A Different Shade of Cold War

Before September 11th the administration really had only two foreign policy goals. One was to depose Saddam Hussein and the other was to check China before it became a rival superpower. From what I've read, they really had no grand strategic vision for shaping international affairs, only stopgap measures and half-baked ideas on how to execute wars on the cheap. After September 11th, issues involving China went on the backburner as the US moved to confront the wave of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East. The administration also used the “War on Terror” as an excuse to move up their plans to depose Saddam Hussein, which was done easily enough but then resulted in an urban guerilla war subsidized by Iran and a host of other countries. In the middle of all of this the North Koreans periodically shook their ballistic missiles at us and demanded a small sacrifice, namely a shrubbery…one that looks nice and is not too expensive (if you can name the movie I got that from give yourself 10 points).

Outside of “promoting Democracy in the Middle East,” which more or less is happening by accident or happenstance rather than by legitimate planning and strategizing, the US under George W. Bush hasn’t really defined an overall narrative for their dealings in world affairs. There is no theme or over-riding goal that brings us all together in the name of America. For example, the Cold War was defined by stopping the spread of communism, especially in South America and South East Asia. We “supported any friend” as they saying went and though mistakes were made and collateral damage incurred, eventually the Soviet Union fell and for intents and purposes we won. We don’t have that now, just this vague picture of the administration attempting to put out brush fires when they pop up, like in Lebanon currently. The revolution going on in Lebanon got thrown into the pot of “Democratizing the Middle East” but the fact is that the Lebanese had the matter well in hand and as can be seen in recent stories, they don’t want us involved in their affairs.

While the administration seeks to define a narrative for its foreign policy, the Russians seem to be instigating yet another cold war. I’ve eluded to this in past posts about how China and Russia are moving closer to a strategic partnership and that both are forming strong bonds with countries such as Iran and Venezuela. If you’ve ever played the game Risk, I think it’s easy to see what’s happening. Russia is slowly but surely building up strategic allies around the world in order to match the US in influence, power and strength. It’s the same as it was since the end of World War II but instead of spread communism, they are spreading Russoism, the belief or practice in Russia returning to its superpower status.

The latest example of Russia seeking to spread its influence while setting up elaborate checks against the US is in the aforementioned Venezuela. This from the Chicago Tribune, “BRASILIA -- The Bush administration says it is increasingly alarmed at a series of weapons purchases by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Venezuela has confirmed that it is buying 100,000 AK-47 rifles from Russia next month. But senior U.S. defense officials said intelligence reports conclude Venezuela also is in the process of a multibillion-dollar effort to buy other weapons.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, traveling Wednesday in South America, urged Chavez to reconsider the purchases.

"I can't imagine why Venezuela needs 100,000 AK-47s and I just personally hope that it doesn't happen," Rumsfeld told reporters in an appearance with Brazilian Vice President Jose Alencar. "And I can't imagine that if it did happen that it would be good for the hemisphere."”

Another example of Venezuela lining up to become a client state of Mother Russia comes from an article in the United Press International. “MOSCOW, March 23: Russia and Venezuela share close or identical views on key international problems, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

The Moscow statement was circulated during a meeting held by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak during his visit to Caracas, Interfax reports.

Kislyak held ministerial consultations and a series of meetings on Monday and Tuesday with leading officials from the Venezuelan defense and mining ministries.

"The talks revealed a coincidence or closeness of positions on key international problems and the role of the United Nations as a central mechanism of maintaining peace and stability," the Foreign Ministry statement.”

One of the defining elements of the Cold War was that Europe needed to be protected from and advancing and hostile communist Soviet Union. Out of sheer necessity, the US had a strategic partnership with the countries of Western Europe and for the most part where the US went Western Europe followed. That is certainly no longer the case as Europe has been eagerly waiting the day when they could throw off the heavy hand of American protection and become their own powerful entity again. The EU has been making deals in much the same fashion as the US; they do what solely benefits them and to hell with the rest of the world.

Since the break-up of the Soviet Empire, Europe has been rushing to embrace their lost brethren in Moscow and have done what they could to welcome her back into fold. For example, this from Novosti, “MOSCOW, March 21 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization will pave the way for his country to economically integrate into the European Union, Economic Development & Trade Minister German Gref told reporters Monday, after talks with EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson.

Russia's WTO accession is the key to solving issues of economics and commerce, Mr. Gref pointed out. Only after gaining WTO membership will the nation be able to substantially expand and harmonize its trade rules with the EU, he argues.

Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin instructed the government to step up the negotiating process toward Russia's integration with the EU, in terms of security, culture, education, and scientific research as well as economics. Mr. Putin would like all contentious issues hindering the talks to be resolved as soon as possible, but, according to the minister, it seems unrealistic to get all necessary blueprints ready before the next EU-Russia summit in May. As for trade and economic issues, there is no major disagreement on any of them.

At their talks Monday, Messrs. Gref and Mandelson discussed outstanding problems in the EU-Russia relationship that needed to be addressed without delay. These have to do primarily with transit to Kaliningrad via Lithuania, phyto-sanitary regulations, and trans-Siberian flights.

Mr. Gref said Russia had committed itself to bringing payments for trans-Siberian flights in line with international standards by the year 2013 and that these commitments had been consolidated in a newly signed agreement with the EU.

The sides agreed to consider all these issues in greater detail at their next meeting in the latter half of April, Mr. Gref told the media.

The EU Trade Commissioner, for his part, reiterated the European Union's willingness to assist Russia in joining the WTO before the end of 2005. "We have a long way to go, but the objective is not unattainable, provided there is enough political will," Mr. Mandelson pointed out.”

The world is rapidly changing. The US government is filled with people whose entire perspective is shaped by a world born in the 50’s and died in the 80’s when the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. If the US doesn’t get wise to the new cold war brewing around them we will be equally surprised just as we were on 9/11 when yet another tragedy strikes. We’ve made some headway in gathering allies such as the newly democratic Ukraine and Iraq but it’s going to take more than a hodgepodge of elections and land invasions to secure the US through the next several years. If I can see the wagons circling from the EU to Russia to China to Venezuela, I’m wondering just what is it our leaders in Washington are looking at and more importantly what they are going to do about it?

Annan: Assad OKs Complete Lebanon Exit

If Assad is serious then this is a major accomplishment for the severely tarnished and corrupted United Nations. As I've stated in previous columns, if the UN and the EU want a legitamate say in world affairs seperate and apart from the United States then they have to earn it by producing results. The EU has to stop the Iranians from building a nuclear bomb and the UN has to stop genocide from occuring. As in the case of Syria or in recent history Iraq, the UN has to back up its resolutions or their words will be singularly meaningless. As much as I criticize the UN and EU, there needs to be a balance of power in the world or, as we've seen in the Terry Schiavo case, the ruling party seems to go insane within record time. The US, God bless her, cannot be allowed to be the only superpower making semi-unilateral decisions in the world that seemingly only benefit the American business class. However, I'm not comfortable with giving up power to paper tigers in the name of political correctness or expediency because then we will surely have a repeat of the 1919 scenario that eventually led to World War II. This story as well as a few others gives me some degree of hope that the UN and the EU may actually rise to the occasion and become legitamate powerbrokers in the global community.

This from the AP: ALGIERS, Algeria (AP) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Tuesday that Syria's president has agreed to present a firm timetable by early April for a full withdrawal of his country's troops and intelligence agents from Lebanon.

Annan announced the commitment from President Bashar Assad after talking with the Syrian leader on the sidelines of the Arab League summit where the region's leaders largely sought to skirt the major issues facing the Middle East.

"The withdrawal has begun and it continues," Annan told reporters. "He's working out a timetable in consultation with the Lebanese authorities and will withdraw his troops completely into Syrian territory. Not just the troops but also the security service, as well as all the logistical and material equipment to Syria."

In recent weeks, Syria has pulled back its troops and intelligence agents into eastern Lebanon toward the border, while facing strong international pressure and widespread street protests in Lebanon demanding a withdrawal from the neighboring nation it has dominated for decades.

"We are going to work with him to ensure that it is done," Annan said.

Syria suggested previously that a date for a full withdrawal would be set at an April 7 meeting between Syrian and Lebanese military officers.

Officials of Lebanon's pro-Syria government have said 4,000 of the 10,000 soldiers that Syria had in Lebanon already have left the country and the others are now concentrated in the Bekaa Valley in eastern Lebanon.

Besides the turmoil in Lebanon, the Arab world has seen signs of other deep-running change in recent months.

After national elections, Iraqis are struggling to put together a new government, one that will likely be the only one led by Shiite Muslims among the Arab League nations. Elections also have been held by the Palestinians and, on the local level, in Saudi Arabia - and Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak is promising a multi-candidate election for president.

But the mood was defensive among the 13 heads of state from the Arab League's 22 members who attended the summit. Other leaders stayed away because of health reasons or personal disputes, sending lower-level representatives.

The host, Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, rejected U.S. pressure for democratic reform in the Middle East - a region where most countries are dominated by autocratic regimes.

He said Arab nations are making changes at their own pace. "These reforms were not and will not be imposed on us. We implemented them willingly and out of conviction," he said.

At last year's summit, the leaders said they would sign a pledge on democratic reform, but that never took place.

Ahead of this summit, Arab leaders rejected a Jordanian proposal for a sharp change in the Arab strategy in dealing with Israel, offering the Jewish state normal relations without it first returning land as Arab nations have traditionally demanded.

"This shouldn't be," Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said. "It should be commitment for commitment. Then we can reach a balanced peace and close the issues of the conflict in order to establish relations in parallel with the withdrawal and the establishment of a Palestinian state."

