How to Change a Culture: Question of Imperialists

What is the U.S. military's goal in Afghanistan?  This is a difficult question to answer.  It ought to puzzle the most intellectual of minds because no single response could make sense entirely.  The American Revolution was a conflict to break from the bondage of an empire.  The Civil War was a battle for national identity and unity.  World War II had a concrete objective: to defeat fascist aggressors in Europe, and end Japanese imperialism.  These are wars with clear objective and victory.


Afghanistan on the other hand?  We invaded to destroy Al Qaeda, but we remain to rebuild a nation.  What could this possibly mean?  No one knows, apparently.  The fact that we support its shameful democracy is proof of our misdirected efforts.  The U.S.-backed Karzai Administration casts an inescapable shadow of corruption over the entire government.  Scandal and fraud have plagued his recent reelection, delegitimizing the very democracy we have set in place. 


Corruption aside, this sham of a government does not seem to be a whole lot better than Taliban rule.  A provision in legislation passed this April states: "...a wife is obliged to fulfill the sexual desires of her husband..."  What this could mean I do not know, though some have said this law essentially condones rape.  Mastermind of the law, Ayatollah Mohammed Asef Mohseni (yes, Ayatollah), defends the statute by refuting Western analysis, and claiming that married women do indeed have the right to refuse sex, though "If a woman says no, the man has the right not to feed her."  Oh okay, cool.  All cleared up.  Thanks Asef!


But the perverted and broken government of Afghanistan are actually not my primary arguments against the war.  No, my critique is one against the imperialist mind.  We Americans are, after all, imperialists, plain and simple.  Two countries we now occupy (facilitated by foreign mercenaries... ask me), with hundreds upon hundreds of military installations throughout the world... the aggressors in over 200 conflicts since 1945.  We alone determine global economic policy.
     
Living in the Empire has many perks, I must say.  I've had a privileged life (though not without my parents' comprehensive health insurance plan) and we are all blessed with relatively few foreign attacks (with two days of exception, of course).  This country is somehow able to wage endless wars without the public even remembering!  A miracle?  Must be! "A million Iraqis died?  Oh, hey did you see that new iPhone app?  Pretty sweet, huh.  Tiger Woods had an affair?  What sport does he play again?  Hey, pass the cocaine.  And hand me that silly as shit magazine.  Yeah, the one about nothing."
     
When I bring up Afghanistan in public, I most often get a "remember 9/11" line or some defensive variation of our "moral duty" to save those people over there.  Who are they again?  Also popular is the "we broke it, we bought it" line.  These latter defenses seem silly to me, though they are common to the 'moral' imperialists.  To address the 9/11-imperialists: Al Qaeda does not even need Afghanistan because they have such a wonderful home in Pakistan to conduct operations.  Al Qaeda left long ago, and if they ever returned from over the Kush Mountains, they would not have nearly comparable resources as they had further East.
     
The 'moral' imperialists talk about some kind of higher responsibility to save these people.  But really we should not be meddling in such drastic ways in foreign lands at all.  It is just so imperial to believe in your state's sole right to wage devastating wars and heartless occupations in the name of Freedom.  That is not Freedom, that is tyranny.  President Washington would be ashamed.  Jefferson too.  Barack Obama says we are fighting for something just, but is it 'just' to impede on another's sovereignty?  To be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands?  What American cares about those people?  Please, tell me if you do!
     
We are trying to change cultures.  Cultures that are so unlike ours we cannot imagine.  We do not understand--or even bother to understand--the Muslim world.  Perhaps we never will.  The West spent many centuries fighting its own religious wars, yet we seem to believe it is possible for a foreign occupation to end ideological feuds in a matter of years.  It cannot be done, and thus we have no business in such affairs.

Time to Pressure Evan Bayh, Hoosiers!

This democracy stuff is tough business for sure. The legitimacy of the process is in a constant war with destructive media elements and corporate favoritism in Washington, and the American people have been slow to realize the game being played at their expense. If you want to get things on the right track again, participation must become the norm in American politics and ignorance can no longer be an acceptable excuse.

Today the good fight is in health care reform, and while there is an ideological debate to be had on the size and role of government, now it is time to decide for the future. I've already made my case for a robust public option tied to Medicare rates (Medicare rates are crucial in preventing private influence on the government's purchasing power. Simply, Medicare rates will let the government negotiate rates and keep the costs down), and now we need to push the politicians. My targets are now set on Senator Evan Bayh, a Democrat from my home of Indiana.

Evan Bayh represents the most typical of corporate politicians striving to maintain a centrist persona with his fiscal conservative values, tough-on-terror media tactics, and that unmistakable midwestern candor. He is not the progressive his father, Senator Birch Bayh, once was.

Regardless, my Hoosier friends and family should pay particular attention because Evan Bayh plays an especially influential role in the future of health care reform. Though Bayh has received most of his campaign funds from the finance, insurance and real estate sector (career, $4,295,250), his $1,100,536 from the health industry makes him a man for health business--not fundamental reform.

As much as I hate calling attention to these unsettling facts, it is important to know whose interests our leaders are actually serving. Evan Bayh is deeply vested in the health industry, so the people of Indiana must rise up to let him know that we will not stand for anything less than a public option!   It's time to make some phone calls to his office, and organize with others who believe in forcing the insurance conglomerates to compete in a marketplace (check out the revealing competition map).  Bayh needs to know that if he does not support real reform, he will have a tough time in the mid-term primaries.  I for one will support a real progressive in 2010, not a closeted Republican; but hopefully I won't have to.

