local terrorist. Abbas has to emulate Presdient Eisenhower whom sent troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, to assure compliance with the orders of a Federal court demanding desegregation. If Abbas confronts the terrorists and lives to tell about it, that's the best proximity to peace we can hope for. If you're waiting for the Arabs and the Jews to get together and sing, "We're All in the Same Gang" you are either hopelessly utopian or a student of Ward Churchill (cue rim shot).

Prime Minister Sharon certainly has to keep up his end of the bargain as well. Sharon has to stand strong against the hardliners in his own government that have decided that the Palestinians can't be reasoned with.

This struggle will be long, ugly and bloody, there's no doubt about that. The fate of the Middle East lies squarely with Abbas and Sharon and their ability to stay alive in a sea of radicals where life is cheaper than penny candy.

Lose – Lose Scenario for Women and Social Security

I have avoided this topic like the plague because my expertise, such as it is, is in foreign policy and political strategy. I know next to nothing about Social Security except that I pay into it and someday I’ll draw from it. I’ve heard the pundits pontificate that SS will be bankrupt in 40 some odd years and have listened with only half an ear. When I hear “Iran”, my ears perk up, when I hear “Social Security” my attention turns elsewhere. I’ve listened to President Bush’s proposal to issue private investment accounts to folks under 55 and it seems to make sense to me.

However, I am a male and my concerns are very different than that of my good friend who happens to be a woman. She sent me an e-mail that read, “Why don't you put something on your blog about how none of the SS reform being talked about is going to change one of the main things wrong with SS: it is unfair to women.” Frankly I never thought about it and so off I went to do some of my patented “fast Google research”. Here are the fruits of my labor.

First off, on the question of whether or not Social Security as it stands today is in fact unfair to women, the answer according to the National Center For Policy Analysis is, “Yes and No. Social Security is very generous to the married woman who never works. She is entitled to half her husband's benefit (the spouse's benefit) even if she never paid a dollar of taxes. Social Security is much less generous to the married working woman. The reason: if she works, she can collect either the Social Security benefit or a benefit in her own right, but not both. Many women discover that after paying Social Security taxes for many years, their best option is to accept the spouse's benefit. So they get nothing in return for all the taxes they paid. There are also other problems. A divorced person married for 10 years or more is entitled to full spousal and survivor benefits, while one married less than 10 years is entitled to none. So being short a single day of marriage (9 years, 364 days) can cost a spouse tens of thousands of dollars in lifetime Social Security benefits.” (Credit mysocialsecurity.org)

In America, Women represent a large portion of the national workforce. According to the AFL-CIO, “Since the 1970’s the number of women in the paid labor force has increased by 112 percent. The percentage of children with mothers in the paid workforce has increased 28 percent. Combined work hours for dual-earner couples with children rose 10 hours a week. The gender wage gap decreased by 15 cents to 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. The number of women workers has increased steadily, particularly in the second half of the past century, and continues to grow. Since 1950, the number of women in the paid labor force has increased by more than 250 percent. In comparison, the labor force participation rate of men continues to decline. In 1950 only one-third of the U.S. labor force was female; by the year 2003 that proportion was approaching one-half (46 percent). By 2010, women are projected to account for 48 percent of the total labor force. The number of working women has grown from 5.3 million in 1900 to 18.4 million in 1950 and to nearly 65 million in 2003 and is projected to increase to 75.5 million by 2010. By 2010, more than 62 percent of women will be in the paid work force. In comparison, the labor force participation rate for men has steadily declined from nearly 80 percent in 1970 to less than 76 percent in 2003.” (Credit aflcio.org).

As stated above, so long as women stand by their men, as the song goes, for at least 10 years or more, they are entitled to their spouse’s benefits. Here’s the rub; according to the Equality in Marriage Institute, “(the) total number of divorced adults grew from 4.3 million in 1970 to 20 million today…Younger couples marrying for the first time face roughly a 40-50% chance of divorcing in their lifetime, under current trends…The median length for a first time marriage ending in divorce is eight years…” (Credit equalityinmarriage.org)

So, under our current safety net system combined with today’s cost of living and raising a family, women are encouraged to marry, will most likely make less than their husband, divorce within 8 years and then be cut from receiving retirement benefits. Unfair indeed.