Still, several Arab nations, particularly Morocco, Qatar and Oman, are considering reviving or upgrading ties with Israel.

In Jerusalem, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said the only way to solve Arab-Israeli difference is through negotiations. "A position that says we will not talk to you until we solve all the problems is self defeating," he said.

The two-day summit, which ends Wednesday, is expected to reiterate a Saudi Arabian peace initiative, first approved in 2002, that offers diplomatic relations with Israel only in exchange for its full withdrawal from occupied Arab territory, the creation of a Palestinian state and settlement of the Palestinian refugee issue.

Iraq heard words of support, but no solid gestures of help. "Iraq is threatened in its stability and lives in a situation where Arab help is needed," Moussa said.

Terry Schiavo and Naked Republican Politics

The Republicans in congress have committed an unforgivable sin. I can tolerate a certain amount of cynicism in our government and I can live with being lied to. What I won’t accept is blatant disregard for the law they are sworn to uphold. This is a representative democracy and when our representatives brazenly disregard our constitution there can be no recourse but to vote the bums out of office. On March 21, 2005, President George W. Bush signed into law a bill passed by the U.S. Congress that morning, which allows the case of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman, to be placed under federal review. This act of interference on the part of Republicans in congress flies in the face of the separation of powers and the right of individuals to make personal decisions without the federal government doing exactly what it’s not supposed to do.

I tend not to cover personal interest stories in my writing space because for the most part, they just don’t pique my interest. I work in a field where I see men, women and children brutalized on a daily basis. I’ve worked with children who’ve seen one parent murdered by another or have been molested, or whom have suffered any number of horrific attacks. One child I remember was beaten about the head by her father with a wrench and needed to have her skull restructured. That little girl is blind in one eye today because of that but you’ll never hear about on the news. When you work in field that deals with man’s inhumanity to man on a daily basis, Lacey Peterson et al. becomes less interesting. The fixation on one particularly horrific case only makes me wonder why that one stands out and not the innumerable ones I see every day. With that said, until today I hadn’t been paying much mind to the tragic Terry Schiavo case. I figured that this matter will flow through our legal system and for better or for worse justice will be done so I felt my time was better spent watching the China-Taiwan situation.

However, as I was watching Studio-B with Shepard Smith today I was drawn into the finer points of the case as they relate to this weekends flash session regarding Mrs. Schiavo. Newshounds.us summed up the segment for me between Smith and Fox News Legal Analyst Judge Napolitano: “At one point Judge Napolitano said that the law that Congress just passed was "Unconstitutional and unprecedented in our history."

Later in the segment Napolitano explained that one of two things would now happen. He said that 1) The law would be declared unconstitutional or 2) The judge would look at everything that the state courts had looked at (which he said would take a considerable amount of time and would offer a temporary reinsertion of the feeding tube) and it would follow the same course that the state law had - it would then go to the Federal Appellate Courts in Atlanta, and to the U.S. Supreme Court. He said this second option would still have the same outcome - the law would be found unconstitutional.”

This is no longer a personal interest story. As of today this has become a story about congressional Republicans and their naked disregard for our laws. The fact of the matter is that Congress had no right to insert themselves into the business of this case. As I have understood it, the law states that where a living will is not present, the legal guardian of an incapacitated person, in this case the spouse, Mr. Schiavo, has the final say over his wife’s medical treatment. In the 15 years since this woman has been in a “vegetative state,” every court that has heard the grievances of Mrs. Schiavo’s family has upheld Mr. Schiavo’s right to ostensibly end her life by removing her feeding tube. No court has found Mr. Schiavo to be conducting the business of his wife’s well-being with malicious intent, which would disqualify him for having a say the decision to keep her alive or not. In the 15 years since this woman collapsed the matter has flowed through our legal system, such as it is, and in every case the finding’s favored Mr. Schiavo’s assertions that indeed Mrs. Schiavo wanted and has the right to die. As a simple matter of legality, this should have been an open and shut case. Once the US Supreme Court opted not to hear the case then the findings of the Florida State Supreme Court become presiding law and the matter is settled.

But the matter is not settled now is it. Christian Conservatives, who in my opinion are no better than the neo-Marxists in the Democrat Party, have decided to insert themselves in the private matters of the Schiavo family. This crowd who purports to be standing up for a, “culture of life” is demanding that their wishes, not the wishes of the legal guardian be met and because of political expediency, the congressional Republicans are too quick to oblige. First off, the whole idea of the Christian Right standing up for a “culture of life,” is so hypocritical I can barely take it seriously. These are the same people who applaud the death penalty rather than standing up for policies of prisoner rehabilitation. These are same people who are ardently against abortion but when the babies are born they turn their back on the mother’s who cannot care for their children in the first place without some assistance. There’s no compassion in these people, only blind ideology to a religion that most don’t know the first thing. It’s a crying shame that Christianity’s most supportive followers aren’t very good Christians to begin with.

What makes them even worse are the cynical politicians in the Republican Party that enable them in our national dialogue. It’s so obvious that this whole episode involving “Terry’s Law” is one giant pander-fest. The congressional Republicans figure since they can’t abolish abortion and they can’t do anything legally about the culture wars, they might as well attempt to satiate the Christian fundamentalist masses by keeping this woman alive in defiance of the laws they’re supposed to be upholding. Normally pandering to ones political base doesn’t bother me but when you manage to supercede the separation of powers that make our representative democracy work then I believe you should lose your job. Those that voted for “Terry’s Law” are bad representatives and I will not be voting for them come the mid-term elections (mind you, I’m a Republican).

This isn’t about my personal beliefs. I personally think Mr. Schiavo is suspect and his motives are suspicious. I believe when his wife’s parents offered to absorb the costs of keeping her alive he should have been gracious and granted them their wish. I don’t want Terry to die and I’m entirely consistent in my beliefs about the sanctity of life. But she isn’t my wife so my opinion, Sean Hannity’s opinion, the Christian Right’s opinion, the Pro-Choice/Right-to-Die Left’s opinion, and certainly the Congress’ opinion have absolutely no bearing on this case. Frankly, her parent’s opinion really didn’t have any place in the discussion but it was their right to try and insert themselves in the process. They were heard and they were summarily dismissed in several US Courts of Law. That’s American justice, for better or for worse. We cannot re-write our laws to accommodate one family and it is criminal to do so in order to curry favor with a bunch of zealous radicals (from either side of the political spectrum).

If I had my way every one of those Congressmen who voted for Terry’s Law would be censured. Unfortunately, according to Judge Napolitano they can’t be. All we can do, as people that actually respect the law and think it should be followed is to vote them out of office in 2006. It has become apparent to me that one party cannot be trusted to have a monopoly over the Federal Government. When that happens you get this sort of nonsense. Since I don’t trust our armed forces in the hands of Democrats, I will gladly vote Congress directly back into their hands at my first opportunity. Democracy isn’t about my personal needs, Terry’s needs or your individual needs; it’s about the greater good of the larger population. When our elected representatives start running amok and changing laws in a cynical attempt to look like they are listening to a fringe element in the national discourse then changes (however painful to me personally) have to be made.

The constitution and the law of the land is above petty politics and our own personal philosophy and should be respected as so.

Chirac told to speak up for EU constitution

Now this is interesting. Much of the debate regarding the role of the US in world affairs revolves around what its done wrong and how it needs to reform. We seldom hear about the inter-political trials and tribulations among Europeans with their own governments. This article talks about the people of France most likely voting down a European Union constitution somewhat as a sign against a few current French domestic policies. The article goes on to say that if the French do vote the EU constitution down, then that will set the EU back an inestimable amount time to formally come to the table of world leaders.

Here's my thinking on this; if the population of Europe can't melt together enough to form a cohesive military, diplomatic and economic entity then how is it supposed to maintain order in the face of deals made with nations such as Iran? If the EU makes a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons and the Iranians turn around and break the deal (like N. Korea did with the US) how will they then enforce punishments for breaking said deal? How will they hold Iran or any number of countries accountable if they can't even put forward their own constitution.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of an EU and though their interests sometimes run counter to our own I think the US needs an international opposition party to keep it from going neo-con crazy. However, they are demanding an equal seat at the table without the means of enforcing said demands. Now if I see this, I'm sure the Iranians, the Russians, the Chinese and Venezuelans see it too. All I'm asking for here is a bit of consistency on the part of the Europeans. Nobody would take the US seriously if it were making demands on other countries while interminably squabbling over its own constitution. From the EU their demands will only be empty threats until greater cohesion is achieved.

This from the Financial Times: President Jacques Chirac of France was under pressure on Sunday night to get more involved in campaigning for a Yes vote in May's referendum on the European constitution as a second opinion poll in a week showed hardening public opposition to the treaty.

In a poll to be published in Le Figaro on Monday, 52 per cent of those who said they planned to vote in the referendum on May 29 are against the treaty, compared with 40 per cent in early March. The poll, conducted by Ipsos on Friday and Saturday, follows a poll by Le Parisien published on Friday showing for the first time a majority against the constitution.

A No vote by France to the treaty would almost certainly kill the constitution and plunge the EU into crisis. The treaty needs to be ratified by all 25 member states, and a French rejection would leave the EU facing the dilemma of how to move forward.

On Sunday party leaders called on Mr Chirac to increase his efforts to persuade voters to vote Yes. François Bayrou, the leader of the UDF, said yesterday: “Faced with a choice of this magnitude, the president is obliged to speak up.” François Hollande, the leader of the Socialist party, has also called on the president to make his views clearer.

