Burnin' Down the House

Someone burned down Palin's house of worship. That's fucked up.

Noan Chomsky vs. William F. Buckley

Libby and Obama

http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifI just have to take a couple of minutes to put in my two sense worth on yesterday's news. Regarding Scooter Libby, Cheyney's Chief of Staff who lied to federal prosecuters, it is disgraceful for Bush to commute his sentence. Libby's 30 month jail sentence was well within the federal guidelines and was not an "excessive" sentence as Bush claimed. He received a fair trial and got nailed. The Bush administration has been deceitful towards the American people for 6 years (i.e. reasons for going into Iraq, existence of illegal wiretapping, use of extraordinary rendition, reasons for firing attorneys general)and now that one of its gang gets caught, Bush gives him a get-out-of-jail-free cards. This is no way to ensure a healthy democracy.

On a more positive note, Obama raised $32.5 million in the second quarter. Hillary has not declared her total, but it's estimated at $27 million. While Hillary is at the front of the race, this puts Obama in a real position to win. Hillary does not have this thing locked up. Moreover, 90% of Obama's first quarter donations came from gifts of $100 or less, and he now has a total of over 258,000 donors! That is more than in the history of the U.S.!

Obama continues to connect with people and empower them to participate in the Democracy. This phenomenon does strengthen our democracy. Obama has taught a generation that power is in the citizens' hands (even if you can only donate $50) and does not rest solely in large donors' hands. He has given us a taste of what it is like to have one's opinion and money matter in politics.

Added July 5
[The last thing Bush wants is to see a high ranking White House official's picture out wearing an orange prison suit.

John Dickerson at Slate.com ,

What's astonishing is that the factors Bush relied on in commuting Libby's sentence are the same ones that the administration has aggressively sought to preclude judges from considering when imposing sentences on everyone else...

The Bush administration, however, has consistently maintained that at sentencing, judges should be precluded from thinking about precisely the sort of individual circumstances the president raised in lending a hand to Libby. Last month, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales proposed legislation that would prevent judges from relying on anything outside the federal sentencing guidelines as the basis for a sentence more lenient than the range that the guidelines provide for.

Now I hear that Bush's commutation may also remove Libby's propation!]

Rep. Senator in Alabama punches a Dem. Senator in chamber

The teacher breaks up a fight during recess.
"Johnny punched me," said David.
"That's because you called me an SOB," said Johnny.
David protests, "I didn't say that. Johnny called me a bad name and I tried to walk away, but he hit me."

Put a suit and tie on them and the title of State Senator, and you have Rep. Senator Bishop and Dem. Senator Barron.

MONTGOMERY, Alabama (AP) -- Simmering tensions in the Alabama Senate boiled over Thursday when a Republican lawmaker punched a Democratic colleague in the head before they were pulled apart.

Republican Sen. Charles Bishop said Democratic Sen. Lowell Barron called him a "son of a [expletive]."

"I responded to his comment with my right hand," Bishop said. Alabama Public Television tape captured the punch. (Watch the punch being thrown, senator's explanation )

Barron denied saying that to Bishop. He said the Jasper senator used an expletive to him and he was trying to get away when he was hit by Bishop on the side of the head near an ear. He said he had not decided if he would file charges.

After the punch, Barron went into a closed-door meeting with other Democrats. Sen. Vivian Figures went into the meeting carrying first aid supplies, but she said he was not hurt.

Bishop said he regretted throwing the punch because "that's not the way grown men solve their problems," but added that he would not immediately apologize to Barron.

The fight came on the final day of the 2007 regular session of the Legislature. Republican senators were using delaying tactics to force the Democratic leadership to bring up an election reform bill to ban transfers between political action committees.

The Senate had just taken a recess Thursday afternoon when Bishop approached the chair where Barron was sitting. Moments later, security officers and others rushed to separate the two senators.

The Senate later considered censuring Bishop and expelling him from the chamber for the remainder of the day, but Bishop said that wasn't necessary and walked out of the Capitol, saying he was going home.