President Bush has proposed privatized personal investment accounts. From what I’ve been able to pick up, it involves the Federal government giving a portion of the current workforce’s retirement money back to them for the purposes of limited and federally regulated investments. There’s more to it than that and to date there’s no solid plan in the congress but that is what the President has been campaigning about this week.

While this plan that the President is campaigning about may seem to make a modicum of sense, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research published a paper in March of 2000 stating that, “There are several reasons why individual accounts would be particularly negative for women. First, because women earn less than men, they benefit from the current system that provides proportionately higher benefits for low earners. This feature would be lost in a privatized system. Because women would tend to have smaller accounts, it is likely that the yield of their accounts would be below average, as they (appropriately) avoid risky investments. For these same reasons, women would find a larger share of their accounts going toward administration. Second, because women tend to live longer than men, they would have to pay more for annuities (guaranteed monthly income) in a privatized system, or face the possibility of outliving their assets. Finally, women are more likely to be hurt by losses in disability and life insurance coverage because they are much more likely to be responsible for children as well as themselves after disability or death.”

The IWRP rejects the claim by the Cato Institute that, “All serious proposals for privatization include a safety net feature that would ensure that everyone’s retirement income is at least at or above the poverty line.”

They counter that, “Not all of the Cato Institutes privatization proposals include such a minimum. Furthermore, it is unlikely that Congress would pass such a dramatic improvement in benefits. Currently Social Security’s special minimum is approximately 85 percent of the poverty line. For workers who have less than 30 years of coverage the benefit gradually decreases and phases out at 10 years. SSI’s maximum benefit for a single individual is even less (about 75 percent of the poverty line) and is subject to means and asset tests.

A minimum benefit at or above the poverty line is, of course, desirable. However, the Cato Institute has provided no estimate of the cost of such a minimum.”

At present, and granted I’m not the expert here; I cannot stand by a policy that seems to so grossly misrepresent women across the board. Women lose in our current system and will stand to lose even more if private accounts pass without the minimum safety benefit. The fact that whatever plan is passed will be optional for the worker doesn’t account for much if the regular American woman isn’t aware of the apparent pitfalls of privatization accounts. One can only hope that as this debate unfolds, the Congress will reconcile the gaping holes in whatever plan they agree to before more damage is hurled upon women in the American workforce.

Loss of the Moral High Ground

In the run-up to the Iraq War, singularly the United States faced many opponents such as France, Germany, China and Russia against a land invasion to oust former dictator Saddam Hussein. Collectively, it was the entire United Nations that objected to the war and Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that this particular pending act of aggression against Iraq was, “…not in conformity with the UN Charter from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal." In this statement Annan seeks to admonish the United States from the moral high ground placing the UN as the superior international entity.

Kofi Annan is dead wrong.

All bureaucracy’s are fallible and our own government certainly shouldn’t be throwing too many stones from the glass house on Capital Hill, however, we shouldn’t be lectured either by a vastly inferior and corrupt institution such as the UN.

At present the UN is under investigation for a litany of scandals. First and most prominent is the Oil-For-Food program. Oil-For-Food was instituted in 1996 in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War as a means for letting Iraq obtain humanitarian supplies despite being under sanction for failing to adequately disarm. As we have seen from recent reports, that’s not exactly what was happening.

According to The Australian, “Documents found in Iraq’s old ministry of oil reveal that hundreds of prominent individuals received vouchers to buy Iraqi oil at cut-rate prices and sell it on the open market – at tremendous, often seven-figure, profits.

Those named include not just Sevan but a vast array of Russian politicians, close friends of French President Jacques Chirac (including France’s former minister of the interior), British Labour MP George Galloway, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter and, closer to home, Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri.