The decline in support recorded in the Ipsos poll of 860 people was sharp among leftwing voters.

The president has remained largely distant from the campaign. On Friday he said he still believed France would back the charter. But it is clear that the constitution is becoming a focal point for general dissatisfaction with the government. The past month has seen a series of strikes and demonstrations against reform of the 35-hour week and an unemployment rate that remains stubbornly around 10 per cent. Some opposition to the treaty is also caught up with the debate on Turkey's eventual entry to the EU.

“Some will vote against the referendum for reasons that have nothing to do with the referendum,” said one senior government adviser. “It shows there is a growing gap between the establishment and the man and woman in the street. A No could increase the fragility of the country because of this gap.”

Since France is a founder member of the EU and the constitution was drafted by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, a former president, a No vote would be also damning indictment of the growing distance between the EU and its citizens.

Without the constitution, the EU would be left with an outdated and complicated voting system and would be less able to act on the world stage: plans to create an EU foreign minister and full-time president would collapse.

The constitution also aims to involve national parliaments more in EU decision-making and to give the EU a greater role in the fields of asylum and immigration and judicial co-operation.

NY health report: Poor Women Die Younger

{This is a guest post by weekly contributors, Caregiver Credit.org. This week features a column by Theresa Funiciello, author of, "Tyranny of Kindness: Dismantling the Welfare system To End Poverty in America", Atlantic Monthly Press, New York 1994}

How do I kill thee? Let me count the ways. In "Poor Women Die Sooner" last Tuesday, the New York Daily News covered a Health Department report stating that poor women die younger than non-poor women. One reason is limited access to preventive care. For instance, even if you have insurance, you may not be able to afford travel to get mammograms. If your neighborhood is poor it’s likely to lack information on the importance of preventive care. These factors are a function of poverty – a problem that neither the city or state or nation have tried to address for forty years.

"Blame the victim" hypotheses in the report are more red- herring than fact. Take the issue of exercise, which non-poor women do more often than poor ones. This implies inactivity on the part of poor women. Three decades ago I was a welfare mother. No paying job or exercise is more totally demanding than being a poor single mother. Cooking with cheap "stick" pans. Cleaning without a vacuum. Hefting kids and schlepping laundry/groceries ten blocks because there are no laundromats/supermarkets closer. Not only mothers, but poor grandmothers and even great grandmothers are more likely to be caring for children than affluent ones. Forget time for exercise.

In 1970, the welfare grant in New York brought incomes for poor families to a smidgeon above the poverty line. Together with food stamps, families were managing. Today, the same welfare grant for a mother and two children buys less than half what it was intended to cover, placing a three-person family at forty-three percent of the $16,090 poverty line, or $6,924 a year. No family with a $35,000 annual income can imagine living on forty-three percent, or $15,500.

Though food stamps were raised episodically to keep pace with inflation, they haven’t actually done so. Most of a growing child’s food needs have to come from the welfare grant. Can’t afford to buy lean or even fresh meat. Ditto on vegetables. Only high fat or highly processed almost nutrient-free carbs, etc. Can’t buy half a phone, pay half the rent. Welfare costs
taxpayers as much as ever. But poor mothers are not getting any more than they did a decade ago, even though only about one third of the people are on the rolls. Where’s that beef?

Since welfare "reform," mothers are forced into short term, low-pay, no-benefit jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says five of the six lowest paid occupations in the nation were related to "food prep and serving" (think fast food and plucking chickens). Guess what jobs welfare mothers get?

Then there is the no-job job. Through "welfare reform," mothers who can’t get paying jobs are required to go to a "job" center to sit idly every day. The centers have no place to send them. If a mother brings a sick child to the "job" center, her welfare grant will be cut. Taking care of her own kid at home isn’t allowed, either.

Poor women do die younger. Blaming the victim got us welfare "deform." Now’s the time to try the outcry thing.

The Phantom Menace

Before Germany invaded Poland nobody thought that there would ever be another World War. The powers that be figured that if they gave in to enough of Hitler's demands he eventually would be placated and war would have been averted. History has taught us that if you give an inch, dictators take a mile.

Two stories from Xinhuanet.com remind me of pre-war Europe. The first refers to Russia and China executing joint military exercises:

BEIJING, March 17 (Xinhuanet) -- Visiting Russian army chief said here Thursday that the preparing Russian and Chinese joint military exercise is not targeted at any third country.

"The first joint military exercise is a new way of cooperation between the two militaries," said Yury Baluyevsky, Russian chief of general staff, who is on his first trip abroad since he took upthe post last July.

Instead of being targeted at any third country, the exercise scheduled to take place in autumn this year is aimed at "improvingthe training capabilities of the two militaries and boosting theircooperation," Baluyevsky told reporters after meeting with his Chinese counterpart Liang Guanglie Thursday afternoon.

Baluyevsky will also meet with Chinese state and military leaders Friday before he leaves Beijing for Sanya, a seaside resort in southern Hainan Province.

He said that the two sides have some details to further discuss.

Russia and China also agreed on the make-up of the troop, arms and equipment and military methods involved in the training.

"Russian paratroopers, marines and other forces will take part in the exercise," he said.

Russian and Chinese military leaders are also expected to attend this exercise.]

This wouldn't bother me so much if it wasn't followed by this story:

BEIJING, March 17 (Xinhuanet) -- Russia is against any secessionistactivities of "Taiwan Independence" in any form and will stick to the one-China policy, said Russian Chief of General Staff Yury Baluyevsky here Thursday.

Baluyevsky made the remarks during a meeting with his Chinese counterpart Liang Guanglie. He arrived this morning, three days after the country's parliament approved the Anti-Secession Law aimed at preventing "Taiwan independence" from the country.

The two army chiefs also highlighted the importance of cooperation between the two armies.

Building and developing the Sino-Russian strategic partnership of cooperation is the choice of both nations and Russia's strategic target, Baluyevsky said, adding that Russia is willing to work with China to further the strategic partnership after the two countries and armies have scored closer ties and fruitful cooperation in recent years.

Liang said strengthening cooperation between the two armies is an important part in furthering the partnership, which has maintained a good momentum for many years. In recent years, he said, high-level visits between the two armies have been frequent and exchanges in all fields effective.]

I know I've beaten this drum before and people have commented back saying that both China and Russia have to much invested in the US to start a war. Maybe, maybe not. A year ago I would have agreed but the world is changing and hubris is rising. Iran fancies itself a Middle Eastern regional power, who is to say China and Russia don't see themselves as supplanting the US as a joint world-wide hyperpower. I'll be keeping an eye on situation as best I can but I would prefer not to be in the position of saying, "I told you so." On this subject, I would prefer to be dead wrong.

Mind & Media: Publicity Uniting Bloggers, Authors, Publishers and More

{I've just begun a new book review venture in association with Mind and Media. However, if you are interested, this is the letter she sent out looking for additional reviewers.}

Hello Everyone,

I wanted to take a moment to invite all of you to check out my blog Mind &
Media with the purpose of hoping you will join me in my new adventure.

I started Mind & Media to promote bloggers and the power and influence we
all have. I have targeted primarily Christian publishers at this point,
although I am open to all type of books.

I now have a number of books and a few upcoming DVD's I'll be promoting and
I want to invite you all to become an Exclusive Mind & Media Reviewer.

Here's what's you get:

1. YOU will get a free copy of the books/dvd that I am promoting.
Currently I have non-fiction, and fiction books available.

2. YOU will become known as a partner with Mind & Media and known as a
trusted and valued reviewer.

3. YOU will be the first to know what books are going to be promoted, which
will give you first dibs on the material you like.

4. YOU will have access to any author you'd like to interview so you can do
Exclusive interviews on your website.

5. You're link will be on the Mind & Media website under a section that I
will be putting up soon. This will give you more traffic.

Here's all I ask if you want to join.

1. You link to Mind & Media with a special graphic I have designed.

2. You review the book and the whole time you are reviewing the book
you have a link with the graphic I will provide on your blog for 30
days.

3. Sign a formal contract saying you will do these things.

4. You post about what Mind & Media is doing so other bloggers can join.

And that's it!

If you're interested, please email me and let me know. You can visit
http://mindnmedia.blogspot.com to see the current books I am promoting. Not
all of the books are up on the blog yet for review, but if you join my list
of Exclusive bloggers, you will receive updates about the latest.

This worked great with the promotion I did with Reagan: In the Face of Evil,
and I will also be doing a few films as well.

So join me today!

Thanks!


Stacy L. Harp
Owner, Mind & Media
http://mindnmedia.blogspot.com
714-244-6890

Iran offers US share in nuclear programme: report

Nice play by the Iranians. This is an interesting opprotunity if the Iranians are serious. They are asking to be recognized as a regional power in exchange for thawed tensions and a 50-50 share of their nuclear program. I think the US should take them up on it. It gets us back in the country, it will show that, at least on the surface, we're not the would-be imperialist Chavez et. al. have made us out to be and it would rebrand us a country that is backing the multipolar world the Europe has been craving. Once we're in there and we start meding ties we might even get Iran to back away from Israel via Hezbollah.

However, this could absolutely be a ruse but if it is and we're in the country already then we'll have the moral authority to attack if something goes drastically wrong a la the Iranian Revolution. In a weird way it's kind of win-win for us from a leverage point of view. This from Reuters:

LONDON - Iran is prepared to offer the United States a half share in any future nuclear programme to demonstrate it is not pursuing atomic weapons, a senior Iranian official was quoted on Wednesday as saying.

The Financial Times said it was unclear how far the remarks of Hossein Kazempour, Iranian governor to the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and an energy adviser to the government, represented the policy of Teheran.