"I love every one of you. Most of all I love this chamber. I'm going home, and you all have a good day," Bishop said. more>

Blitzer is a tool. Take off the gloves and have a debate that matters.

I pine for the days when a debate meant an actual debate. After the infamous Dred Scott decision (which among other things stated that blacks are not US citizens)the country drew close to a boil on the issue of slavery. In 1858, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debates face-to-face as they campaigned across Illinois for the Senate seat occupied by Douglas.

According to Peter Irons in his book The People's History of the Supreme Court,

During the twenty months between the Dred Scott decision and the 1858 elections, Lincoln and Douglas spoke to hundreds of audiences in Illinois and around the country, and they discussed the case in almost every speech. The seven formal–and now famous–debates between the two senatorial candidates focused largely on the Court's ruling and its consequences for national unity, as talk of secession grew louder in the South.

I wish two candidate would have a direct debate on the prominent issues (Iraq, health care, immigration, energy) rather than always having to be so careful about their image and every word. When we see the best athletes operating at their profession, we can watch them play. We see Michael Jordan make a game winning jump shot, and we see him miss foul shots. But with politicians, any slip of the tongue will be exaggerated, and thus, we get few candid moments. I wish the final two or three presidential candidates would give multiple public debates around the country with the focus on the issues and the audience rather than the TV viewers. What's wrong with the candidates having 10-15 debates in front of thousands of people?

Just Imagine
I ache for the opportunity to see Lincoln and Douglas debate on stage with no mics and no video cameras. The only real debate in this country comes from political analysts who are trying to boost ratings. It's rude to debate heatedly with friends, family, or company. And politicians can't afford to have their mistakes broadcasted around the world. We should be able to look to the "professionals" to help us think through the issues and debate the other side directly and thoroughly. That can't happen in a two-minute statement or even in a 10 minute interview.

One difference with the slavery debate, is that people can debate it without needing special knowledge. It is a moral issue. Well, I guess the "fire breathers" would say it was primarily an economic issues as well with economic implications for the South. Anyway, it's hard to have a debate about Iraq without being an expert in middle east relations or military occupation. A debate on energy can go only so far without both parties knowing about each type of alternative energy, the energy ratios of each, the latest technology, estimates for future energy demand, and the economic implications of weening the population and economy off oil.

Wolfe Blitzer
Regardless of how complicated issues are, the media led debates, especially the recent Democratic debate, are not working. If the moderator is going to ask yes/no questions or ask candidates to raise their hands to answer, just get them to do that ahead of time and post a grid on the screen. Get the candidates talking and challenge them to answer questions. Give the candidates the floor to make their case to the American people.

You have your own show. We do not tune into debates to hear you talk.

"A Real Man on the Moon Plan"

Bill Richardson just released this video on his energy plan. Read the previous entry about Gov. Richardson as well.

50% decrease in all US oil demand in 10 years.

Yeah, Bill. That's what I'm talking about! Finally someone speaking the truth.

Consider Bill Richardson

If you have not given Bill Richardson your attention yet, now is the time to give him a look. Jay Leno introduced him on the Tonight Show recently,

He spent 14 years in Congress, was the US Ambassador to the UN, served as the US Secretary of Energy, has negotiated with the harshest dictators around the world, is the current Governor of New Mexico and a four–time Nobel Peace Prize nominee... please welcome Democratic candidate for President, Gov. Bill Richardson!

WOW! By most metrics, he is the most qualified of all the presidential candidates. Take a look at this popular video.

Energy
Energy is one of the most important issues facing our country, and it will only get more dire of the next 4-8 years. While I am enamored with Obama, Richardson is not only more qualified, his energy policies are better.

No one in the presidential race can compete with Richardson's experience as the former Secretary of Energy. In New Mexico, he has lead the state to become "the Clean Energy State" and recently signed a law "requiring state utilities to quadruple their use of renewable energy." While Bush refuses to sign the Kyoto Treaty, N. Mexico is "on track to exceed Kyoto in the coming years."

