It's about damn time our media allows disgruntled world leaders the chance to speak on the Bush administration. Chalk up Vladimir Putin, Russian president, as the latest to express his distrust of America given what the Bush administration has done for the world.
Some highlights of Putin's speech - America wants to pursue policies that allow it to become "one single master." He said that America is seeking a "unipolar" world, which means that there is "one single center of force, one master." He continues, "It has nothing in common with democracy because that is the opinion of the majority taking into account the minority opinion." Regarding America's latest wartime endeavor, Putin said that "unilateral actions have not resolved conflicts but have made them worse."
Words of truth from the leader of one of America's largest former enemies. George Orwell be praised.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Jose Padilla found guilty
It's a sad day for America today as the Bush regime celebrates a very large victory in their war against our civil liberties. Jose Padilla, who I have been following since I saw the Robert Greenwald film Unconstitutional: The War on Our Civil Liberties, was convicted today and found guilty of "conspiracy to support Islamic terrorism overseas." Padilla was the test-case for civil libertarians and the ACLU to see just how far the current administration would go to promote its fear-mongering agenda.
Padilla is a Hispanic who was converted to Islam. He may have had friends in naughty places among al Qaeda, and indeed, it seems that he had intent on joining al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but he never did. He is also called the "Dirty Bomber" because he was allegedly hauled off by the Bush administration for trying to smuggle radioactive weapons into the US, which is debatable.
Regardless, the Padilla case is interesting for two reasons. One, it marks the foremost case (there are others) in which an American citizen was arrested for supposed acts of terrorism (technically, he hadn't done anything yet, which makes me think
that Bush & Co. might be employing pre-cogs???) before committing any act of terrorism. And two, because he was arrested on US soil. Padilla was held without charge in a US prison for nearly three years, and then once the media began to pick up on Padilla's story, the Bush administration had him moved to Guantanamo Bay, where his access to US lawyers was eliminated. During his stay at Club Gitmo, Padilla was repeatedly tortured to the point of "insanity." (Moreover, I not only question the fairness of arresting a person without charge or cause, but I also challenge the notion of unlawfully capturing someone, torturing him, and then allowing a "fair trial" once the person is insane or mentally/emotionally unstable).
But you'll notice two things about the findings in the case, specifically in regards to the charges against Padilla. The first thing of note is the religious undertone of the charge: "conspiracy to support Islamic terrorism..." The fact that the court called out Padilla's religion will not only (and justifiably) inflame the ACLU and Muslims, but the court (and, by extension, the Bush administration) is labeling this sort of terrorism as a religious terrorism, not as national, or ethnic, or otherwise. I think this is a careless move. It conveys the message to Islamic extremists that the United States is waging a war on their religion. Whether it is or not is not for me to say, but the administration has never called it a religious war (even though to them it probably is), and the reluctance of anybody in America, politician or media outlet, to call it a religious war is, I believe, both revealing (read this for more on that) and sad. The next thing of note is that the charges brought against Padilla were for crimes he was supposedly going to commit overseas. This is noteworthy because the initial buzz about Padilla's crimes, even though he was never formally charged with anything, were concentrated on his supposed intent to cause destruction in America. I believe that since no evidence was found regarding his intent to detonate a "dirty bomb" on American soil, the prosecution quickly (and seamlessly) shifted the focus to Padilla's supposed desire to join an "oversea" Afghani terrorist cell. A change in focus is most likely the result of the prosecution's scramble to find something they could charge him with.
The bottom line one could draw from conviction of Jose Padilla is that it demonstrates the dangers that American citizens face when the executive branch grants itself sweeping powers during wartime--powers that not even the British kings supposedly had.
Padilla is a Hispanic who was converted to Islam. He may have had friends in naughty places among al Qaeda, and indeed, it seems that he had intent on joining al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but he never did. He is also called the "Dirty Bomber" because he was allegedly hauled off by the Bush administration for trying to smuggle radioactive weapons into the US, which is debatable.