“I am telling you that the Americans can come and have 50-50 (of an Iranian nuclear programme),” Kazempour was quoted as saying by the newspaper.

“This offer is on the table. But they have their suspicions. This could be removed by their presence (in the programme).”

US President George W. Bush has accused Iran of trying to secretly develop nuclear arms. Teheran rejects the charge and says its nuclear programme is solely for electricity generation.

The Financial Times quoted Kazempour as saying Iran was committed to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said Washington must change its policies towards Iran and recognise Teheran as a regional power if relations were to improve.

In a policy shift last week, the United States offered Iran economic incentives to try to persuade it to scrap nuclear work which could be used to make atomic bombs.

Washington said it would drop its opposition to Iran’s membership of the World Trade Organisation and the sale of civilian aircraft parts to Teheran as part of a coordinated strategy with the European Union.

Iran has dismissed the US offer as insignificant.

Failure to abandon any sensitive nuclear activities would see Iran’s case referred to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions, US officials say.

Washington broke ties with Iran in 1980 after its embassy in Teheran was taken over by students who held 52 captives for 444 days. Billions of dollars of Iranian assets were seized and progressively tighter restrictions imposed on US investment and the sale of US products in Iran.

Tentative rapprochements over the years have petered out quickly. Bush branded Iran part of an “axis of evil”, accusing it of sponsoring terrorism as well as secretly developing nuclear bombs.  

Former WorldCom CEO Guilty on All Counts

Our justice system may stink at times but it's the best one out there. The thing I like about the United States the most is that every now and then we will eat our own, the mighty fall and yet the Republic lives on. This from tha AP:

NEW YORK (AP) - Bernard Ebbers, the once-swaggering CEO of WorldCom, was convicted Tuesday of engineering the largest corporate fraud in U.S. history - an $11 billion accounting scandal that capsized the big telecom company three years ago.

The verdict marked a colossal fall for Ebbers, who had turned a humble Mississippi long-distance provider into a global telecommunications power, swallowing up companies along the way and earning the nickname "Telecom Cowboy."

A federal jury in Manhattan returned guilty verdicts on all nine counts, including securities fraud, conspiracy and lying to regulators - a decision that could send Ebbers, 63, to prison for the rest of his life. Sentencing was set for June 13.

The former chief executive reddened deeply when the jury announced its verdict after eight days of deliberations, and his wife, Kristie, burst into tears in the courtroom's front row. Later, as his lawyer spoke outside, promising an appeal, Ebbers and his wife - nearly toppled by the enormous crew of cameras and reporters camped outside the federal courthouse - made their way to a nearby street, hailed a cab and drove away.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales called the conviction a "triumph of our legal system." He said the jury had recognized that the fraud "extended from the middle management levels of this company all the way to its top executive."

In a six-week trial, prosecutors painted Ebbers as obsessed with keeping WorldCom stock high, and panicked about pressure he was getting over $400 million in personal loans that were backed by his own WorldCom shares.

From late 2000 to mid-2002, the government claimed, Ebbers intimidated chief financial officer Scott Sullivan into covering up billions of dollars in out-of-control expenses and recognizing improper revenue.

"He was WorldCom, and WorldCom was Ebbers," prosecutor William Johnson told jurors. "He built the company. He ran it. Of course he directed this fraud."

The defense claimed all along that the fraud was masterminded by Sullivan, who testified as the star government witness that Ebbers instructed him quarter after quarter to "hit our numbers" - meet Wall Street expectations.

Ebbers himself took the witness stand at trial's end and flatly denied any role in the fraud. He said he viewed his role at the company as a visionary and cheerleader, was uncomfortable with accounting and left it to Sullivan.

"He's never told me he made an (accounting) entry that wasn't right," Ebbers said of Sullivan. "If he had, we wouldn't be here today."

The largely blue-collar jury of seven women and five men considered the case for eight days, an uncommonly long deliberation for white-collar cases, but never showed signs of discord.

The jurors were ushered away from the courthouse without speaking to the media, and Judge Barbara Jones instructed reporters not to badger them.

Outside court, top defense lawyer Reid Weingarten said he was "devastated" but predicted Ebbers "will ultimately be vindicated" on appeal. He said he had no regrets about calling Ebbers to testify.

"I did not think Mr. Ebbers ever acted with criminal intent," he said. "Obviously we're disappointed by the result, but the fight will continue."

Legal experts said the appeal would be difficult. Weingarten said part of the case would center on prosecutors' refusal to grant immunity to three former WorldCom executives the defense wanted to call as witnesses.

The nine criminal counts against Ebbers - securities fraud, conspiracy and seven counts of making false filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission - carry up to 85 years in prison. He will be free on bail until sentencing.

The conviction comes more than two years after an internal auditor began asking questions about curious accounting at WorldCom, touching off a scandal that eventually unearthed $11 billion in cooked books.

Parents, Take Back Your Children and Your Schools

There are a ton of federal programs I’d like to see cut. I dream everyday that farm subsidies will be a thing of the past and Third World countries will be able to compete in the marketplace. I pray that the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio lose their funding and those folks have to go out and get real jobs. I’ve already written about cutting NASA loose and letting space be explored by entrepreneurs instead of bureaucrats. To be frank, the only thing I want to the federal government involved with is building interstate roads and supplying our military. Other than that, I long for the days before the New Deal when the federal government at least attempted to let the states determine their own fates, for better or for worse.

One complete waste of taxpayer money is the Department of Education. “Unlike the educational system of many other countries, education in the United States is highly decentralized, and the Federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curriculum or educational standards. Rather, the primary function of the United States Department of Education is to administer federal funding programs involving education and to enforce federal educational laws involved with privacy and civil rights. The quality of educational institutions and their degrees is maintained through an informal process known as accreditation which the Department of Education has no direct control over.”

So essentially we’ve created a bureaucracy that funds institutions across the states but does not have the ability to hold said institutions accountable. This is the same sort of thing that defined welfare for far too many years. The Democratic Party preyed upon people’s impressions of poverty and demanded obscene amounts of money to fund programs that didn’t work and would never work from what must have seemed like an infinite well of taxpayer dough. That same mentality is what has defined funding of our public schools.

The fact of the matter is that every year that passes the Department of Education along with the school boards and the Teachers Union continue to invalidate the role of the parent and the parent in turn gladly removes themselves from their role in guiding their children’s education. In short, the federal government is attempting to become more of a parent to the nations children while the parent takes a siesta. In the end this arrangement is sending the performance and intelligence of our children down the toilet.

I see it everyday when I go to work. I see parents, single mothers mostly, attempting to raise their children and reconcile their mistakes as best they can. They rely heavily on the schools to co-parent with them and the schools are only too happy to oblige. However, that’s not the role of school. Parents have to do the work themselves and stop relying on the federal government via teachers, social workers, police officers, etc., to be the parent they can’t bring themselves to be. The kind that takes an interest in their child 24 hours a day instead of whenever the mood suits them.

Meanwhile, as stated above, the Department of Education and public schools in general need to be mothballed. They have outlived their usefulness. There are several alternative solutions that every member of society can utilize if we’d only stop reinforcing this co-dependant behavior. I think the rules of the marketplace should absolutely be applied to the education system. First, get the federal government out of it entirely. Life works much better when local governments work directly with their constituents rather than invoking this big hulking mammoth of a disconnected bureaucracy to settle issues it cannot possibly comprehend or do anything constructive about.

With the DOE unable to muck things up, you have the option of employing several ideas. Obviously the most talked about strategy for improving education is the school voucher program. Parents have to take a direct interest in where their children go to school and they should be given the opportunity to shop around for competent districts rather than be herded into failing ones. Again, we should let the marketplace decide which schools stay and which ones go instead of subjecting ourselves to the tyranny of the Teachers Union. Funding for the school vouchers should come in the form of tax-credits or negative income for parents who don’t make enough money to send their children to private schools on their own. We don’t need a new bureaucracy for that and not having to pay for the old one would free up plenty of money.

Part of “No Child Left Behind” allows for the conversion of charter schools from public schools that have failed their students. While I think said Act is ridiculous and misses the larger point of what is going wrong in public schools, this idea of school conversions needs to be implemented across the board. Every school (except elementary schools) should be a charter or private school, which would command the rules of the business world thus ultimately being better, as capitalism usually is, for our children. This would also effectively kill the Teachers Union, which in my opinion has done more damage to the profession than it has benefited it. Having been a teacher myself in the Los Angeles Unified School District for a period of time, believe me, I saw this nonsense first hand.

For those of you that cannot imagine a world where the federal government doesn’t insert itself where it truly doesn’t belong, there is another suggestion. I am aware that even with tax-incentive vouchers, scholarships, etc., many students will not make it to a private institution for a variety of reasons. Programs such as the ones I’m describing would have a difficult time penetrating the lowest-income sections of our cities and rural areas. Here I would suggest letting the federal government do what it does best and allow the armed forces to set up training academies in place of public schools. Essentially it would be sleep-away private school with all the benefits getting kids out of the environments that aren’t conducive to learning in the first place. If certain parents are going to drop their kids on the steps of City Hall and say that the “government” should parent for them then let the best institution have a crack at it. Military institutions are the only federal programs that can parent effectively when the parents themselves simply cannot function in that capacity.

In my opinion, these are the choices in front of today’s American parents; step up and become invested in your child’s education or stand back and let the military have them. Either way, the system we have now isn’t helping anyone. We continue to burn money on a failed system while our children become less educated and more obstinate.