While Richardson's record is strong, I am even more inspired by his vision for our energy future. He says, "Our goal should be bold—to reduce oil imports by 40% AND replace one quarter of liquid fuels with bio-fuels by 2025, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2050."

He calls for "a national renewable portfolio standard of 30% by 2020 that will rise to 50% by 2040."

By comparison, Obama calls for "all transportation fuels sold in the U.S. [to] contain 5 percent less carbon by 2015 and 10 percent less carbon by 2020. Obama is aware of our dangerous dependence on oil, but his goals are far from "bold."

The Governor knows the energy companies and understand that they must be part of the solution. He proposes establishing "a North American Energy Council—both to assure that we are efficiently developing and transporting energy in the North American market and to leverage our combined market power."

When addressing Oil and Gas executives, he states

Government’s role – indeed its obligation-- is to provide a clear vision, strategic investment in technology development, incentives to move forward – and most importantly, legal and regulatory certainty.

You are responsible for managing incredible risk and high-dollar portfolios – you have every right to know the federal “rules of the road” as you make key investments in our energy future.

Government investment in new technologies can serve as a sparkplug for energy “invention” but it is the role of the investment community to transform those inventions to marketplace “innovations” -- and the role of the business community to move innovations from the business plan stage to true technology diffusion.

Only when government and industry work together as partners can we successfully link together all these pieces of the energy innovation chain -- pushing the nation beyond the tired divisions of “good jobs OR the environment” and moving to “even better jobs AND a clean environment.

Other bold energy comments by Richardson:

1. Our ability to drain the swamps of terrorism depends in part on our political will to change how we produce, distribute and consume energy.
2. A significant portion of the $450 billion petrodollars we export each year is most certainly funneled to fund our Jihadist enemies
3. We should not lose sight of the following: Forty-five percent of the world’s proved gas reserves are in just two countries – Russia and Iran.

Diplomacy
As humbly as possible Richardson explains his diplomacy experience. "I was often asked [by President Clinton] to negotiate directly with tough characters like Fidel Castro, North Korean generals, Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan, and Saddam Hussein. Those face-to-face talks often meant the difference between the wrongful imprisonment of American servicemen and citizens–and freedom." Oh, add to this his experience as US Ambassador to the UN. He knows how to talk with friends and enemies.

No other candidate has anywhere close to Richardson's experience. "In recognition of his efforts around the world, Bill has been nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize. Each nomination has focused on his international peace mediation, hostage rescue and his commitment to justice." His recent negotiations with North Korea have rekindled the stalled nuclear non-proliferation talks with that regime.

Governor Richardson may not have the hype that Obama and Clinton do, but he is a proven energy expert, diplomat, and executive. Take the time to consider Bill Richardson for President. www.RichardsonForPresident.com

Iraqi leaders take two-month vacation

Can you believe the gall of Iraqi leaders to take a two-month vacation in the middle of a civil war and escalating voilence?

Meanwhile, US troupes and Iraqi civilians continue to die as both countries wait for Iraq's sectarian leaders to resolve power sharing issues. We all know political agreements, not military power, are the only method of stabilizing Iraqi, yet the leaders who would make those decisions are on vacation.

So American families have Bush telling us to give his "surge" (which is more like a tide pool ripple) a chance, while Iraqi leaders take a break. We are supposed to wait until September––when the US Congress reconvenes and Petraeus will have time to evaluate the surge––and then decide how the US change in strategy is going?

I can understand that government official need rest just like other workers, but when you are the only ones who can stabilize your country, the middle of civil war is not the time to take a nap.

Approved Labor and Environmental Rights for New Trade Deals

After my previous post today, I serendipitously found this news that the White House and Democrats have reached agreements regarding future trade deals. These new agreements will be attached to future deals to protect labor rights and environmental right, thus making the approval by Congress easier. The following is from today's New York Times:

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

Published: May 11, 2007

WASHINGTON, May 10 — The Bush administration reached agreement on Thursday with the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrats to attach environmental and worker protections in several pending trade accords, clearing the way for early passage of some pacts and improving prospects for others.