Hoosiers, I know that you are a conservative people in general.  That you are wary of the federal government meddling in your affairs.  This a legitimate concern, and one that I often share.  But you must realize that this reform can either go for the people or against. If there is no public option, big insurance will continue raising premiums while limiting coverage.  They will continue forcing small businesses into bankruptcy, and persist in maximizing already exorbitant profits.  Our country cannot afford it, and the 45,000 people who die from lack of coverage every year didn't deserve it.  It is time for Evan Bayh to know where you stand.  He must understand that reelection is not guaranteed in 2010 because WE have the power to decide, not the insurance lobby.

call him: (202) 224-5623 (DC office); (317) 554-0750 (Indianapolis office)  
email him: http://bayh.senate.gov/contact/email/

Heather Graham Sprints Fast!

Resistance to Afghanistan War Grows

This logic makes sense to me!  
"When I voted to use force to go to war after 9/11, I think I and everyone else in Congress voted to go after Al Qaida. That was our enemy. And Al Qaida has now moved to a different neighborhood, in Pakistan, where, quite frankly, they're more protected. And we're told by Gen. Jones that there are less than 100, if that, members of Al Qaida left in Afghanistan... So we're now saying we should have 100,000 American forces to go after less than 100 members of Al Qaida in Afghanistan? I think we need to re-evaluate our policy."-- Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA)

The Pressure of Peace

While I'm not sure I understand exactly why the Nobel Committee in Norway decided upon Barack Obama as winner of the Peace Prize so early in the game, I'd like to try and imagine the potential of this strategic gesture.

This award is a call of expectations of the freshman President.  It is also a vote of confidence in the American electorate.  You see, President Bush changed the world forever-- he began a war of fear and intimidation.  He destabilized entire regions of the globe, and caused Iran to rush to arms.  Mr. Bush was a President for war, and one who reflected the values of the imperial elites of the United States.

But America said no, and elected a man who promised peace.  For this, every American deserves this award because it is WE who determine our country's policies and rulers.  We chose peace, and this seems to have been recognized by members of the international community.

Now the pressure of the world is on, and the world demands a peaceful USA.  But it is vital that we ask ourselves: what does their opinion matter?  Why should we listen to the desires of other states?

These are common questions-- and they are fair questions.  We are a sovereign state with the power to act in whichever way we see fit.  But what must not be forgotten is that because of our extraordinary wealth, power and influence, our choices ripple throughout the world in ways that we cannot imagine.  It is easy for American to lose touch of global realities because we are essentially an island.  We are not surrounded by nations with ancient traditions of conflict.  We do not know what it was like to be invaded and occupied by brutal militaries.  We cannot fathom the imagery of a holocaust in our backyard.

The fact of the matter is that there are deep global problems that cannot be solved without an engaged, informed United States.  Europe understands it.  We seem to be realizing it.

While Americans are essentially a peace-loving people, they are
also a distant, and easily convinced people.  We are duped into wars of "liberation" and "freedom."  We want peace, but our fault lies in the belief that war solves all problems.  That war yields peace.

Some of our allies across the pond understand that if the people of the United States of America do not break free from the bondage of the industrial-military complex, we will go the way of all empires.  Our potential to do remarkable things will wilt away, and the story of American democracy will be mere whispers of legend.

So let us unleash ourselves from this militaristic society.  Let us fight in ways we haven't yet thought.  Let us take the Nobel Prize and show everyone that we can be with the world, not at odds with it.

People, call your congressmen and women and senators--tell them where you stand.  President Obama, fight those generals and do what is right.  Be strong and call your people to action.  We'll fight with you.

Or against you.

Later this week... 10 Best Congresspeople: Dennis Kucinich

Stay tuned for my second entry of 10 Worst, 10 Best: Your United States Congress. This time: Representative Dennis Kucinich of Cleveland, Ohio. Will be up by Thursday.

Also, I've just created a Facebook Page that anyone can 'fan' to receive updates on your NewsFeed. I promise, the updates will not dominate your wall!

We Will Work Against You

For hours I've been watching the Senate Finance Committee debate two different amendments calling for a public health care option. Both proposals have failed, and I'm angry, a bit sad too... but not particularly surprised.

Though SkyeWire's frequent posts may bother some of my Facebook friends, you should know that I only write such things because I believe that these issues are of vital importance. As a citizen of the United States of America I feel a certain duty to remember the sacrifice and struggle of the founding fathers; to remember that this government was to be THE finest product of the Western Enlightenment-- a government created for people and of people.

The genius of Thomas Jefferson and the others was in giving individuals the power to take control over the fate of governance. Indeed, the expectation was that ordinary people would take this responsibility to heart... that civic duty would reign supreme over any and all detrimental interests.

But something has gone terribly wrong.

My friends, times have never been worse. As this nation fights to reclaim its identity, we are faced with the most catastrophic environmental threat of our existence. As the ice caps melt faster and faster, we sit idly... tweeting about silly boys and girls. While the interests of the few dominate our government's decisions, Facebook takes precedence for the apathetic masses who feel too impotent to do anything.

Allow me to put this into perspective.

...When the glacier that feeds into India's Ganges River melts away and dries

...and leaves half a billion of the world's

poorest

without drink and irrigation

...When the trees you loved so much as a kid

...and the crops you depend upon for nourishment

shrivel and die

in a rapidly changing ecosystem...