Regardless, the Padilla case is interesting for two reasons. One, it marks the foremost case (there are others) in which an American citizen was arrested for supposed acts of terrorism (technically, he hadn't done anything yet, which makes me think
that Bush & Co. might be employing pre-cogs???) before committing any act of terrorism. And two, because he was arrested on US soil. Padilla was held without charge in a US prison for nearly three years, and then once the media began to pick up on Padilla's story, the Bush administration had him moved to Guantanamo Bay, where his access to US lawyers was eliminated. During his stay at Club Gitmo, Padilla was repeatedly tortured to the point of "insanity." (Moreover, I not only question the fairness of arresting a person without charge or cause, but I also challenge the notion of unlawfully capturing someone, torturing him, and then allowing a "fair trial" once the person is insane or mentally/emotionally unstable).But you'll notice two things about the findings in the case, specifically in regards to the charges against Padilla. The first thing of note is the religious undertone of the charge: "conspiracy to support Islamic terrorism..." The fact that the court called out Padilla's religion will not only (and justifiably) inflame the ACLU and Muslims, but the court (and, by extension, the Bush administration) is labeling this sort of terrorism as a religious terrorism, not as national, or ethnic, or otherwise. I think this is a careless move. It conveys the message to Islamic extremists that the United States is waging a war on their religion. Whether it is or not is not for me to say, but the administration has never called it a religious war (even though to them it probably is), and the reluctance of anybody in America, politician or media outlet, to call it a religious war is, I believe, both revealing (read this for more on that) and sad. The next thing of note is that the charges brought against Padilla were for crimes he was supposedly going to commit overseas. This is noteworthy because the initial buzz about Padilla's crimes, even though he was never formally charged with anything, were concentrated on his supposed intent to cause destruction in America. I believe that since no evidence was found regarding his intent to detonate a "dirty bomb" on American soil, the prosecution quickly (and seamlessly) shifted the focus to Padilla's supposed desire to join an "oversea" Afghani terrorist cell. A change in focus is most likely the result of the prosecution's scramble to find something they could charge him with.
The bottom line one could draw from conviction of Jose Padilla is that it demonstrates the dangers that American citizens face when the executive branch grants itself sweeping powers during wartime--powers that not even the British kings supposedly had.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Cheney in '94 admits invasion of Iraq would result in 'quagmire'
Holy shit, this is so huge! I had to watch this three times before it became reality in my mind. Not only is Cheney speaking against his current stance on Iraq, but it seems to me that his analysis of what would happen under US occupation is happening! He was right to begin with! This is absolutely shocking. The neo-cons are conning themselves!
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
756
Sorry, Hank Aaron. You were so much more of a class act. You were a kindly gentleman, and once you even admitted that records and numbers had nothing to do with playing baseball. You loved it because you love the game. That's sportsmanship. And the greatest thing was, you hit 755 career home runs without allegations of foul play.
So last night, Barry Bonds snapped Hank Aaron's record. It was a great moment. I've watched it several times. There is something magical about that moment. But that's the "big picture" moment that gets me emotional. It's the details surrounding Barry Bonds that upsets me. When I put the event under the microscope, I don't like what I see in the least bit. Barry's battle with steroids, whether he took them or not, is shameful. The surrounding evidence of his abuse is quite daunting. The book Game of Shadows details the scandal; I won't give out details.
I believe that because of Bonds' attitude, and because of Aaron's attitude, the memory and honor that was attributed to Aaron these past 33 years will continue, and even outlive the hype of Bonds' 756th (and probably beyond) home runs. Hank Aaron embodies what it means to be an athlete. Barry Bonds does not.
So last night, Barry Bonds snapped Hank Aaron's record. It was a great moment. I've watched it several times. There is something magical about that moment. But that's the "big picture" moment that gets me emotional. It's the details surrounding Barry Bonds that upsets me. When I put the event under the microscope, I don't like what I see in the least bit. Barry's battle with steroids, whether he took them or not, is shameful. The surrounding evidence of his abuse is quite daunting. The book Game of Shadows details the scandal; I won't give out details.