The unusual agreement, which came after weeks of negotiations, would guarantee workers the right to organize, ban child labor and prohibit forced labor in trading-partner countries. It would also require trading partners to enforce environmental laws already on their books and comply with several international environmental agreements.

While the understanding was a victory for Democrats, it also represented a shrewd compromise by the White House. The agreement is the first major bipartisan economic deal to emerge since Democrats took control of Congress in January. It has immediate importance for four countries — Colombia, Panama, Peru and South Korea — that are seeking to enter into trade pacts with the United States.

But officials in Washington predicted that the agreement’s effect would go beyond those countries and could be a template for all trade deals, including a possible worldwide accord.

Administration officials are hoping that the agreement will cause many Democrats to support future trade deals. They hope that enough Democrats will join with Republicans, who generally support such measures, to make passage of the agreements probable, if only narrowly. read more

Obama takes Secret Service detail

To my swarms of fans, I apologize for withholding my satiating snacks of wisdom for almost two weeks. On to Obama...

The only thing I can compare to the hype around Obama is the energy and passion surrounding Kennedy and Dr. King. I am too young to have lived with them, but they are the only public figures that have touched people so deeply and elicited such excitement? Obama has not reached this status, but he has also not reached his apogee.

While Obama could stand beside King and Kennedy one day, I hope he does not share their fate: assassination. I am glad he has received Secret Service protection and I hope this makes him more, not less, safe. If I were his wife, I'd be very concerned about his safety as a transformative public figure. Encouraging the power of each individual by redounding the attention one receives from the public back to the public
creates uncontrollable momentum. At the same time, I see Obama and is wife as part of a larger movement–bringing government back to the people–which requires them to surrender to life.

I try to remain openminded, but why do I find myself always coming back to Obama? I think it's because I don't see any of the other candidates trying to change the system, and that purpose trumps disagreements I have with Obama on some issues. Along with energy and health care, the public's loss of faith in government–national and local–is one of our biggest problems. Obama is the only candidate doing anything about it.

SC Debate lastnight

I get excited by the hype of a Presidential debate. And believe it or not, its because I enjoyed seeing the wheels of democracy moving. All the candidates take their place and have a change to present themselves.

Obama
While I went into the debate inspired and excited by Obama, his performance was bland and deflating. With Kucinich and Dravel challenging the others with anti-war, anti-nuclear mandates, Obama seemed mainstream. He seemed like a jet that needed 100 yards to take off and only had 50. He seemed stiff and bland. He didn't hit his points hard or speak with impact. He wasn't inspiring or fresh––two characteristics that have spurred his popularity. I'd even go so far as to say he didn't strike me as presidential. I have to be honest, Clinton and Edwards were much more articulate and precise with their time.

Debates tell us somethings, but not everything. Maybe not even the most important things. I trust the Obama who wrote his two books. He is honest, compassionate, culturally wise, and courageous enough to do what is right. His campaign is about revolutionizing politics and the election process as much as it is about his candidacy. Even great athletes have sub par games.

Obama needs to get specific to hang. I have heard this criticism of him, but last night made me see it on my own. This was a good learning experience for him, and I think he will be much better in the future. He also would be much better with more time to respond and answer follow up questions. He couldn't really get into a flow.

The biggest frustration for me with Obama is his support of Ethanol. He comes from Illinois and I am sure he needs to support the corn farmers. But Ethanol is a loser when it comes to alternative energy. It's energy ratio is low, and it does not change the system. He did not tell Americans that they need to change their habits. He went on about planting the trees, which is great, but didn't recover well when asked about personal changes he has made. He needs to get on track with that. If you want to change the system, tell people to take the bus or open their windows when at home.