In short, it’s a who’s who list of high-profile anti-war and anti-sanctions voices, all revealed to be shills for Saddam.

But by far the biggest recipient of Saddam’s largesse was the UN. During the program’s existence, more than $US1 billion was kept by the organisation as a fee for administering the program. As one senior UN diplomat recently told London’s Daily Telegraph: “The UN was not doing this work just for the good of Iraq. Cash from Saddam’s government was keeping the UN going for a few years.”

So essentially the story here is that the UN was obstructing the effort to forcibly disarm Hussein in order to continue lining its own pockets with Iraq’s blood money. In addition, one would assume that they also didn’t want the US in Iraq because eventually the lid would have been blown off Oil-For-Food and the UN would be facing down a high degree of shame. Of course that’s precisely what has happened.

Another pockmark on the face of the UN is the sexual exploitation of war refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo by UN peacekeepers. This from the Weekly Standard:

“01/03/2005, Last month a classified United Nations report prompted Secretary General Kofi Annan to admit that U.N. peacekeepers and staff have sexually abused or exploited war refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The worst of the 150 or so allegations of misconduct--some of them captured on videotape--include pedophilia, rape, and prostitution. While a U.N. investigation into the scandal continues, the organization has just suspended two more peacekeepers in neighboring Burundi over similar charges. The revelations come three years after another U.N. report found "widespread" evidence of sexual abuse of West African refugees.”

According to the AP today, “Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged the Security Council on Wednesday to add at least 100 military police to a Congo peacekeeping mission to help prevent sex abuse of women by the U.N. forces.

In a letter to the 15 council members, Annan reiterated his "personal outrage" at the allegations of sexual exploitation of girls as young as 13 by U.N. peacekeepers in Congo. He said the United Nations is actively working to root out the problem, which has tarnished the reputation of the world body and the nearly 65,000 peacekeepers serving in 16 global hotspots.”

I think this falls under the heading of “too little, too late”. This is a far cry from Abu Ghraib as I’m fairly certain that those who were abuse there weren’t 13-year old girls. The shrill cries for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfelds to resign over Abu Ghraib can still be heard from the likes of John Kerry even today. However, I do not hear that same crowd demanding Kofi Annan accept responsibility for the tragic events in the Congo and resign. At least Rumsfeld actually offered his resignation twice to President Bush.

Lastly, for an organization that supposedly trumpets world peace and diplomacy over aggression, they seem to regard Israel in much the same way the Western world regards African blacks…that is to say, not as human beings.

Allegedly, one of the UN’s mandates is to promote tolerance and stand against any sort of racism and one would assume anti-Semitism. However, according to The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), “The U.N. has tolerated and fostered anti-Semitism and anti-Israel propaganda.

• The U.N. has condemned virtually every conceivable form of racism. It has established programs to combat racism and its multiple facets - including xenophobia - but has consistently refused to condemn anti-Semitism. It only was on November 24, 1998, more than 50 years after the U.N.'s founding, that the word anti-Semitism was first mentioned in a U.N. resolution (GA Res. A/53/623).

• "The Talmud says that if a Jew does not drink every year the blood of a non-Jewish man, he will be damned for eternity." -Saudi Arabian delegate Marouf al-Dawalibi before the 1984 U.N. Human Rights Commission conference on religious tolerance. A similar remark was made by Farouk al-Chareh, the Syrian Ambassador to the U.N., at a 1991 meeting, who insisted Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzos, a charge recently (2002) recycled in a Saudi government sponsored newspaper.

• On March 11, 1997, the Palestinian representative to the U.N. Human Rights Commission falsely charged Israel with injecting 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus.”

There are more systemic problems in the UN and with the “multi-polarity” world at large at this time but my point is that will all of these scandals in mind, it is next to impossible to take the UN seriously as a standard bearer of morality. At best it is a largely dysfunctional social service provider and international grievance court, at worst it’s a league of terrorist enablers and neo-Marxist anti-Semites.