N.Y. Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003

Well, it took the NY Times long enough to report the truth. What kills me here, and I 've been saying this for about a year or more now, is that if the missing material and equipment described in this story turn up in Syria, the people who rediculed Bush for going into Iraq won't apologize or even recognize that they were the ones that were wrong and failed to see the bigger picture. This from Newsmax.com:

In a stunning about-face, the New York Times reported Sunday that when the U.S. attacked Iraq in March 2003, Saddam Hussein possessed "stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials," as well as sophisticated equipment to manufacture nuclear and biological weapons, which was removed to "a neighboring state" before the U.S. could secure the weapons sites.

The U.N.'s Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission [UNMOVIC] "has filed regular reports to the Security Council since last May," the paper said, "about the dismantlement of important weapons installations and the export of dangerous materials to foreign states."

"Officials of the commission and the [International] Atomic Energy Agency have repeatedly called on the Iraqi government to report on what it knows of the fate of the thousands of pieces of monitored equipment and stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials."

Last fall, IAEA director Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei confirmed that "nuclear-related materials" had gone missing from monitored sites, calling on Iraqi officials to start the process of accounting for the missing stockpiles still ostensibly under the agency's supervision.

Quoting Sami al-Araji, Iraq's deputy minister of industry since the 1980s, the Times said:

"It appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants in search of valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away."

Calling the operation "sophisticated," Dr. Araji said the removal effort featured "cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites," adding, "They knew what they were doing."

The top Iraqi defense official said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's WMD program.

Dr. Araji said that if the equipment had left the country, its most likely destination was a neighboring state.

The United Nations, worried that the nuclear material and equipment could be used in clandestine bomb production, has been hunting for it throughout the Middle East, largely unsuccessfully, the Times said.

China Enacts Law to Stop Taiwan Secession

The drums of war are getting louder. For those of you who so heartily protested against the US invading Iraq, I hope you've got your signs ready to go against China. This from the AP:

 BEIJING (AP) - China's national legislature on Monday overwhelmingly approved a law authorizing a military attack to stop Taiwan from pursuing formal independence, a day after President Hu Jintao told the 2.5 million-member People's Liberation Army to be prepared for war.

The measure was approved by a vote of 2,896 to zero, with two abstentions on the last day of the figurehead National People's Congress' annual session.

"We shall step up preparations for possible military struggle and enhance our capabilities to cope with crises, safeguard peace, prevent wars and win the wars if any," the official Xinhua News Agency quoted Hu as saying Sunday.

Hu's comments, made to military delegates at the national legislature, appeared aimed at underlining Beijing's determination to unify with democratically ruled Taiwan, which split from the Chinese mainland in 1949. Delegates to the NPC burst into applause after the approval of the law, shown live on national television.

"This law ... represents the people's determination not to allow Taiwan to be separated from China by any means or any excuses," said Wu Bangguo, China's No. 2 leader and chairman of the parliament.

On Sunday, Hu was appointed as chairman of the government's Central Military Commission, a largely symbolic move that capped a generational transfer of power. He already heads a parallel party commission that runs China's military.

Hu, 62, has shown no sign of diverging from former President Jiang Zemin's hard-line stance toward Taiwan, a democratically ruled island that Beijing insists is part of the communist mainland.

The two sides split in a civil war more than 50 years ago, and Beijing has long threatened to invade if Taipei takes formal steps toward independence.

The anti-secession law passed Monday is aimed at discouraging self-ruled Taiwan, which Beijing claims as its territory, from making its de facto independence permanent.

"We must ... always place the task of defending national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity and safeguarding the interests of national development above anything else," Xinhua quoted Hu as telling military delegates to the congress.

Taiwan's government has condemned the law, saying it risks raising tensions. The United States also appealed to China not to enact the measure.

At a news conference after the measure passed, however, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao denied it was a war bill.

"This is a law advancing peaceful unification between the sides. It is not targeted at the people of Taiwan, nor is it a war bill," Wen said.

Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian has said it "enables China to unilaterally decide Taiwan's future and ignore that Taiwanese have the right to choose a democratic and free lifestyle."

After the bill passed Monday, the Japanese government's top spokesman said it could dangerously raise regional tensions.

"We are concerned about negative effects of the bill on the peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and the relationship between the two sides, which had been improving," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda.

The United States would be Taiwan's most likely defender if China attacked. Washington is lobbying strongly against European Union plans to lift a 15-year-old arms embargo against China, arguing that high-tech European weapons might be used against Taiwanese or U.S. forces.

Rice For President: Will She or Won’t She Run?

Americans who are hoping and praying that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will run against Senator Hillary Clinton for the Presidency of the United States of America in 2008 got very mixed messages this weekend.

The first was more or less an affirmative from the Washington Post where she told editors that she would not rule out running for president. However, in that same article she quickly followed up by saying that she didn’t see herself in the role of someone who needs to be elected by the masses.

Dr. Rice then when on Meet the Press with Tim Russert where they had the following exchange:

DR. RICE: Tim, I don't want to run for president of the United States.

MR. RUSSERT: "I will not run"?

DR. RICE: I do not intend to run for--no. I will not run for president of the United States. How is that? I don't know how many ways to say "no" in this town. I really don't.

MR. RUSSERT: Period? Period? I will not run as president of the United States.

DR. RICE: I have no intention. I don't want to run.

This of course means nothing. Dr. Rice does not have to do a thing until the mid-term elections in 2006 except continue to be a stellar Secretary of State. Between now and then a whole host of things could happen so it would be silly to take what she said today at face value.

There are plenty of politicians who deny running for office only to turn around and do it when the moment is right. That’s part of the gig. If anyone is whispering in Dr. Rice’s ear about how she should play a possible nomination (Karl Rove I’m looking in your direction) she’s probably being told to keep her intentions to herself for now. It would make perfect sense for her to remain focused on her current position until the time and opportunity presented itself for her to shift focus and concentrate on becoming the first black, female president.

One of the major criticisms both John Kerry and John Edwards suffered was that they seemed negligent in their duties as senators while they campaigned for the presidency. People who follow politics are quite sensitive to the idea that their representatives attempt to get elected to an office for the purpose of getting elected to a higher office and then react accordingly. Politically speaking, “the Vulcan’s” as James Mann calls them, are extremely intuitive and apt at planning and maneuvering. If I’m pointing that one can reveal their ambitions to soon and possibly cost you an election, I’m fairly certain Rove and company have realized it as well. For now Rice will say no until the opportunity to say yes presents itself.

I am pretty well convinced that Dr. Rice will be running in the primaries come 2008. However, while she may go through with it and it is absolutely conceivable she could best Senator Clinton head-to-head, I am sympathetic to the idea that she may indeed not want to run. It’s certainly a dangerous but historic prospect for Madame Secretary. It’s a lot to take on and she may be a bit gun shy about opening up her private life the way presidential prospects do, especially after her confirmation hearing a few months back. Senator Barbara Boxer used those hearings to grandstand all over Dr. Rice and that was just to be the nations leading diplomat. If she does run for president, treatment such as what she suffered from Boxer, Kennedy and Kerry will most likely pale in comparison.

For now it’s all just speculation, and speculation in politics can be quite fun. But for those who think that the Russert interview closes the book on a possible Rice candidacy, I would not take it too literally. After all, Jeb Bush has said he isn’t running about a dozen times and nobody believes him either.

A Message From Diane Pagen at the Caregiver Credit Campaign

I am someone who is a trained social worker (MSW) who has recently made the decision to work on changing US social policy. I made this decision because I have seen that the U.S. social system is a failure for the women and children it is supposed to protect because of the ideas it is constructed on.

The system believes that the only valuable work is paid work. The harm being done to women both those who work outside the home and those who raise their children full time is yet to be fully calculated. Women in poverty are now told that they must leave their children in day care so that they can go "work." The idea that what they were doing at home is not work hurts all women. Two ironies of the whole welfare to work thing: these women get jobs in the paid labor market doing child care, which is exactly what they were doing at home; and, sending them into the workforce costs the nation MORE money, to sustain the bureaucracy it takes to get them there, even though less money than ever of the welfare budget is being spent to feed and clothe the children.

Taking care of children (and even adults who need care) is not undignified or shameful. It is something many of us will choose to do in our lifetimes as women, and social policies need to support women who want to do it. In particular, women who are poor, who cannot command a decent wage in a paid market job should not be forced to abandon the one job that they do well and want to do--care for their children. Women need productive choice--they need to know that when they decide to engage in unpaid labor for the good of their families, that they will not be ridiculed, called lazy or forced into an impoverished life.

It is because what we do in the home is so unvalued by the economic system, that when we choose to go into the paid marketplace we are paid so badly vis a vis men. The fact is that the wage gap between women and men is now negligible for similar work--it is the wage gap between mothers and men that is appalling (mothers make about half of what men make for the same work). The failure to account for the cash value of unpaid labor is the major factor behind the poverty of women and children and the low wages of women when they get paid jobs. We need to talk about fixing this via policy change in a
multitude of nations including the US.

Move McCain, Get Out Da Way!

I think I began covering the 2008 presidential election the moment after John Kerry conceded the race. I was explaining to a friend of mine that American presidential politics is like a year of watching wrestling. The new season begins and the old season ends on the same day, Wrestlemania. The presidential election is like a 4-year season that begins and ends on Election Day, every 4 years.

You don't have to be an expert in political analysis to figure out that the field of candidates from the Democrat Party is rather slim and will most likely be dominated by Senator Hillary Clinton. What's new and exciting here is that the nomination from the GOP is very much still up in the air. Early favorites were former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Senator John McCain. Both seemingly sold out their principles to stump for President Bush assuming they'd get the rub when he was ready to leave office.