The debate did not solidify my support for Obama. Instead it introduced me to the candidates and left me open minded about who to support.

Clinton
Hillary had the best showing of anyone. She was by far the most presidential and the clearest speaker. She was skillful, intelligent, and strong. She didn't ask for any special treatment and didn't use her femininity at all. She stood up there with the boys and rocked it.

I can understand her position of giving the president the authority to go to war but not supporting his decision to go to war. However, as Chris Matthews points out, if that is what she really was doing, then why did it take so long for her to denounce Bush's war? That doesn't add up to me, and her communications director did not answer that question. He didn't know when she first spoke out against the war.

I think Hillary would be a capable president, of course. But she may be to savvy for her own good. I believe she will get health care reform through this time. I believe she will get us out of Iraq. I believe she will continue to improve the economy. But part of me feels like she will just continue the same old politics as usual. She knows how to play the system so well that I don't see her as inclined to change it.

Edwards
Edwards impressed me by speaking clearly and decisively. He is obviously comfortable behind the podium and he answered the critiques about his big house and expensive hair cut. Yes, he has money, but he doesn't come from money. And he remembers from where he came. Bashing him for making money makes no sense. Isn't that everyone's dream? He should be praised, not criticized, for taking advantage of what makes America great: the opportunity to move up in life.

Edwards could have pressed his poverty work stronger. He doesn't have the gravitas that Richardson or even Cheney have. I worry that he comes across as "light" because of that. He is honest and connected to what it means to be human. That I don't get from Hillary.

Richardson
He was Secretary of Energy and is the Governor of New Mexico. He's been nominated for four Nobel Peace Prizes for crying out loud!

Others quote experts, but he is one. The guys is a straight shooter. I trust his judgement on immigration and how to serve as executive. He gave specific ways to address our energy crisis, and he's the only executive up there. He has a serious change of being Vice President.

Aftermath
CNN's headline was "Democrats Hammer Bush." I am glad the big news is not that Obama flopped or Clinton stole the show. I think either one of those would be accurate.

We'll se what happens next.

Please comment below. I am very interested in your take on the debate or the candidates. You can respond as "anonymous" if you would like.

Bush plays jembe on Malaria Awareness Day

I can't resist posting this. I have to give it to Bush or whoever organized this event. He goes with the flow (much better than Laura) and took right to the drum. I wish I knew who the drummers are.




Here's CNN's commentary on it. Cafferty is pretty funny.

---

Gonzo

Can you believe Gonzales is still AG? The guy lied on camera about his involvement in the firings and got absolutely hammered in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Bush is just giving the Senate the finger and saying, "You'll have to indict Gonzales, or I won't fire him."

American Colonists killed similarly to African rebels

I have begun reading A People's History of the Supreme Court by Peter Irons to gain a broad legal understanding and to fill in some holes in my knowledge of U.S. history.

Irons begins by discussing the painful ironies of the founders and our Constitution.

Ironically, the colonists who had deprived most of the population––religious dissenters, women, slaves, and Indians––of legal rights and voices in governance based their Declaration of Independence on pious claims that "all men are created equal" and that governments must derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The vastness of this injustice alone defies comprehension.

While America cannot erase its bloody history of intolerance, we, the citizens, must keep in the forefront of our minds the fact that it took two centuries for our laws to match the "unalienable rights" professed in the constitution. While we must demand human rights world-wide, leaders and advocates must respect the role time plays when changing laws and cultural practices. i.e. Iraq cannot transform from authoritarianism to participatory democracy in a few years. Africans are no more brutal than Westerners; we burned "witches," hung religious dissidents, and condoned slavery just a few generations ago.

Reading the following account drew up images of rebels in Sierra Leone or Rwandan warlords massacring villages of woman and children:

Conflicts with the Pequot Indians of southern New England simmered until 1636, when the murder of a white trader accused of kidnapping the Indians led Governor Winthrop to give his troops a "commission to put to death" the Indian men of Block Island and to seize "some of their children as hostages" for the surrender of the murderers.