I believe that because of Bonds' attitude, and because of Aaron's attitude, the memory and honor that was attributed to Aaron these past 33 years will continue, and even outlive the hype of Bonds' 756th (and probably beyond) home runs. Hank Aaron embodies what it means to be an athlete. Barry Bonds does not.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Friday, August 03, 2007
bin who?
As I ranted the other day, we will have spent over $1 trillion on Iraq
The strange silence from the American political machine on bin Laden since 9/11 is alarming. The switch from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is also very interesting. George Orwell, in 1984, portrayed a similar phenomenon with countries crisscrossing their alliances. We even have images of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands in diplomatic fashion with Hussein from 1983. This article puts bin Laden in the same boat – a former ally becomes an enemy. And once Bush woke up to the reality of who was making his money for him (and others), the focus switched to Hussein, who threatened the Bushes during theKuwait
I believe it is naïve to assume that history has not transpired without conspiracy.
The strange silence from the American political machine on bin Laden since 9/11 is alarming. The switch from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is also very interesting. George Orwell, in 1984, portrayed a similar phenomenon with countries crisscrossing their alliances. We even have images of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands in diplomatic fashion with Hussein from 1983. This article puts bin Laden in the same boat – a former ally becomes an enemy. And once Bush woke up to the reality of who was making his money for him (and others), the focus switched to Hussein, who threatened the Bushes during the
I believe it is naïve to assume that history has not transpired without conspiracy.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
why I would never vote for Mitt
The neo-cons use fear to get you to vote for and support them. Now it’s my turn.
Earlier I discussed briefly that the Mittwit wanted to double the capacity of America’s Guantanamo Bay prison camp. He also stated at the convention that he is in favor of using Club Gitmo for “advanced interrogation techniques,” but refuses to acknowledge those “techniques” by their more commonly known term: torture. He sanctions the use of Club Gitmo so that “terrists” do not “have access to our lawyers” on US soil. In essence, he’s willing to suspend the Bill of Rights for suspected “terrists” in order to further his own agenda and at the expense of Constitutional liberties. What a lot of folks don’t know, is that there are American citizens at Club Gitmo, like Jose Padilla. Padilla’s case is especially interesting because he was apprehended on US soil (Chicago) and then extradited to Cuba without being read his rights (the reason for his arrest). Only recently was Padilla informed about why he was arrested. (On a side-note, Padilla was finally allowed to plea his case only after he was tortured to the point that he was mentally unstable - sound fair?). So Mitt’s viewpoints on Club Gitmo are not only unconstitutional, but unjustifiably obtuse, and the logical conclusion is that the Mittwit himself has bought into the scare tactics of his neo-con peers.
But the rabbit hole goes much deeper than this.
Mitt is not only dangerous because of the statements he makes about apprehending and (illegally) detaining “terrists,” he’s also dangerous because he has not yet given us a “John F. Kennedy” speech indicating that his religion will not affect his decision-making. Mitt is a Mormon. As the Republican nomination draws nearer, Mitt’s religion will begin to surface in the media more and more, and people’s suspicion will increase. In classic Mittwit fashion, I suspect he will bend to the pressure and eventually have to make a public statement ala JFK, which is a good thing. If he does make the speech, I’m afraid it will be too little too late. JFK’s strategy was to hit them when they were going to listen most – once he had some good momentum under him, but not before it was too late. But Mitt’s decision-making, he has stated in the past, will be influenced by his religion, and this brings me to the central point of this post: America’s situation in the Middle East will deteriorate with a Mormon as president.