Some folks keep touting Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for president on the assumption that the Constitution will be amended allowing him to legally run for the office. I'm not one for bold pronouncements or temper tantrums but so help me God, if we amend the constitution to allow those born outside of the country to possibly become Commander-in-Chief of the single greatest armed forces in the world, I will learn a new language and move to Europe. I think I can live with socialism under those circumstances. If you've ever believed anything written in this space then believe this, allowing foreign born citizens to become American Presidents is a long term recipe for disaster.

Since the inauguration, the pundits have throw around some other names such as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Governor Mitt Romney and former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. But the speculative candidate that has really sparked the pundits’ imaginations is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. This is where the plot thickens.

According to Real Clear Politics analysis of a Hillary Vs Condi race, "If the match-up were held, according to an IBD/TIPP Poll, Hillary Clinton would beat Condi Rice 50% to 30%. But to see Campaign Condi as a nonstarter based on such polls is to engage in static analysis. In fact, that's a pretty fair showing for a potential candidate as unfamiliar to voters as the ex-president's wife is familiar."

This is absolutely true. Even in an age where news can be gathered from any number or sources there are still many Americans who haven't the foggiest clue who Condi Rice (or for that matter Barack Obama) are yet. Without any kind of campaigning or even acknowledgement that she is running Dr. Rice has managed to garner 30% percent of the likely voters. Imagine what will happen when Karl Rove is fully committed to the Rice campaign. After all, he got George W. Bush elected didn't he?

The major issue here is the McCain factor. According to Newsmax.com, "If the 2008 presidential election were held today, Arizona Sen. John McCain would defeat his New York colleague, Hillary Clinton, by a whopping 12-point margin, according to the latest poll by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.

Fifty-four percent of voters said they'd back McCain, with 42 percent supporting the former first lady, the Marist survey found.

851 registered voters were surveyed Feb. 14-16 on the McCain-Clinton match-up.

When matched against Mrs. Clinton, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani didn't do nearly as well, edging out the former first lady by just 2 points, 49 percent to 47 percent.

With the poll's 3.5-percent margin of error, that's a statistical tie, Marist said.

Ironically, Giuliani would have a better chance getting the GOP nod. The survey found that 25 percent of registered Republicans or Republican-leaning independents backed him, while 21 percent backed McCain.

Mrs. Clinton would defeat Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, 51 percent to 43 percent."

The business and political world are not run by people who fancy themselves as risk takers per se. They like the safe bet and rarely does it seem that those in the powerful know ever take the long view of a situation. On the assumption that natural forces don't move these numbers too far from where they currently stand, McCain may end up benefiting from a whisper campaign in his favor. However, the future is not written and as I stated above, lots of things can happen between now and the primaries. The last time McCain faced off against a Rove contender he got is rear end handed to him by a host of dirty tricks and vicious rumors. I seriously doubt Rove has gotten religion since then and will play fair in '08.

My suggestion for McCain is to run at least through the Iowa caucus and then (assuming he loses) bow out gracefully and wait for Condi to tap him to be Vice President. If McCain insists on seeing his campaign through however, he's going to be hit hard by the Rove-Condi train and that will be the end of that.

Bush: Pakistan made America more secure

Can the US manage two distinct military campaigns at the same time? That appears to be the question asked by those whom feel that the Iraq war was a distraction from the war against al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism at large. I've been contesting that our rationale for going into Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism or al Qaeda per se, in the larger picture it made sense to topple the Hussein regime. The fact is that while we've been busy rebuilding Afghanistan and attempting to settle Iraq, we have been waging a fairly successful campaign against al Qaeda world wide. Our biggest ally in this endeavor is a country you'd least suspect; Pakistan. On March 8th, President George W. Bush finally gave President Musharraf the acknowledgement his country so richly deserves.

[World News]: WASHINGTON, March 8 : President George W.Bush says Pakistan has made the United States "more secure" by arresting extremists.

Pakistani newspapers reported that in his speech delivered at the National Defense University in Washington, Bush mentioned Pakistan as one of the key allies in the war against terrorism.

"We're more secure because Pakistani forces captured more than 100 extremists across the country last year, including operatives who were plotting attacks against the United States," he said.

Bush said Britain arrested an al-Qaida operative who had provided detailed reports on possible American targets to senior al Qaeda leaders.Bush also cited efforts by Germany, the Philippines and Poland for catching al-Qaida suspects.

"In three and a half years, the United States and our allies have waged a campaign of global scale -- from the mountains of Afghanistan, to the border regions of Pakistan, to the Horn of Africa, to the islands of the Philippines, to the plains of North Central Iraq."

Syria Getting Missiles From N. Korea

The downside to not using pre-emptive war is that your foes can quietly arm themselves and dig in while you are stuck in endless rounds of diplomacy. It's a tangled web we weave in the Middle East. We don't want to be invading countries willy nilly from Libya to Pakistan however, there are just certain developments that cannot be allowed to happen and ultimately call for a military intervention. Meanwhile, while the Europeans and we wax philosophical about the correct way to deal with Syria and Iran, it is my belief that both countries and a host of others are just biding their time and arming up for what looks to be the inevitable showdown.

This from Newsmax.com:

United Nations -- "We are concerned about the North Koreans in Syria and the missiles they are selling," revealed a senior official in the Israeli foreign ministry.

The official, who spoke on background, made it clear that Jerusalem is "increasing" concerned about the North Korean presence in the Middle East.

According to the Israeli official and seconded by U.S. officials, the North Koreans are in Syria "to service and train" the military in the use of newly acquired ballistic missiles.

CIA chief Porter Goss reported on the North Korean activity in Syria during a recent hearing on Capitol Hill.

"These are updated Scuds with far more accuracy," explained the Israeli. He went on to explain that "all of Israel" is within range of these new weapons.

North Korea, explained the Israeli, is picking up part of the weapons void left by the dissolution of the old Soviet Union. "They sell weapons and the price is cheap," he added.

The Syrian missiles take on an additional importance when one considers that Iran has recently tested domestically produced ballistic missiles that also put all of Israel within range.

Both Tehran and Damascus recently reaffirmed a "defense" alliance aimed at Washington and Jerusalem.

The Iranian and Syrian missiles are both believed capable of delivering "unconventional" warheads. In the Iranian case, nuclear and chemical/bio-weapons could be delivered. It is not clear whether the Syrian missiles have nuclear capabilities, but the Israelis believe they too could be modified.

The number of missiles sent by Pyongyang and the size of the North Korean military presence in the country were not revealed by the Israeli, though he explained the Israel Defense Forces "are dealing with the problem."

The War to End All Wars…Again

Some analysts say we’re currently embroiled in the fourth world war, as the Cold War was actually, World War III. Bill O’Reilly usually structures his foreign policy arguments in the framework of the War on Terror being World War III. I say my generation has yet to know what a real World War looks like in our modern information age.

Sure we’ve seen wars both behind the scenes, by proxy and live on cable news in all their inhuman brutality. No matter how precise our missiles are or how honorable our soldiers are trained to be, mistakes happen. Innocent people die. Cities are destroyed and pages of history are summarily flushed down the toilet of destruction. Man’s inhumanity to man bubbles up and boils over shaming us all. That is war and despite the hawkish rhetoric that comes out of this space, I do believe war is a wicked, but necessary evil.

Bill O’Reilly and the folks who think we’re in a World War right now are absolutely wrong. Despite skirmishes, police actions, covert operations and the occasional full-scale invasion, the fact of the matter is none of this is new. Read your history, this is how the worlds been operating since the sovereignty of nations was invented. Somewhere at all times in the world two countries are having a military conflict and whatever is happening on the battlefield is also being controlled by several invisible forces in the peripheral. Since the dawn of the first biblical empire and multiplying 100 times over during European colonialism every country has been tied to every other country in an international game of 7 degrees from Kevin Bacon. But despite everyone on the planet sticking their thumb in everyone else’s pie, there have been only two World Wars.

I believe international terrorism as an instrument of Pan-Arabism is a threat to the civilized world in the same way I think pulling resources out of an inner city populated by mostly Blacks and Hispanics and letting them burn down buildings and kill each other without intervention threatens the safety of Americans far and wide. But let’s not get so overcome with zealous defense of the homeland that we lose sight of the potential threats far beyond Islamic terrorism.

The possibility that there just might be yet another “War to End All Wars” lies not with the jihadi’s but instead with the Red Chinese. I have history on my side here when I say all it will take to set off Armageddon is one military adventure on the part of the Chinese in Taiwan and we will have ourselves a full-blown world war that will make the other two look like paintball and 9/11 like a song that gets stuck in your head but whose lyrics you can’t remember.

The AP is reporting that, “A proposed Chinese anti-secession law would authorize Beijing to take military action to stop rival Taiwan from pursuing formal independence if other efforts fail, a leader of China's parliament said Tuesday.

Wang Zhaoguo, reading out the proposed law for the first time before the figurehead National People's Congress, didn't give any details of what specific developments might trigger a Chinese attack.

"If possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ nonpeaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity," Wang, deputy chairman of the NPC's Standing Committee, told the nearly 3,000 NPC members gathered in the Great Hall of the People.

Beijing claims Taiwan, split from China since 1949, as part of its territory. The communist mainland repeatedly has threatened to invade if Taiwan tries to make its independence permanent.”