The Puritan soldiers not only killed the Pequot men of Block Island but went up and down the coast of Long Island Sound, burning villages and crops. Winthrop's military commander, Captain John Mason, decided to avoid facing Pequot warriors in open combat and instead to burn all the villages and massacre those who could not escape.

William Bradford, former governor of the colony, celebrated the results in these words: "Those that scaped the fire were slaine with the sword; some hewed to peeces, others rune throw with their rapiers, so as they were quickly dispatchte, and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sigh to see them thus frying in the fyer, and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stincke and sente there of, but the victory seemed a sweete sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfuly for them, thus to inclose their enemise in their hands, and give them so speedy a victory over so proud and insulting and enemie."

Speedy victory over unarmed villagers? Among all the talk of spreading democracy and expecting peaceful democractic revolutions, remember how our democracy was founded. Genocide. Slavery. And the powerful elite forcing the masses to conform.

MC Rove

This turns from sick to ridiculous. I have rarely seen someone embarrass himself so thoroughly.



The video is from the annual Correspondents' Dinner–the one Colbert did last year. Note that when FoxNews showed the video, they cut the part where Rove says he ripps heads off of small animals.

Obama's Pastor Blasts NY Times

I meant to post this last week. My friends at BrainShrub turned me on to this.

March 11, 2007
Jodi Kantor
The New York Times
9 West 43rd Street
New York,
New York 10036-3959

Dear Jodi:

Thank you for engaging in one of the biggest misrepresentations of the truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years. You sat and shared with me for two hours. You told me you were doing a "Spiritual Biography" of Senator Barack Obama. For two hours, I shared with you how I thought he was the most principled individual in public service that I have ever met.

For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public service, and as a man who refused to announce his candidacy for President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other whether or not she was going to run. I told you what a dreamer he was. I told you how idealistic he was. We talked about how refreshing it would be for someone who knew about Islam to be in the Oval Office. Your own question to me was, Didn't I think it would be incredible to have somebody in the Oval Office who not only knew about Muslims, but had living and breathing Muslims in his own family?

I told you how important it would be to have a man who not only knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis prior to 9/11/01 in the Oval Office, but also how important it would be to have a man who knew what Sufism was; a man who understood that there were different branches of Judaism; a man who knew the difference between Hasidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews; and a man who was a devout Christian, but who did not prejudge others because they believed something other than what he believed.

I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not just "in word only."

I talked about Barack being a person who lived his faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to hell if they did not believe what he believed.

Out of a two-hour conversation with you about Barack's spiritual journey and my protesting to you that I had not shaped him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was, even though I would love to take that credit, you did not print any of that. When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible as to how God asked Moses, "What is that in your hand?," that Barack was like that when I met him. Barack had it "in his hand." Barack had in his grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development that one is hard put to find in the 21st century, and you did not print that.

As I was just starting to say a moment ago, Jodi, out of two hours of conversation I spent approximately five to seven minutes on...

... Barack's taking advice from one of his trusted campaign people and deeming it unwise to make me the media spotlight on the day of his announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and what do you print?

You and your editor proceeded to present to the general public a snippet, a printed "sound byte" and a titillating and tantalizing article about his disinviting me to the Invocation on the day of his announcing his candidacy.

I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not be party to any further smearing of the name, the reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation's first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office.

Your editor is a sensationalist. For you to even mention that makes me doubt your credibility, and I am looking forward to see how you are going to butcher what else I had to say concerning Senator Obama's "Spiritual Biography."

Our Conference Minister, the Reverend Jane Fisler Hoffman, a white woman who belongs to a Black church that Hannity of "Hannity and Colmes" is trying to trash, set the record straight for you in terms of who I am and in terms of who we are as the church to which Barack has belonged for over twenty years.

The president of our denomination, the Reverend John Thomas, has offered to try to help you clarify in your confused head what Trinity Church is even though you spent the entire weekend with us setting me up to interview me for what turned out to be a smear of the Senator; and yet The New York Times continues to roll on making the truth what it wants to be the truth.