...when the health system fails for good

...when Wall Street gets away with losing

everyone's money for the

...second

...third

...sixth

time

...when you realize that this country is no longer a leader of

morality

and freedom

...when such things happen, you will wish you had said...

something.

anything.

You'll wish you had stood for something when there was still something worth fighting for.

Like the man who watched in silence as

Jews

gays

Jehova's witnesses

Romani

dissenters

got rounded off to death camps...

...only to find himself a victim in the end.

Like him, you too will regret when these forces begin affecting your life.

So I'm sorry for being bleak at times, but these are realities; and insulating yourself in the Facebook bubble will not change them.

Don't get me wrong, we can change things... we really can. But if you're heart isn't in it, it will not happen! During Vietnam there was a revolution in this country. Millions marched and some died in a revolution of peace... how remarkable. Can you just imagine? Can you imagine if the masses used the internet for unprecedented citizen involvement and organization? A taxpayer revolt against the Congress that persistently fails to represent the people.

You have to fight and argue and VOTE!! You must learn the issues and find out if your Senator or congressperson is representing good things. Democrat or Republican or whatever.

If they aren't... work against them. Find like-minded others. Spread the word. Grow. Believe. Take back the power. Before it's too late. This is our responsibility.

Yes we can.

America and the Crisis of Religion Part III: Why Evolution Matters

Well it's certainly been awhile since I've talked about religion, but I wanted to say something brief and vital.

The fact that 55% of American citizens believe evolution is a myth stands as testament to the state of judgement in this country. It seriously worries me when I see so many people refuse to accept the clear and overwhelming evidence of the Evolutionary process. This is not because denying evolution causes deep problems on it's own, rather it's what problems are arising from other delusions that simply must arise from this warped sense of what is real. When they look at the world, what is seen? How is news interpreted differently? What questions are being asked about the state of this nation and international community?

Refuting the legitimacy of evolution is like denying that it's raining outside when it indeed is raining. And if such circumstantial evidence is so easily cast aside by individuals due to superior religious beliefs, then what other facts of the world are being neglected? Probably some important ones.

This country needs to wise up... soon.

10 Worst, 10 Best: Senator Max Baucus

For a long time I've wanted to begin a series that takes a careful look at our federal representatives and their actions. As caretakers of the most powerful country in all known history, we ought to know who they are and what they stand for. When I worked in the United States Senate this Summer as legislative intern (more on that another time), I found an article in a 1970s Washington Journal that called out the best and the worst of the U.S. Senate. So today I begin a similar, albeit more timely, piece called: "10 Worst, 10 Best: Your United States Congress Exposed."

And today I begin with Senator Max Baucus, a Democrat from Helena, Montana and Chairman of the Finance Committee. Mr. Baucus earned both his B.A. and law degree at Stanford University, and went on to work for the Securities and Exchange Commission in D.C. Eventually, he returned to his home state, won a seat in the state House of Representatives, and ultimately a seat in the United States House. In 1978, the Montanian won his Senate seat; a seat that has grown stale and dank and saturated in the corrupt puss that seeps from every pore of Max Sieben Baucus.

Such a scathing judgement is undeserved by most, but let us remember that we are dealing with the United States Senate--a body representative of the most powerful interests this country has to offer. Max Baucus, in particular, has received massive campaign donations from the most invasive and influential industries. OpenSecrets.org reveals the top 5 contributors to this Blue Dog's campaigns: Lawyers/Law Firms ($1,608,823), Securities & Investment firms like Goldman Sachs ($1,480,535) Insurance ($1,190,463), Health Professionals ($1,032,276), and Pharmaceuticals/Health Products ($751,605). In total, Baucus has received $2,880,631 from the Health Care Industry and $4,710,818 from Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate sectors!

If those numbers don't bug you, check out where his former staff members work. Jeff Forbes, once Baucus's Chief of Staff, went straight to K Street when he opened a lobby firm for the health industry. David Castagnetti, another ex-chief of staff, went on to work in the insurance industry itself! Several other staff member have gone similar routes, and some (including Forbes and Castagnetti) have met with Baucus in exclusive meetings on Health Care Reform 2009.

These facts would be meaningless if big industry donors wanted nothing in return; but alas, this is the root of corruption. Of course powerful Wall Street bankers and health care hotshots want their interests protected and enhanced! As we have seen in the Bailout and TARP spending--intended to stabilize the economy--the Democrats are just as keen as Republicans in helping big business at the expense of taxpayers. And Max Baucus is in a particularly powerful position as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee--arguably the most influential of all committees since nearly every bill that involves spending must go through it.

Now let me tell you how twisted Senator Baucus's health care reform bill is going to be. For one, the man refuses to support the Public Option, which is now the last remaining hope for true, fundamental reform...for the change we can believe in. This corporate Dem will fight any attempt to uproot the perverted and financially idiotic health care system that this country has been victim to for so many years. Instead, cooperatives have been proposed as a substitute for the public option--this is a petty appeasement, and will be destined for failure since co-ops will not have the funding to sustain themselves; eventually they will be used as "proof" that non-private health plans do not--cannot work.

Baucus's bill is being determined by his "Gang of 6" which, besides Montana Max, includes Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota), and Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico). Seems like a lot of Republicans determining reform they do not even seem to want! Is there not a Democratic majority? In fact, Baucus has shut out certain members of the Finance Committee who do indeed support the public option! And I refuse to believe that the Gang of 6 states are representative of the entire country.