Rasputin Gets a Promotion

This from the AP:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Karl Rove, the senior political strategist who orchestrated President Bush's re-election campaign, has been promoted to deputy chief of staff, a job that will involve him in most White House policy and not just politics.

Rove will now coordinate White House policy developed within the Domestic Policy Council, the National Economic Council, the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council, although intelligence and other national security issues from those councils will be handled by deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin."

Hot Dog. Nobody voted for Karl Rove. It's one thing to elect someone like George W. Bush and then be let down by his policy decisions, like say illegal immigration. It's an entirely different problem to have policy decisions made by someone nobody voted for or most likely knows nothing about. I doubt most of the voting public have read "Bush's Brain".

President Bush had to go out among the people and sell himself and his ideas. Now it's entirely possible that his ideas were all apart of a brilliant marketing strategy for the purposes of getting a Trojan horse in to the White House, but that's our problem as voters. It is our responsibility to examine the candidate and decide if we're going to pick up what they're putting down. We haven't had that opprotunity with Rove.

I don't like cronyism and I especially don't like someone as powerful as Rove in a position where he can dictate policy. We have an elected congress and a president for that.

The only plus side to this is that with HILLARY on the horizon in 2006 and 2008, conservatives will need Rove to combat what will surely be a bloody electoral battle between whomever Rove annoints and the Clintonistas.

For those keeping score, on this blog I try to call things as I see them without leaning too far to one side or the other. When the GOP does something I do not approve of I write all about it ie illegal immigration. However, I am dead set against HILLARY being the president and I'm not thrilled about the prospect of her having a second term in the Senate. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and with that in mind, this blog will always support the opposing view against any Clinton related story.

If I have to accept Rasputin and a Bush family influenced dynasty in the White House then so be it.

“Hotel Rwanda” and the Politics of Genocide in Africa

I finally got a chance to see “Hotel Rwanda” starring Don Cheadle this past weekend. The movie is about the genocide that was committed in Rwanda in 1994 under the watchful gaze of President Bill Clinton and the United Nations. The story centers on Paul Rusesabagina, a hotel manager who housed over a thousand Tutsis refugees during their struggle against the Hutu militia in Rwanda. “Hotel Rwanda” recounts the horror that plagued that beleaguered country ten years ago. The events at that were some of the worst atrocities in the history of mankind. What made this episode in African history especially heinous is that and in an era of high-speed communication and round the clock news, the events went almost unnoticed by the rest of the world. In only three months, one million people were brutally murdered. The movie shows that had it not been for Paul Rusesabagina, himself a Hutu, the numbers of dead and forgotten Rwandans would have been much higher.

The movie was as tremendous as it was startling. The director of the film, Terry George, does not hold the audience back from the death that envelopes the events depicted in the film. When it is over, the viewer truly has a tangible picture of mans inhumanity to man. There are terribly violent scenes throughout the picture but not in the slasher or “Passion of the Christ” sense. The scenes are blended together between the brutality and indifference of the army, the maddening hate of the militia, and aftermath of the unyielding slaughter of men, women and children. I remember my first reaction to the film once it was over and the audience around me had left, was simply, “Why?”

After gathering my wits about me I began thinking about the institutionalized racism against Africa that has been such an unfortunate part of its history in the world. There is a line at the beginning of the film that explains how the Hutu’s and Tutsi’s came to war against one another. I don’t remember it exactly but according to the Peace Pledge Union website, “Most of the Rwandan population belong to the Hutu ethnic group, traditionally crop-growers. For many centuries Rwanda attracted Tutsis - traditionally herdsmen - from northern Africa. For 600 years the two groups shared the business of farming, essential for survival, between them. They have also shared their language, their culture, and their nationality. There have been many intermarriages.