Mormons are typically dispensationalists. (Mormonism does not have an authorized systematic theology in the Protestant sense, so what one Mormon believes may be entirely different from what the next Mormon believes, but since Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were fierce dispensationalists, it’s safe to conclude that most modern Mormons fall in line). Dispensationalism accounts for the belief that the Middle East will become the hot-bed of Armageddon, the final “war to end all wars.” In this war, oppressors of the Christian word will be vanquished, and Jesus will make his second advent and upon doing so, will convert the Jews and re-affirm the Christians’ justification before God. (For a wonderful exegetical treatment of the fallacy of biblical dispensationalism, read this). I believe a Mormon president would be immune to the sensitivities between the Arab and Jewish communities in the Middle East (we've been insensitive in the past, but a Mormon I believe would be hyper-insensitive to the delicate situation between Israel and the Arab states). As Max Blumenthal demonstrated in his video in one of my previous posts, the CUFI poses a real threat to Israel and the way of life in the Middle East. The CUFI encapsulates dispensationalism. I do not think it is a stretch of the imagination to presume that a Mormon president would likewise believe that backing Israel with arms, sanctions, and carte blanche anything is favorable for the US, Christianity, and therefore the “greater good.” BYU, the flagship of Mormon learning, even has a Jerusalem Center dedicated to the doctrinal enrichment of select BYU students. Israel is most definitely a place worth preserving for a Mormon. Blind support for Israel I believe this is one of the reasons that the Arab nations feel their disgust for America – we unabashedly support Israel in all it does, which to the Arab world, gives off the appearance that they have no chance of purifying their homeland from the Jews unless they can cause America to be distracted elsewhere or if they can cause an economic collapse of some sort. (Curiously, they are achieving both objectives simultaneously if they are truly the ones who committed the crimes of 9/11 – America is distracted with revenge for 9/11 upon a country [Iraq] that had nothing to do with 9/11, and spending exorbitant amounts of money doing so). I believe Mitt and virtually all the neo-cons are ignorant of the idea that America unequivocally supports what the Arabs refer to as a “Zionist” nation, and more than 60 years of this sort of foreign policy is what brought about the attacks we saw on 9/11. It wasn’t our freedom or our capitalism that caused those terrible events – it was a theological move due to 60+ years of Middle East intervention, specifically in favor of the “Zionists” in Israel.
My argument against Mitt’s capacity to preside effectively over the Middle East as a Mormon assumes that he will continue an interventionist relationship with Israel and in the Middle East due to his theological/religious bent. If Mitt were to step forward and clarify for the country, as JFK did, that his faith plays no part in his political decisions, I might be somewhat more relaxed about the prospect of a Mitt presidency, but for now, I don’t think his Middle East foreign policy, which I believe needs to be isolationist, is adequate to ameliorate the situation there. Moreover, I believe, based upon his comments regarding Guantanamo Bay, that under Mitt Romney the war on terror will truly become the next un-ending war (like the war on drugs).
Earlier I discussed briefly that the Mittwit wanted to double the capacity of America’s Guantanamo Bay prison camp. He also stated at the convention that he is in favor of using Club Gitmo for “advanced interrogation techniques,” but refuses to acknowledge those “techniques” by their more commonly known term: torture. He sanctions the use of Club Gitmo so that “terrists” do not “have access to our lawyers” on US soil. In essence, he’s willing to suspend the Bill of Rights for suspected “terrists” in order to further his own agenda and at the expense of Constitutional liberties. What a lot of folks don’t know, is that there are American citizens at Club Gitmo, like Jose Padilla. Padilla’s case is especially interesting because he was apprehended on US soil (Chicago) and then extradited to Cuba without being read his rights (the reason for his arrest). Only recently was Padilla informed about why he was arrested. (On a side-note, Padilla was finally allowed to plea his case only after he was tortured to the point that he was mentally unstable - sound fair?). So Mitt’s viewpoints on Club Gitmo are not only unconstitutional, but unjustifiably obtuse, and the logical conclusion is that the Mittwit himself has bought into the scare tactics of his neo-con peers.
But the rabbit hole goes much deeper than this.