True health care reform is looking more and more unlikely by the hour, and this is largely due to the influential Baucus. How have we allowed this kind of paralyzing corruption to happen? Don't the people of Montana see that this man has little desire to represent their true needs? The needs of the country at large? Must things get bad enough that we must revolt to reform our policies and cut the puppet strings once and for all?

I refuse to believe we have reached that point, but I do know that a voter revolt is needed--that is, people like this can and must lose reelection. If change is on the horizon, it certainly will not come from hacks like Max Baucus--a man perhaps best explained by his response to single-payer advocates (a group of 8 doctors and nurses) demanding to have a seat at the table: "We need more police!"

And so it is official... Max Baucus: you, sir, are my first WORST CONGRESSPERSON

Public Option in 70 Seconds

Here it is, folks. Plain and simple. Cut n dry. What is the public option and why we must have it:

Bill Moyers: Reason on Health Care Debate

Why We Shouldn't Fear the Public Option

People often forget, either due to distractions, blinding cynicism or a lack of education, how unique this country really is. The United States of America is a nation forged and grounded in a rich tradition of protest and persistent refusal to accept the status quo. In many ways this tradition has been in hibernation--recent decades will never be known as the years of particularly impressive citizen participation in government and policy. Indeed, the American people have become increasingly apathetic and stupid, but I believe that the spirit has remained alive--in fact, I predict that the drive to change our most negative aspects of society is building momentum; isn't it obvious?

Take the town halls on health care, for instance. Though CNN, FOX and MSNBC only cover the crazies, there is some remarkable dialogue going on--and not just by the supporters of health care. When it comes to the Public Option, there is a genuine philosophical debate to be had. Remember that the whole point of the American Revolution was to establish independence from an abusive and invasive government that taxed excessively and unfairly. We have come a long way since then, and have perhaps gone full-circle in many ways. I share many Libertarian concerns of the expansion of the U.S. government, excessive spending and the limitations placed upon civil liberties; not to mention our often tyrannical foreign policies. Indeed, the United States became the very empire its citizens died to defeat. People think I'm a big gov liberal, but the fact of the matter is that the federal government IS WAY TOO BIG! The War on Drugs is a fiscal and societal disaster, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are squandering our treasure. The IRS ought to be torn down and replaced with a simpler tax code, and the Patriot Act ought to make every single American extremely wary of what leaders know about our personal lives. Not to mention the militarization of government that has seeped into the media and saturated our culture.

So when people say to me: "I just don't believe the federal government should expand! It's already too massive" I agree! The problem is that in this modern world, there are modern problems that require state intervention. Spying on Americans is not one of these exceptions. Drug abuse isn't either. Nor is Saddam Hussein or Ho Chi Minh! But to the people who believe the Public Option is some kind of government takeover and the onset of communism: should we not fight to end the excessive federal policies that actually hurt people? The War on Drugs fuels a culture of crime in the inner-cities. At least a million Iraqi citizens are dead because of the current conflict--not to mention the 4,339 dead American soldiers. But now you oppose a public health plan? A plan that will help your fellow citizens get the care they need? A report by the Institute of Medicine suggests that as many as 22,000 American citizens die annually due to the lack of an insurance policy--one that either could not be afforded or was cut by employers!

And let us not forget that the Public Option is an OPTION! While the true Left wing of this USA would really like a single-payer system, it is simply not going to happen with this legislation. Big Insurance is the most powerful lobby in Washington, and certainly has great influence on the bill--in other words, the argument that people will be forced to take the government plan is bullshit. The truth of the matter is that most people will keep their private plans; plans, by the way, made more consumer-friendly due to other reforms that will be in the final legislation (including the preexisting condition issue and the ability to choose your own doctors).

Though this is an expansion of government services, I want to tell you how the Public Plan is actually more economical and sustainable than the current system. You see, being private enterprise, Big Insurance seeks to charge as much as possible while providing as little as possible. I have no problem with capitalism (I am a Capitalist), but this is the reality of the basic operations of a firm. While this is perfectly acceptable in most sectors, health care is an entirely different beast. Since 2000, insurance premiums have nearly doubled! In 2007, the U.S. spent about $2.2 trillion on health care,* which comes out to approximately 16.2% of GDP--nearly twice the amount of the rest of the developed world! ** If you aren't worried yet, then you have read these numbers: by 2025, costs are expected to rise 25%; by 2082, 49% ! *** Oh, and did you realize that every GM vehicle is $1,525 more expensive because of employer-based health care coverage? Insurance is by far GM's biggest expenditure--even more than steel! ****

And the numbers go on and on. This is the financial argument, and it is all tied to the Big Insurance practice of driving up costs for higher profit margins, and making up for their clunky and inefficient administrative costs. Medicare costs are skyrocketing because they are subsidizing these inflating premiums, and this must be replaced. The Public Option must establish a much simpler and transparent system that injects competition into this stale and unsustainable market. It is fiscally sensical and it is moral.

But just any Public Option will not do. Next week I will tackle the question of "what must a Public Option look like in order to drive competition and cut costs?"

Absorb it, discuss it, and hopefully support it. Leave your comments below.