Because of the nature of their historical pastoral or agricultural roles, Tutsis tended to be landowners and Hutus the people who worked the land; and this division of labour perpetuated a population balance in which Hutus naturally outnumbered Tutsis. A wedge was driven between them when the European colonists moved in. It was the practice of colonial administrators to select a group to be privileged and educated 'intermediaries' between governor and governed. The Belgians chose the Tutsis: landowners, tall, and to European eyes the more aristocratic in appearance. This thoughtless introduction of class-consciousness unsettled the stability of Rwandan society. Some Tutsis began to behave like aristocrats, and the Hutu to feel treated like peasants. An alien political divide was born.

European colonial powers also introduced modern weapons and modern methods of waging war. Missionaries, too, came from Europe, bringing a new political twist: the church taught the Hutu to see themselves as oppressed, and so helped to inspire revolution. With the European example before them, and European backing behind them, it was armed resistance that the Hutus chose. In 1956 their rebellion began (it would cost over 100,000 lives). By 1959 they had seized power and were stripping Tutsi communities of their lands.”

This summation is presented early on the film with a little less detail but the audience gets the point; the divisions among Africans were superficially bred to maintain control of them. The forthcoming genocide is not only the responsibility of those that took part in it but also the Europeans, in this case the Belgians, which fomented these murderous divisions in the first place.

The film states at the end title sequence that the total body count amounted to nearly a million men, women and children, almost all killed with machetes and clubs. However, that’s not the worst part. It has been said that all it takes for evil to win is for good people to do nothing. If that is the definition of triumphant evil, then such was alive and well at the United Nations in 1994.

In the spring of 1994, as the genocide began, the UN--at the insistence of Washington under then President Bill Clinton (the first black President mind you)--began pulling out of Rwanda. The UN left something like 400 or so ill equipped “peace keepers” in place with orders not to interfere in Rwandan business. The UN and Bill Clinton sad idly by and let one million black Africans murder one another. For those keeping score, that is why I’m against the UN, the Clinton’s and the Democrat Party at large.

The problem as I see it is apparently if you are darker than me than your life doesn’t count for nearly as much. Apparently genocide only counts when it happens to people other than Africans. It would also seem that despite all of the apologies and rhetoric from the Clinton and the UN, we are repeating the same mistakes all over again in Sudan.

This from Reuters on January 1st, 2005: “ABUJA (Reuters) - A keenly awaited United Nations investigation into human rights abuse in Sudan's Darfur region does not describe violence against villagers there as "genocide", the Sudanese government said on Monday.

Pro-government militia are accused of a two-year campaign of raping civilians and pillaging villages in the desert region where tens of thousands of people have died and 1.8 million have been driven from their homes.”

According to the International Crisis Group, “Open warfare erupted in Darfur in early 2003 when the two loosely allied rebel groups, the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), attacked military installations. The rebels, who seek an end to the region's chronic economic and political marginalization, also took up arms to protect their communities against a twenty-year campaign by government-backed militias recruited among groups of Arab extraction in Darfur and Chad. These "Janjaweed" militias have over the past year received greatly increased government support to clear civilians from areas considered disloyal. Militia attacks and a scorched-earth government offensive have led to massive displacement, indiscriminate killings, looting and mass rape, all in contravention of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions that prohibits attacks on civilians.

The civil war, which risks inflicting irreparable damage on a delicate ethnic balance of seven million people who are uniformly Muslim, is actually multiple intertwined conflicts. One is between government-aligned forces and rebels; in a second government militia raid civilians; yet a third involves a struggle among Darfur communities themselves. Its implications go far beyond Darfur's borders. The war indirectly threatens the regimes in both Sudan and Chad and has the potential to inspire insurgencies in other parts of the country.”

And so, countless black Muslim Africans are being raped and murdered and yet the UN as led by Kofi Annan of Ghana sits by and claims it’s not genocide. The UN has issued threats as such and the Bush Administration has been somewhat vocal on what clearly is genocide in Sudan but that hasn’t stopped the carnage.