I do not remember reading in your article that Barack had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out? Either way, you do not have to worry about hearing anything else from me for you to edit or "spin" because you are more interested in journalism than in truth.

Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the Republican Party's national "blog." The New York Times played a role in the outing of Valerie Plame. I do not know why I thought The New York Times had actually repented and was going to exhibit a different kind of behavior. Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana. Maybe it was my being caught up in the euphoria of the Season of Lent; but whatever it is or was, I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part of The New York Times. There is no integrity when it comes to The Times. You should do well with that paper, Jodi. You looked me straight in my face and told me a lie!

Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. ,
Senior Pastor
Trinity United Church of Christ

1984: Two great videos

I hope you have watched the 1984 YouTube video portraying Hillary Clinton as Big Sister. If you haven't, watch it now.

Clinton 1984 Review
On Slates political gabfest today, John, Emily (my favorite), and David have an interesting conversation about the piece. They agreed that it really strikes at the heart of what is so annoying about Sen. Clinton: her calculating nature. She is such a juggernaut during this campaign that even Tom Delay said he thinks she'll win.*

John Dickerson asked if the video would smack of sexism to women who are sensitive to the double standards constantly applied to women. David Plotts made a great point, which was that the Obama/ Clinton showdown is reminiscent of the Apple/ Microsoft competition. Obama is the fresh and creative Apple to Clinton's establishment position.

Another note about the video. It was made by the employee of the company, which hosts Obama's website. The creator did not have anything to do with the Obama campaign or any work the company did for Obama. He was fired from the company.

I think it's an ingenious video. ParkRidge47 used video from Hillaries website and turned it around on her to be a liability. I don't remember the 1984 Apple commercial, but using it claims the spirit the average user as a person, not a programmer. Also, replay the part when the woman throws the hammer (0:50), and you will see she is wearing an iPod attached to those eighties shorts. I missed that the first few times and haven't heard anyone mention that.

The other 1984 Video
I once heard a word for things that one comes across when searching for something else (i.e. like the word sternutation when I looked up stentorian). Well, I found this jewel when I searched for the 1984 Clinton video. It's a demonstration of the first Macintosh by Steve Jobbs. You have to watch this.

Please leave a comment after you watch it. You can leave an "anonymous" comment if you want.

* He said this on Hard Ball with Chris Matthews. He used this as evidence of why conservatives needs to stop mousing around and find a real conservative candidate.

Gore to testify before Congress

On March 21, Al Gore "will testify before Congress on the immediate action that needs to be taken to end the climate crisis."

Learn more about this event at his website. You can also sign a petition to show your support of his global warming campaign. Please take a second to sign the petition.

If you have not seen An Inconvenient Truth, rent it or buy it.

Hans Blix – from the horse's mouth

Last night, my father and I went to the History Museum to head Hans Blix speak. He was appointed by Kofi Annan as head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in 2000 after serving as Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 1981-1997.

His bio reads

As the world urged Saddam Hussein to disarm, Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix and his team–through on-site inspections–tried to determine if the Iraqi leader was complying. While the U.S. an dits allies pushed for justification for military action in iraq, and key opponents on the U.N. Security Council called for further inspections, Dr. Blix stood between the two, trying to fairly and impartially determine the true scope of iraq's weapons program.

Nuclear Disarmament
Dr. Blix spoke about Iraqi, but the thrust of his lecture asserted that nuclear disarmament is a realistic goal. It is possible for a couple of reasons:

1. Countries are more interdependent than ever
2. The world has seen the risk of incorrect intelligence
3. War is terribly expensive
4. There is no threat of war among world superpowers

In order to achieve nuclear disarmament, he asserts, the world must do the following:

1. Assure nations' security so that they do not feel threatened. When the U.S. says "All options are on the table," countries like N. Korea feel they must prepare themselves for "all options." Thus, they determine a need for nuclear weapons for self defense.
2. Leave regime change to local populations. While we may abhor N. Korea's authoritarian control on its people, it is up to the people to revolt. The threat of invasion makes nations feel insecure. The Republic of Guinea is an example of a country who has recently seen the people demand a change in government leadership.
3. Make rogue states a part of the international community rather than alienating them. He cited Vietnam and China as governments who kept their communism, but developed and became a part of the global community.