*Office of the Actuary, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Health Expenditure Data for 2007. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, available at: http://www.cms. hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp#TopOfPage

**Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD Health Data 2008.

***P.R. Orszag, Growth in Health Care Costs: Statement Before the Committee on the Budget, United States Senate, (Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, Jan 31 2008), available at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8948

****R. Wagoner, Testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, December 5, 2008.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/05/gm-health-care-reform/

The Time to Act has Come, Reaffirm Your Commitment

My friends, I apologize for taking an extended summer break, but now the wheels are turning once again, and I must say that never before have I felt this necessity to write for cause. We elected the progressive candidate, though not without a healthy degree of skepticism by many (including myself), and the calling for responsible and energetic citizenship has never been greater. For in the words of the President:

What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.

For those who voted Obama/Biden on election day, this calling is especially directed towards you! The President is powerless to create fundamental change without his foot-soldiers and right now you are failing. And so am I.
But today we reaffirm our commitment to transform this country into what it ought to be. When this country decisively elected Barack Obama, he was given a mandate to bring about progressive reform, and now we must help him. Right now, the most powerful lobby in Washington is fighting the fight of its life to destroy any kind of true reform of its corrupt system. The right-wing and conservative Dems have taken the stand that change mustn't come to American health care, and they have effectively waged a crusade of fear and lies against the President's plan--against the President's promise.

If this country wishes to survive, her citizens must become informed on the topics and fight for truth. Indeed, this health care battle is a test: can the people who voted for something transformational actually make it happen? Do we have it in us to bring down the congressmen and women who have prostituted themselves out to the insurance giants? I believe we do; because nothing is stronger than a nation of motivated and optimistic citizens. And right now I want to reaffirm my commitment to this country's potential--that I will do all in my power to be a part of the grassroots of change. Because I voted for it. Because it is my responsibility to walk the walk.

And now I ask my readers--my fellow citizens--will you join me in this commitment to fight for reform by pressuring your reluctant representatives to support President Obama's agenda? Will you fight the myths with your colleagues, classmates and family? If so, I hope that you will leave a declaration of support for this cause below in the comments section. Tell others what you believe in and how hard you are willing to fight. And after your declaration, you must act on it. You must make the calls, attend the town halls and go door-to-door. It is this movement that determined the election, and now it must live on to determine our future. There really are better things on the horizon--indeed, they are within our grasp!

In the coming days and weeks, I will be rolling out a series of articles on the healthcare debate. My hope is to lay out the arguments and contextualize the controversy. Because if you know the facts, you will realize that Obama really is on the right side of things. And after we pass healthcare--with the public option included--it is on to the next fight.

Till next time.

Pakistan Crisis: the Military, Politics, and Role of the USA Pt. 3

Here is the final part of a Pakistani perspective. Regardless of how you believe, this is a thoughtful essay and important to think about.

Judgement Day for the Pure, Part III
by G, the Legend
The US of A: Can they be trusted?

o Everyone in the Muslim / Arab / Developing world loves to bash America. For most countries its enough that they’re rich, we’re poor, and they seem so much happier than us and that just can’t be fair at all. With Muslims and Islam in the mix, the picture gets murkier. Their policies to the Arab world vis a vis their unflinching support for Israel and turning a blind eye to all atrocities committed against Palestinians has been a gaping, open wound to all Muslims around the world. The fact that the US has become almost incapable of changing its tone and taking an objective view of ground realities has become inexcusable; the policy of choosing who to negotiate with is over, as organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah now have strong local, democratic support, largely due to the success of successive Israeli military campaigns in creating alienation, oppression and hatred amongst the people they rule over. The presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia, as a response to the aggression of a repressive, inhuman military dictator in Iraq who was himself a recipient of US funding and support against Iran, just crystallizes the West’s image in the Muslim world as a power with double standards and worthless promises. The trust deficit of the US from a Muslim standpoint is too great; we cannot simply take their word for it that they won’t leave us high and dry the next time they want to sell things to India, but I doubt our political leaders have the stature or vision to stand up for Pakistani interests.

o The current problem of Talibanization in Pakistan has its roots in the oft repeated saga of American cold war support of the Afghan Mujahideen. While it’s true and we did fight the American’s war for them, the reality is that we did so on extremely favorable terms of payment and by means left entirely up to our own devising. The army received huge payments during the entire Soviet occupation, and the method of adapting an ideology to prey on the marginalized, poor, downtrodden and persecuted is a creation of Pakistani operational needs. This was not the only way to win that war, but we chose it wholeheartedly and kept at it many, many years after the war ended. The Americans are notoriously shortsighted, and the patchwork of American military bases and precarious diplomatic ties in every region shows just how much vision (or lack thereof) they exercise in conflict zones. However, our problems at this juncture, the growing polarization between rural and urban areas, the spread of jihadist, sectarian and extremist organizations across the country, and the lack of any social discourse on a contrary national ideology to fundamentalism, are entirely of our own making.