According to a story from AllAfrica.com dated February 7th, “Reports of unrest continue to flow in from various parts of Sudan's western Darfur region, including abductions, the burning of villages, the disruption of relief operations and shooting, the United Nations mission in the country said today.

Tens of thousands of people have been killed and up to 1.85 million others displaced since rebels took up arms in early 2003, partly in protest at the distribution of economic resources in Darfur, which the UN has called the world's worst humanitarian crisis.”

It’s obvious to me that the Western world is patiently waiting for the Africans to wipe themselves out. Africa is a veritable treasure trove of resource delights that are just waiting to pick clean in the name of world trade. Furthermore, it is also obvious to me that those in power would much prefer if the Africans at large were not obstructing their efforts to mine the country dry by…building a civilization there. It’s so easy to just let the Sudanese, the Rwandans, the Congolese, and countless others just destroy one another. It’s easy to reap the benefits of genocide, it’s just not politically correct to say so out loud. I think Nick Nolte’s character (a UN Canadian colonel) from “Hotel Rwanda” sums up genocide and the politics of Africa rather nicely when he stares into Don Cheadle’s face and grumbles, “You should spit in my face…you’re not human, you’re not even a Nigger!”

U.S. Training Iranian Spies

It has begun! According to the below story from Newsmax.com, the US will indeed attempt to instigate revolution in Iran. It's too early to speculate further but I for one am quite excited by the prospect. I think after the Iraq war one thing is certain, full scale wars are not the way to bring a democracy that is sympathetic to the US thorughout the Middle East. Obviously we cannot stand by and allow Iran to have nuclear arms nor should we continue to allow Islamic fundamentalism to fester in any part of the world. Cloak and dagger-type espionage and proxy wars are exactly what is needed in Iran. I just hope it works.

Members of an Iranian group known for its support of the U.S. Embassy takeover in 1979 may now be sought by the Bush administration as operatives for use against Tehran, Newsweek reports in the current issue.

At a camp south of Baghdad called Ashraf, 3,850 members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (People's Holy Warriors) or MEK have been confined but gently treated by U.S. forces since the invasion of Iraq (once they were allies of Saddam against their own country in the 1980s Iran-Iraq war).

Some Pentagon civilians and intelligence planners are hoping a corps of informants can be picked from among the MEK prisoners, then split away from the movement and given training as spies, U.S. officials say. After that, the thinking goes, they will be sent back to their native Iran to gather intelligence on the Iranian clerical regime, particularly its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, report Middle East Regional Editor Christopher Dickey, Investigative Correspondent Mark Hosenball and Senior Editor Michael Hirsh in the February 14 issue of Newsweek.

Some hawks hope they could help to reawaken the democratic reform movement in Iran, which the mullahs have silenced. "They [want] to make us mercenaries," one MEK official tells Newsweek.

Maryam Rajavi, who heads the MEK with her husband Massoud, tells Newsweek her group is what America needs. "I believe increasingly the Americans have come to realize that the solution is an Iranian force that is able to get rid of the Islamic fundamentalists in power in Iran," she says. Rajavi insists the group's former role in terrorist attacks dating back to its support of the U.S. Embassy takeover in 1979 is ancient history. And the MEK is not a Jim Jones-like cult as critics allege, with forced separation between men and women and indoctrination for children, all overseen by the Rajavis' autocratic style. Instead, Rajavi insists, it is "a democratic force." She is demanding that the MEK be taken off the State Department's list of terrorist organizations, their assets unfrozen and their energies unleashed.

Still, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other top State officials remain leery of the MEK, despite renewed efforts to back and fund the group on Capitol Hill. Sources tell Newsweek that the CIA is also resisting the recruitment of agents from the MEK because senior officers regard them as unreliable cultists under the sway of Rajavi and her husband.

A Defense Department spokesman denied there is any "cooperation agreement" with the MEK and said the Pentagon has no plans to utilize MEK members in any capacity.