If the Chinese invade Taiwan, we will most certainly be drawn in to a military conflict with the blossoming superpower. We are politically and economically married to Taiwan by virtue of The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, which was a Congressional bill, passed in 2000, which provided for greater United States military support of Taiwan. One provision of the TSEA calls for, “…the United States to eliminate ambiguity and convey with clarity continued United States support for Taiwan, its people, and their ability to maintain their democracy free from coercion and their society free from the use of force against them. Lack of clarity could lead to unnecessary misunderstandings or confrontations between the United States and the People's Republic of China, with grave consequences for the security of the Western Pacific region.” (Credit taiwansecurity.org)

For all intents and purposes, if China decides to reclaim Taiwan as her own it will be the modern equivalent to Germany starting World War II in 1939 by invading Poland. In the wake of the Cold War the board has been rearranged and old allies are quickly becoming new adversaries, which could easily mutate in to enemies before you can say, “Oh no, not again!” It is nearly without question that if we become engaged with Mainland China over the fate of Taiwan we will also face their allies in Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea and probably Pakistan. We will have friends in Israel, India, Australia, Japan and probably S. Korea but they will be just as knee deep in doom as we will be facing off the triple threat of China, Russia, Iran and their client nations. We will find no allies in Europe, as they will seek neutrality while continuing to arm the above faction until said beast overruns a nearly defenseless and mostly likely slack-jawed European Union. We will most likely lose or at least greatly expose our beachheads in Iraq, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The desire for China et al will not just be to reposition themselves as regional superpowers, but instead they will see death descend upon the Western world as has never been experienced before. That dear reader is a World War. If China deploys their rumored neutron bombs against the West and we respond in kind with our arsenal of over 200 ballistic nuclear missiles that really will be a “War to End All Wars.”

One can only hope that in China cooler heads will prevail and war can be averted. However, when I look in to the horizon of our collective future I do not see morning, I see the mushroom cloud.

Cult of Personality

I was watching my DVD of Eddie Izzard’s “Dress to Kill” performance the other day and his line about the American dream stood out to me. He joked, “In America, the dream is to be born in the gutter, rise to success, get all the money in world and stick it in your ears!” I tend to agree with him on that both literally and in the spirit in which it was said.

He also commented on ones presentation, citing John F. Kennedy’s speech to the people of Berlin. According to Izzard, presentation and marketing breaks down into 70% how you look, 20% how you sound and 10% what you say. JFK was a handsome man who sounded like a leader should sound and when he spoke in German to the people of Berlin nobody paid much attention to when he misspoke saying, “I am a Doughnut” when what he meant to say was, “I am a Berliner.” Whether or not this story is true it does speak to a larger point, which is that ones status and personality can take said person further in this world, especially in the Western world, than actual talent.

One of the stark contrasts in America versus our brothers in Europe is that we are not nearly as inclined to follow and study politics as they are. In most of the world the difference between life and death for any number of people rests in the hands of which party happens to take the reigns of leadership, especially across Africa and Asia. While changes in the political climate certainly affect Americans, it isn’t quite the life and death struggle that exists across the pond. We can afford to be a provincial lot because whether the Republicans or Democrats control Washington, the Republic will still stand. Meanwhile the French, for example, tend to restart their republic every 100 years or so.

It is with all this in mind that marketing and personality tend to play a remarkably larger role in American political life than it really should. Look at the case of Karl Rove and George W. Bush. Rove has admitted, and this is clearly documented in the book, “Bush’s Brain,” that he could not be elected to public office, surely not the presidency, so he set out to find a show pony of sorts to ride himself into the seat of American power. He found an affable and charismatic candidate in George W. Bush and they both relied on personality to carry W. through tough political waters. We certainly didn’t elect the man strictly on his intellectual prowess.

Governor Schwarzenegger is another perfect example of America’s tendency toward icon obsession combined with lazy political analysis. During the recall election that gave him his chance at the governorship, he ran against three heavyweight contenders that may have actually been better suited for the job because nobody knew who they were, they really didn’t have a chance of winning the recall. Whenever Schwarzenegger is reported on, his actions are always framed within his “personality” or his “connection to the voters”. Journalists cite his ability to take issues directly to the people and avoid the claptrap of insider dealings that define a great deal of politics. That’s fine and dandy except it says nothing about the man's innate understanding California’s local politics or whether or not he truly understands the finer points of state legislation. The fact of the matter is that if he weren’t “The Terminator” then he’d fall under a lot more scrutiny.
In a recent headline, yet another superstar may be ascending from the realm of entertainment and in to the sphere of international influence. This from the AP:

“WASHINGTON (AP) - Treasury Secretary John Snow on Sunday would not rule out the idea of Irish singer Bono, an activist on debt relief and AIDS, making the short list of potential candidates to lead the World Bank even though an American is expected to get the job.

"He's somebody I admire. He does a lot of good in this world of economic development," Snow said.

"Most people know him as a rock star. He's in a way a rock star of the development world, too. He understands the give-and-take of development. He's a very pragmatic, effective and idealistic person," Snow said.

Snow is part of the Bush administration team working on finding a successor to James Wolfensohn, who is stepping down as head of the development bank on June 1.

Asked whether the Irish singer would make the short list of candidates that Snow is preparing for President Bush, the secretary said: "I am not going to review here all the candidates that are on the list. But I will attest to my admiration for Bono."”

I respect Bono and I certainly admire him for being more than just a knee-jerk political reactionary the way other entertainers tend to be. I’m not sure he’s capable of running the World Bank however. One never knows and he could show himself to be supremely competent if he is chosen but I have this nagging feeling that once the novelty of Bono running the World Bank wore off he’d find himself in a very hostile environment.

That is of course what happened to wrestler turned governor, Jesse Ventura. He had been the Mayor of Brooklyn Park and garnered himself a populist reputation. When he won his governors race, Ventura expected to be able to kick open the gates of the state capital like an old Western-type sheriff and, “clean up this town”. Then he met all of the state senators who reminded him that this wasn’t Saturday Night’s Main Event and thus his cult of personality wasn’t nearly enough to make the changes he wanted in Minnesota.

Sometimes personality just isn’t enough. What troubles me however is that we’re so fixated on the superfluous traits of American would-be politicians that I think we tend to throw out those that might actually do some good in favor whom we think fits a better marketing equation.

For example, look at the mess Democrat voters made of the last election cycles primaries. For all intents and purposes, Dean should have had that nomination cold. He was the real progressive candidate and surely his anti-war stance didn’t suffer the same loss of integrity that Kerry’s did. Unfortunately, his somewhat shrill personality overshadowed his ideas and abilities as a politician and the voters made the safe choice instead of the right choice. As Morgan Freeman said in “Million Dollar Baby,” “You just protected yourself out of a championship!”

Just as an aside, the next time someone bases their vote purely on a candidates looks, like John Edwards, said person should have to forfeit their right to vote.

In this modern age of ours it is extremely important for all of us to turn off “Desperate Housewives” and start paying attention to what’s happening in all facets of American political life. We need to stop fixating on a persons star-power and begin to examine their actual record and then make an appropriate choice for representation. The cult of personality can be a good thing in the face of insurmountable special interest lobbying and politics-as-usual elitism, but it can also give rise to catastrophe.

Remember, Adolph Hitler benefited from the cult of personality and as I recall that ended up badly for all involved.

France tries 66 over child prostitution

I think most people reading this blog will agree the parents, and I use that term ever so lightly, in this story are beyond sick. I went through a series of emotions when I first heard the story on Fox News. At first I wanted to blame cultural moral relativism in secular Western Europe. Then I remembered that there's just as much of this sick behavior in the United States and all over the world regardless of the different countries religious or moral mores. Exposed as I am to children in need of services, I see this sort of thing on a daily basis. In today's world, children simply have no value.

"ANGERS, France (Reuters) - Sixty-six men and women have gone on trial in western France accused of taking part in a vast child prostitution ring in which parents offered their children for sex, often for food or small sums of money.

The accused filed into a specially built courtroom in the town of Angers one by one on Thursday, accompanied by police, but said nothing other than identifying themselves at the start of what is billed as the biggest criminal trial in French history.

Thirty-nine men and 27 women are accused of involvement in the prostitution ring in which 45 children, aged from six months to 15 years, were raped or sexually assaulted between January 1999 and February 2002.

Some are charged with raping their own children or offering them to others for sex. Most are from low-income backgrounds and are poorly educated, and some are illiterate.

The charges have revived soul-searching about paedophilia in France after a series of high-profile cases, including a trial last year in which a man and a woman were jailed for loaning out their children for sex.

The hearings are due to last four months and the most serious charges carry possible jail terms of up to 20 years. The children are not expected to appear in court but some are likely to give evidence on pre-recorded videotapes.

"The children were considered as sex objects for months," said lawyer Meriem Baba-Ronciere, who is representing 12 of the children. "This trial is an important stage in rebuilding their lives."

Some of children now have problems eating, and others have become aggressive or barely talk, prosecutors say.

The role of the social services is also in the dock because social workers failed to spot the crimes despite monitoring the families of some of the accused.

"The social services were unable to spot the abuses they were subjected to. We must try to find out why," said Yves Crespin, who represents a children's defence group."

Senator: Decency Rules Should Apply to Pay TV, Radio

On no they shouldn't Senator!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said on Tuesday he would push for applying broadcast decency standards to cable television and subscription satellite TV and radio.

"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local television and radio affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters.

"There has to be some standard of decency," he said. But he also cautioned that "No one wants censorship."

Stevens told reporters afterward that he would push legislation to apply the standards to cable TV and satellite radio and television. It could become part of a pending bill to boost fines on broadcasters who violate indecency restrictions or of an effort to overhaul U.S. communications laws.