We need to accept that whatever the US does, its job has always been to supports its people’s global interests, not holding our hand and nursing us out of sickness; as a sovereign nation ourselves, if anyone we have been remiss in putting the priorities of Pakistan above the requirements of other countries, and it is our leaders who are to blame. It is us, the privileged, English speaking, big spending elite that has let this country down by being uncaring, un-patriotic spectators of a grand Tamasha. We are complicit in the looting of our national resources over the last 60 years because not once have we exerted influence or tried to be heard, mainly because we have benefited quite well from the injustice. The economics of neglect and apathy has been exceptionally generous to the rich in Pakistan, and that is why we find ourselves here today; in 4 provinces, those with means see a different, modern, progressive Pakistan, while the majority of our countrymen’s lives are so miserable that they can only see the world of salvation or death. We failed them by not demanding that they be fed, clothed and educated as is their right, we never gave them a chance to escape the dark specter of poverty as it snatched away children, tore apart families, shot up neighborhoods and reduced hundreds of thousands to starvation. These are the sins we pay for today, so please Pakistanis, don’t simply blame America. If you need someone to hate, look in the mirror. We have slipped and fallen, our halo is gone, our face is wrinkled and our skin is decaying; we can no longer cling to the names of Iqbal and Jinnah like talismans, hoping their spirit will guide us through the dark. We need to act now to save Pakistan from becoming a polarized, fractious, ethnic hodge-podge of a country, where our cities have curfews and rampant violence, and our villages grow terror and hatred rather than wheat and maize. If we are to live and prosper, we must act now; else we must recognize that tomorrow may never be the same again.

Pakistan Crisis: the Military, Politics, and Role of the USA Pt. 2

Judgement Day for the Pure, PART II
by G, the Legend

Politics: The security situation of the country is better known to insiders, this is simply a summary of speculation and analysis available in the world media and on your local TV channels. The real inside story may yet be far too real for us to handle. This is probably why most elected leaders have chosen this critical time to remain silent and meditate on what to buy with their recently increases salaries.

o It is an indictment of our political leaders that the passing of the Peace Accord / Surrender Agreement in Swat was done with a unanimous vote and without disagreement, with almost all major political parties on board. To give credit where it’s due, the only party that actually staged a walkout and has been on the case of this peace deal from the very beginning has been the MQM. This is while the ANP continues to extol the virtues of ‘peacemaking’ in spectacularly shortsighted fashion, while the PPP dishes out its daily dose of inane, nonsensical statements and political gaffes. The PML-N has done absolutely nothing to oppose this deal, and despite riding back to power on the coattails of the ‘people’, it seems content to wait around in the Punjab till this whole thing blows over. Maybe they’re planning to make Lahore the capital once the Taliban take over Islamabad, who knows; for now, I think its about time for Nawaz Sharif to make use of the immense political leverage he can gain in the West by coming out against the militants. Some recent anti-Taliban statements suggest that he may be positioning himself to the US as a better qualified, better supported and more legitimate leader for the country. Whether this plan works or not depends entirely on how bad Zardari lets things get, and how fast.

o What does Zardari really want? When I discussed the military’s thought process above, it was under the assumption that the PPP government was for a resolution of the Swat situation under peaceful means. Whether this is true or not is also another aspect up for debate. The PPP historically went into Karachi, its own city, with all guns blazing to cleanse it from the ethnic violence of the 90s, yet now it balks at the concept of establishing the writ of the government and prioritizing national security over shortsighted ‘peace’. Maybe I’m just cynical, but more talking and less shooting just doesn’t strike me as their administrative style. I guess the real question is who is really in charge? Are Zardari’s hands tied by the military, is he calling the shots or are both colluding to keep the Americans spinning? We won’t know for many years till its all over, and I can’t speculate any more based on my information than I already have; but if one thing is for certain, inaction, incompetence and insincerity on behalf of the incumbent government is a great part of why we are here today.

Pakistan Crisis: the Military, Politics, and Role of the USA Pt. I

Hey all, not sure sure if you've been following the situation in Pakistan (it's the big country sharing borders with Afghanistan, India, and Iran), but since the civilian government took power not long ago, instability has been on the rise. Taliban militants have gotten close to the capital, and this is worrisome not only to the global community, but to the people of Pakistan. Remember that this is a country with a nuclear arsenal, so the resolution of this crisis is of utmost importance. I will dedicate the next three entries to addressing this issue. Here is the first part of an essay by a friend of a friend:

Judgement Day for the Pure
by G, the Legend

As of today, the Swat Taliban have expanded the territory under their influence from North & South Waziristan, Bajaur and Swat to the adjacent district of Buner, and have made clear their intentions of continuing to push towards Mardan, Shangla and onwards. Wherever they go they bring with them their brand of hardcore ideology, a perversion if Islamic beliefs that reflect nothing but the bare essentials needed to subvert the local populace and wield power with an iron fist.

The Pakistani Taliban are different from the Afghan Taliban in the respect that these fighters have no need to justify their existence by relying on an ideological position, such as the expulsion of US & NATO forces from Afghanistan on religious grounds; rather they are simply opportunists taking advantage of a socio-economic meltdown and gross government mismanagement to make as many gains as they can before consolidating their position. All they are really doing is making use of the disenchantment of the poor by offering them money and weapons to take on the status quo. They are preaching ‘empowerment’ and ‘virtue’ derived through the barrel of a gun, and they are taking areas under their control to a system of anarchy, barbarism and ignorance, matched only by the 7 years of Taliban rule in Afghanistan. Can we afford to let wide swathes of our land be occupied and governed by terrorist organizations that would rather enslave or kill us than enter the political mainstream? Will we let our next generation be brainwashed into becoming the tools of hate-mongers and extremists? These questions need to be answered with facts, not conjecture, rhetoric or bombast, as our nation to know the truth. If you feel the need to be informed, search no further, just read on:

Wait, Global Terrorist State, What!! How on Earth Did We Get Here?