Mitt is not only dangerous because of the statements he makes about apprehending and (illegally) detaining “terrists,” he’s also dangerous because he has not yet given us a “John F. Kennedy” speech indicating that his religion will not affect his decision-making. Mitt is a Mormon. As the Republican nomination draws nearer, Mitt’s religion will begin to surface in the media more and more, and people’s suspicion will increase. In classic Mittwit fashion, I suspect he will bend to the pressure and eventually have to make a public statement ala JFK, which is a good thing. If he does make the speech, I’m afraid it will be too little too late. JFK’s strategy was to hit them when they were going to listen most – once he had some good momentum under him, but not before it was too late. But Mitt’s decision-making, he has stated in the past, will be influenced by his religion, and this brings me to the central point of this post: America’s situation in the Middle East will deteriorate with a Mormon as president.Mormons are typically dispensationalists. (Mormonism does not have an authorized systematic theology in the Protestant sense, so what one Mormon believes may be entirely different from what the next Mormon believes, but since Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were fierce dispensationalists, it’s safe to conclude that most modern Mormons fall in line). Dispensationalism accounts for the belief that the Middle East will become the hot-bed of Armageddon, the final “war to end all wars.” In this war, oppressors of the Christian word will be vanquished, and Jesus will make his second advent and upon doing so, will convert the Jews and re-affirm the Christians’ justification before God. (For a wonderful exegetical treatment of the fallacy of biblical dispensationalism, read this). I believe a Mormon president would be immune to the sensitivities between the Arab and Jewish communities in the Middle East (we've been insensitive in the past, but a Mormon I believe would be hyper-insensitive to the delicate situation between Israel and the Arab states). As Max Blumenthal demonstrated in his video in one of my previous posts, the CUFI poses a real threat to Israel and the way of life in the Middle East. The CUFI encapsulates dispensationalism. I do not think it is a stretch of the imagination to presume that a Mormon president would likewise believe that backing Israel with arms, sanctions, and carte blanche anything is favorable for the US, Christianity, and therefore the “greater good.” BYU, the flagship of Mormon learning, even has a Jerusalem Center dedicated to the doctrinal enrichment of select BYU students. Israel is most definitely a place worth preserving for a Mormon. Blind support for Israel I believe this is one of the reasons that the Arab nations feel their disgust for America – we unabashedly support Israel in all it does, which to the Arab world, gives off the appearance that they have no chance of purifying their homeland from the Jews unless they can cause America to be distracted elsewhere or if they can cause an economic collapse of some sort. (Curiously, they are achieving both objectives simultaneously if they are truly the ones who committed the crimes of 9/11 – America is distracted with revenge for 9/11 upon a country [Iraq] that had nothing to do with 9/11, and spending exorbitant amounts of money doing so). I believe Mitt and virtually all the neo-cons are ignorant of the idea that America unequivocally supports what the Arabs refer to as a “Zionist” nation, and more than 60 years of this sort of foreign policy is what brought about the attacks we saw on 9/11. It wasn’t our freedom or our capitalism that caused those terrible events – it was a theological move due to 60+ years of Middle East intervention, specifically in favor of the “Zionists” in Israel.
My argument against Mitt’s capacity to preside effectively over the Middle East as a Mormon assumes that he will continue an interventionist relationship with Israel and in the Middle East due to his theological/religious bent. If Mitt were to step forward and clarify for the country, as JFK did, that his faith plays no part in his political decisions, I might be somewhat more relaxed about the prospect of a Mitt presidency, but for now, I don’t think his Middle East foreign policy, which I believe needs to be isolationist, is adequate to ameliorate the situation there. Moreover, I believe, based upon his comments regarding Guantanamo Bay, that under Mitt Romney the war on terror will truly become the next un-ending war (like the war on drugs).
the cost of Iraq
I was right when I said that the cost of the Great Military Adventure would exceed $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion). The Boston.com National News website posts an article today making the same claim. Yes, the day-to-day operations will exceed $500 billion, but the hidden costs of war continue on. Some of these costs include health care to the wounded, cleanup efforts within
I don’t care what Saddam did or didn’t do, or what a small handful of “terrists” did or didn’t do. No war, no matter how just or unjust, is worth $1 trillion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