If Stevens is successful, it could pose new problems for raunchy radio host Howard Stern, who has said he was forced to leave broadcast radio for satellite radio to avoid decency limits -- and Federal Communications Commission fines.

So far the restrictions have not applied to subscription services offered by companies like cable TV operators Comcast Corp. and Time Warner Inc. or XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., which recently signed Stern.

Last year the Senate Commerce Committee narrowly defeated an amendment to a bill boosting fines for indecency that would have extended such limits to cable and satellite services.

Sen. George Allen, a Commerce Committee member and Virginia Republican, told reporters he would be "hesitant to expand it to those" services.

While lawmakers and some parents groups are anxious to wipe the airwaves clean of indecency after singer Janet Jackson bared her breast last year during the Super Bowl halftime show, President Bush has said parents are the first line of defense and can just "turn it off."

Federal regulations bar broadcast television and radio stations from airing obscene material and restrict indecent material, such as sexually explicit discussions or profanity, to late-night hours when children are less likely to be watching or listening.

Stevens said he disagreed "violently" with assertions by the cable industry that Congress does not have the authority to impose limits on its content.

"If that's the issue they want to take on, we'll take it on and let the Supreme Court decide," he said.

A spokesman for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, which represents cable operators, was not immediately available for comment.

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved legislation to raise fines to $500,000 from $32,500 on television and radio broadcasters that violate indecency limits. The Senate has legislation pending to increase fines as well.

But neither bill has provisions that would extend indecency restrictions to cable and satellite services. So far the White House has expressed support for the House bill, and made no public pronouncement about the Senate measure.

Senate GOP Ready to Push Arctic Drilling

I love second term presidencies. When you are a fan of politics as a contact sport, as I am, the second term tends to be so much more exciting and tulmutuous than the first. Now if Bushs first term was only a taste of things to come in his second term then hoo doggy are we in for one bloody battle on Capitol Hill.

I thought he picked a pretty tough fight going after Social Security but once again, this administration has proven if nothing else, its got chutzpa!

Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been one of the many sacred cows of the environmentally involved left. They have accused those of who want to drill for oil in ANWR as polluters and harbingers of environmental disaster. The not so diplotmatic members of the righ-wing community who are advocating for "environmentally conscious" oil drilling think the environmentalists are just plain nuts...and so the battle rages on.

"WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate showdown over an Alaska wildlife refuge is expected within weeks as Republicans plan to use a budget measure to overcome strong opposition to allowing oil drilling in the protected area.

It will be first big environmental issue facing the new Congress.

Republican leaders indicated Tuesday that they plan to press the issue of drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of a so-called budget reconciliation process, which cannot be subject to a Democratic filibuster - a tactic that has blocked the refuge's development in the past.

Given the wider GOP majority in the Senate, Republicans said they think they have the best chance yet to open the presumably oil-rich but environmentally sensitive Alaska refuge to oil drilling, which has been one of President Bush's top energy priorities.

Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H. said it was reasonable to assume ANWR, as the refuge is commonly called, would be part of the budget measure.

"The president asked for it, and we're trying to do what the president asked for," Gregg said Tuesday after meeting privately with Republicans on his panel.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Energy Committee and a strong supporter of refuge oil development, said he was "very optimistic we're going to get the ANWR provision in this budget."

Gregg's panel was expected to begin work on the budget measure next week. Senate floor action - including a vote on the ANWR provision - was likely before the congressional Easter recess March 19.

Supporters of pumping the refuge's oil believe they have the 51 votes needed to get the measure through as part of the budget process. Opponents aren't ready to concede that, although they remain certain that GOP leaders don't have the 60 votes needed to overcome a certain filibuster by opponents if ANWR drilling is in separate legislation.

A small group of senators and key administration officials is flying to Alaska's North Slope this weekend to try to dramatize their argument that the refuge can be developed in an environmentally sound way, using modern drilling technology. They will visit the refuge and North slope oil drilling activities west of the protected area..."

Gangs, Drugs and Terrorists

Ever since I became a social worker and even when I was a teacher I was confronted with the problem of gangs. In East LA, where I taught back in 1999, the Mexican-American and El Salvadorian-American children were easy prey for MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha) and the Latin Kings. In Massachusetts, many of the kids I worked with a home for oppositionally defiant boys swore allegiance to local Boston gangs. When I began working in foster care in Brooklyn, “The Bloods”, “The Crips” and any other gang in the immediate vicinity surrounded the black children I worked with. The plague of gang violence worked its way out of the inner city and in to my former neck of the woods in suburban and highly over-taxed Long Island, NY. When I was working as drug counselor I remember listening to one of my clients tell me that Westbury (a fairly affluent town) had been overrun by MS-13. He wasn’t the first person to lament the rise of MS-13 around the corner from one of the biggest shopping malls in the country.

Gangs are a huge problem in this country. The idea that street gangs are made up of just minorities and “so what” if they murder each other is archaic at this juncture. This is where I stray far from the path of traditional conservatives. They look at the problems of crime and street gangs as existing in a vacuum and never bother to look deeper at the socio-economic context. Their solution is to pass more laws, enact harsher sentencing guidelines and build more prisons. Conservatives tend to live outside of the ghetto and they make a policy out of building higher and thicker walls as to not have to see the problem they themselves are exacerbating. This is the sort of like medieval medicine in that the doctors of the age didn’t really understand the disease and just treated the symptoms…with leaches and amputations.

The days of “white flight” are over my friends. There is no untamed suburb for you to move your family away to, far from the “animals”. Because of television, the Internet and basic upward mobility of the lesser income classes, you can’t hide from the end results of bad social and criminal justice policies anymore. Eminem is in your living room and MS-13 is waving at you form the corner store…or bodega if you like.

Billy Big Head came to me when I was in the 10th grade and asked me if I wanted to join his gang. It was 1992 and Dr. Dre’s “The Chronic” was like the second coming of the Beatles in my lily-white suburban community. As near as could tell, the only harm gang’s caused in my town at the time was the introduction of sagging pants as a fashion choice in a school that had no black students and a household income of over $50,000 per year. Needless to say, the definition of a gang in that time and place was rather liberal.

Real street gangs have a much more violent and serious history. Much of that history is intertwined with drug dealing. “Following the Civil War many soldiers returned home addicted to morphine because of their wartime injuries. Drug abuse was a common problem among young and old. Most gangs recognized the needs of the public and quickly took advantage of the demand for drugs. There was easy access to morphine, cocaine and laudanum, a popular depressant. These drugs quickly stripped away what little values, ethics or remorse that a gang member had. Jacob Riis, a photographer and journalist of the time, documented an incident in which two members of the Montgomery Guards Gang were arrested for murder. Reiss said that after the two young suspects robbed a Jewish peddler, they bragged how they tried to cut off the victim's head. When questioned about the attempted decapitation, the suspects smugly replied that it was "just for fun."

…In the early 1900s, keeping up with technological advances, the organization level of gangs took a dramatic increase. In one city, the Car Barn Gang posted a sign on every street-corner reading, "Notice-COPS, KEEP OUT! No policemen will hereafter be allowed on this block. By order of the Car Barn Gang." They had such control of the neighborhood that police had to move through the streets in squads of at least six men to avoid showers of bricks and attacks from gang members. Patrolmen who did enter this forbidden area were commonly stabbed or beaten with blackjacks. By the early 1900s, Irish citizens were no longer considered second-class citizens and Italian and Jewish controlled gangs were in nearly every large city. Gangs were no longer just a problem among the Irish community. Drunkenness and immorality plagued the entire country.

Drug abuse was a familiar problem in all large cities and to combat the growing drug addiction among the population the Harrison Narcotic Act was signed in March of 1915. This began the government's first attempt at regulating narcotics. Within five years the Volstead Act was announced and prohibition began making the production and use of all alcoholic beverages illegal. Again, the concept of supply and demand was recognized and many gangs went into the business of producing and selling liquor.

… At the beginning of the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s, gang-related violence continued to increase to unprecedented levels. Many of the gangs formed during this time are still in existence today ending the supremacy of one racial group controlling organized crime. The gang problem now belongs to everyone-Asian, Black, Hispanic, and white. Gangsters of all races now share the underworld. The social and economical burden that gang members inflict upon society is not a new problem. Gang rapes, drive-by shootings, home invasion robberies and murders have been commonplace for hundreds of years. Although they may have ridden horses instead in cars, wore hats instead of bandanas and carried knives instead of automatic weapons, gangs are not a new tribulation facing the citizenry of this country. Since the beginning of civilization, gangs in one degree or another have always contributed to the decay of society and although the United States is the most technological advanced nation in the world, the gang problem continued to grow faster than any virus or disease.” (Credit knowngangs.com)

This is just a sample of gang and drug history in America. Another tale involves the CIA turning a blind eye toward drug trafficking and the introduction of crack to Los Angeles. That however is a tale for another day.

The issue at hand now is that the gangs may be adding another item to their resume of criminal offenses, human smuggling. The latest headline is that al Qaeda is unlikely to use Latin American gangs to get them smuggled across the Southwest border. Of course it was also “unlikely” that they’d use planes as missiles and fly them in to the World Trade Center. The fact remains that money talks on this side of the pond and it speaks rather loudly in Latin America. There are countless numbers of smuggling gangs that will get somebody with enough money into one or all of our border states. It only takes one suitcase nuke in one city to set off a row of utterly disastrous dominoes.

It took a catastrophic event to mobilize our federal government to change its policies to meet the threats of the modern era. Unfortunately, it will probably take yet another attack for that same government to get serious on the border issue. If we are attacked again, it will be because of the gang issue we let fester in this country without a comprehensive solution that factors in socio-economic factors.