Many Pakistanis who left the country in the last decade would be surprised to see just how far we have fallen in so short a time. Under the heavy cover of Musharraf’s 10 years in office, the Pakistani people rarely knew what deals were struck with militant groups in the North in exchange for peace or what resources were shared with the Americans in exchange for a free flow of easy money into our system. With civilians in power our policy making has been exposed as shortsighted in the least and a shambles at best. We pretend we can sign ‘peace’ agreements with terrorists who strike at the hearts of our cities, attacking innocent civilians, infrastructure and security installations with gusto and proudly taking responsibility for their actions. Our military and intelligence establishment thinks it can play both sides, funding and propping up militant leaders who have been useful in the past as well as trying to sell the idea to the Americans that we have accepted the idea of ‘Pakistan’s War’. Truly, sieving truth from all the garbled information is difficult, but it’s always good to start with what we know:

* Military: Despite the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan over 2 decades ago, the Pakistan army has continued to fund militant groups both in Pakistan and along the border areas of Balochistan and Afghanistan. Part of this policy is a legacy issue from the Zia regime, but today there are known links of the Pakistan Army to militant groups like those run by Mullah (Col.) Nazir on the Pak-Afghan border, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar along the Baloch-Afghan border and Jalaluddin Haqqani in the area close to disputed Kashmir. These groups have served Pakistan’s security interests in the past by taking on the armed struggle for liberation in Kashmir, reducing India’s influence in Afghanistan to prevent the opening of ‘two fronts’ in the event of a conflict, and working with the army against even more dangerous groups like Baitullah Mehsud’s network of Taliban that is decidedly anti-government. They have been on our payroll for decades, and the big question is whether the army has the will to take the tough decisions Pakistan finds itself faced with. The return of Pakistan to democratic rule (not democracy by far) has seen a complete turnaround in public statements and the PR policy of the Pakistan government. Whatever the government’s actions, under Musharraf we had a fixed public position on terrorism:

o Pakistan doesn’t fund or support any kind of militants or terrorist groups
o All Taliban are foreigners and have no indigenous support
o Differentiate between Pakistani tribal militant groups who fight for economic gain and self interest, and fundamentalist Jihadi/Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda
o Osama bin Laden is NOT in Pakistan
o The military and civilian government is in complete agreement and unity over the fact that Pakistanis are FOR Peace, Democracy and ‘Enlightened Moderation’

As a result of this unified policy, the Republicans were kind enough to fund our nation’s economy for a good 7 years before the global economic collapse. Under civilian government, our arguments radically changed, becoming akin to a daily airing of years of dirty laundry:

*
o Taliban are Pakistanis, extremists are Pakistanis, and so the army can’t fight ‘its own people’. Ironic?
o ‘Rogue’ elements of the ISI exist not under Pakistani government control (who can apparently carry off attacks on Mumbai hotels and embassies in Kabul)
o The Pakistan army ‘surrendered’ and ‘lost’ to 6,000-8,000 militants in Swat, forcing our hand on the peace deal
o ‘Osama is our muslim brother and is welcome in our areas anytime’ (a widely reported quote from the Swat Taliban spokesperson)

This is a startling change in our public discourse. Where once we battled Uzbek, Tajik, Arab and Chechnyan Taliban on our borders, less than a year later it seems they are all made up of Pakistani militant leaders who are better established in those areas than our own army. Did all of this happen magically while we weren’t looking? On one hand, while these revelations show the incompetence of the incumbent government in handling national security matters in the media, it is also a reflection of how populist politics results in shortsighted and ultimately costly decisions for Pakistan. I don’t believe for a second that our army can’t totally eradicate the Pakistani Taliban if it wanted to…after all, these are the same militant leaders that have been funded and nurtured by our security establishment for over 20 years. It is a known fact that these organizations count amongst their numbers several former army personnel. If we don’t have the ability to carry out an operation on our own territory, 60 miles from the capital city, then I’m assuming we just bought our nukes right off a shelf in Beijing. It is obvious governments cannot be telling the truth, and that such a huge change cannot happen in less than a year. As to what it does mean, I boil it down to three options, as follows:

* The Pakistan Army does not have the will to fight Pakistani Taliban groups, because:
o It is waiting for its security concerns to be recognized by the West, and assurances/arrangements be made to protect Pakistan before turning on the Pakistani Taliban support network, OR

o It is creating a situation where the US views a civilian government as a liability, and is more than happy to accept a military ruler as state head as long as the job gets done, OR

o This last one is the scariest: It could just be that the military cannot make up its mind. 20 years and many ideologues later, perhaps building the support within the nation’s security and intelligence establishment to take on groups viewed for some time as a virtual extension of Pakistan’s last resort security policy isn’t as easy as giving out orders. An internal split between our national interests and the ulterior motives of select security personnel/agencies represents the gravest danger to our nation imaginable. Why? Because it means we can’t trust the army, the Americans can’t trust us, and then the line between Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq begins to go even blurrier in the minds of the foreign geo-strategist. If, at any point, the world begins to actually listen to the Indian argument (let us send Indian troops to Taliban areas with your blessing, we’ll ‘secure’ everything), it could be the end of an entire nation.

Republicans: Fearing themselves to insignificance

The Republican Party is truly the ignorant, xenophobic fear-mongering party. See this video released by the Minority LEADER John Boehner... I think you will see why I am going to enjoy watching these radicals implode.

Obama Myth: The Revised Blueprint for Change

When it became clear that Barack Obama would win the presidency, I was watching an appearance by Ralph Nader who was explaining what he believed would happen early on in the first term. He predicted that the supporters would say: "Give him a chance." There is much to be changed, and it will take time. The first hundred days go by... not a whole lot of change, but hey, he's workin on it... right?