Most Interesting Points
I am trying to keep this short, so I'll discuss four of his most interesting points.

• He said before the U.S. invaded, International Community know the document illustrating Iraqi's effort to import Uranium from Nigeria was a forgery. He said this was "common knowledge."


• Dr. Blix described Iraqi as open and cooperative with the U.N. Weapons Inspectors. He said that the inspectors encountered no opposition from the Iraqi's. They visited 36 sites and would have seen all of them if the U.S. had not invaded pre-emptively.
  
  In the U.S., the rhetoric from the Bush Administration told us that Iraq was continuing to play games with the U.N. and give weapons inspectors the run around. The point was that the world had put up with Saddam's shenanigans for too long and the U.N. didn't have the teeth to dead with Iraq.


• Bush's 2002 doctrine of pre-emptive attack directly countered international law and broke 100 years of work to establish rule governing international relations. It undermined the aim of international bodies from the League of Nations to the United Nations. By attacking when one thinks there will be an attack, one depends on accurate intelligence. How can the U.S. tell India not to pre-emptively strike Pakistan when it feels threatened? If all countries adapted this doctrine, we'd have international chaos.


• There were absolutely no WMD's. Iraq disarmed its chemical and biological weapons programs in 1991, and there was not time for Iraq to evacuate weapons to Syria.

Dr. Blix was solid and inspiring. His life's work has been to control and reverse nuclear proliferation. Hearing him speak just reiterated the list of disastrous and unforgivable choices the Bush Administration has made.

Wounded Veterans

Last night I watched this CNN feature To Iraq and Back and found it deeply troubling. I have never visited a military hospital (or served in the military), and seeing those young men a women, whose lives are destroyed, was heartbreaking.

I have long felt that the U.S. has an obligation to stay in Iraq to establish some order out of the mess it created, but this Woodruff story makes me want to just get everyone out immediately. The emotional shock of seeing healthy young people turned into vegetables by IED's leaves me unable to move on to my daily life.



However, I still support a phased draw down of U.S. troops beginning asap. That is the best way to avoid genocide and an unbridled fight amongst sectarian militias. I have to consider all people invoved, not just Americans. Further, Bush and Cheney have made practically every mistake possible with the Iraqi war, and I do not trust their judgement in deciding to have a troup surge (with only 21,500 more troups).

The Woodruff piece uncovered a major discrepancy between the number of wounded reported by the Dept. of Defense––26,000––and the number of wounded being treated by the VA–over 200,000!!! A couple of months ago, a poll came out, which documented the Iraqi wounded at over 650,000 people. The U.S. government says it's no where near that number (I think it estimated 90,000).

If the real number of American wounded is over 200,000, just think of how many Iraqis have been wounded. The Iraqi wounded are just incapacitated as the American wounded, plus they don't have as good medical care! (which isn't so good according to Woodruff and the recent news about Walter Reed Hospital).

Too everyone who complains about politicians and says they are all the same, just remember that if Gore had won (and he only "lost" Florida by 500 votes) we would not be in Iraq. I wonder how many dead or wounded American soldiers voted for Bush. That vote cost them their lives. They voted trusting the Commander and Chief to lead them wisely, and his abysmal failure to do so has lead to over 30,000 dead (Americans and Iraqi's) and close to 1,000,000 people wounded. I agree with Harry Reed, "This is the worst foreign policy mistake in U.S. history."

Who you vote for does matter.

---

I just heard an interview with Bob and Lee Woodruff on Fresh Air with Terry Gross. What amazing people.

---