Wrong: Only a swindler as masterful as Barry Obama could oversee the largest corporate welfare program ever seen by human civilization, expand an endless, and unpopular, war of ideology, and refuse to uphold basic rule of law, while calling it the "Blueprint for Change" and enjoying widespread fascination of the masses at the same time. (breathe)

For the masses I present the "Revised Blueprint for Change":

1. Holy change and hope, Batman! There's an economic disaster in our midst! Gotta act fast!
-oversee corporate adoption... check
-submit to the banking oligarchy... check
-don't ask for much in return (don't want to piss off the oligarchy)... check
-spend taxpayer dollars like a yiked up japanese girl taking pics in nyc... in progress
-spend taxpayer dollars like a pretween taking pics at a Jonas Bros. 3D fiesta... in progress and lovin it

2. Declare an end to the occupation of Iraq... check
-provision: don't mean it

3. Buy stupid looking dog for girls... check

4. Frame the Afghanistan effort as "winnable"... workin on it
-oh, and maintain exorbitant military budget, while selling it to the public as "deep cuts"... check

5. Ba-rock the empire... progressing with crisp style

6. Defeat Swine flu pandemic with rainbow sword (aka 3 wood)... reworking strategy

7. appease the middle class and win re-election... like pie

8. Pardon Bush and Cheney... tba

Got any more? Let's hear!

[editor's note, 10.26.2009-- This was a harsh assessment, but reflects a very real anger.  Obama should have taken a stand against Wall Street bailouts, but understand that Congress is the real problem.  President Barry is far more promising than that raucous bunch!]

Wondering Where Your Democracy Went?

When President Reagan gave his famous "City on a Hill" speech, he declared the United States the pinnacle of civilization--the city...on the hill. But when John Winthrop said those words he was talking about an America that ought to be. Not that is. Perhaps it is too hasty to assume that we have reached this ideal.

To the wide-eyed masses: you did not choose Barack Obama as president. To those who believe in the potential of liberty and democracy: your country has forsaken its highest ideals. In an age where the issues are not discussed and the candidates are interchangeable photogenics, you must question what it is you should be doing here. In this country. As a citizen.

In the election of 2008, this facade went on before our very eyes. Ron Paul raised over $6 million in a single day--the most of any candidate; he had millions of supporters and was leading a sort of movement. But he was, for some reason excluded from the later and more important debates. This was the sole Republican with truly unique views--and more conservative ones at that. He suggested to the people that U.S. imperialism is the cause of the terror--not our values and "freedom." Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat, ran on a platform of peace. Mike Gravel ran to end U.S. militarization and establish a direct democracy. All were left out of the later debates.


Perhaps these candidates simply did not register enough votes in the early primaries, and were rightfully asked not to return. Maybe the media did its job. For the people. But then you look at who we ended up with. Hillary vs. Obama--two candidates with identical policy platforms. Debating. What I am saying is that maybe, just maybe there is something larger at work. Not a conspiracy, but a system rather. A system that has developed over the years and fuels a sham of a democracy. Corporate media, corporate candidates. There are powerful interests at stake and a lot of profits to be made. Be wary.

"The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along, paying heavy taxes for which they get nothing in return." - Gore Vidal

Important Vids: Obama and Economy

Sorry I've been away... this week has been hell. Please watch these videos on Obama and the economy... they are unique from all the other news I have seen, and frame all the goings on in a very interesting way.

Please share your thoughts. PS: None of these are actually as long as it says because there is a 3-4 commercial at the end of each. Enjoy.

Obama is a "liberal wolf in centrist clothing"?:







On ECONOMIC CRISIS:

How Obama Could Fail

I know it's early in the term, but I want to get these ideas out there before they disappear. And maybe this will be a worthy assessment in the long-run.

As the title indicates, I believe there is a very high possibility that President Obama will not be able to accomplish his vision in the next 4 years or 8. His full vision has yet to be disclosed in its entirety, but to bring about the change I and many others believe in will take a lot of political power that I'm not so sure Obama will have for long.

You see, there is this thing called the "political establishment"-- an institution or set of institutions that have evolved over the years into the system that currently exists--which makes it really difficult to enact fundamental change (that is, change in the system itself). Congress, the Executive, and the courts are all a part of this establishment, and they have many rules--accumulated since the founding-- that determine HOW business is done. If you want to act effectively in this system, you must play by the rules.

What I am suggesting is that Barack Obama will be forced to play the game of Washington in order to get things done... and in the process he will discover that the establishment is far more powerful than any president-- and the hopeful masses will become tomorrow's cynics because the promises will fade to mere whispers. It is the nature of the beast.

And I've avoided an entire institution--perhaps the most crucial one of all-- that is, the media. As Glenn Greenwald and Jay Rosen suggest on Bill Moyers Journal (PBS), the mainstream media will protect the establishment of Washington, D.C. because they are a PART OF the establishment of Washington. Media commentators simply do not think to question the actual system of which they are so immersed.

If our basic institutions of democracy are in fact broken, and the media continues to insulate it from fundamental criticism, how exactly is the new president supposed to upset the system and restore government to the people?

I guess it all depends on how Obama can reconnect people with what is really going on... in a truly interactive and revolutionary way... via the internet. The question is: how do we utilize this remarkable tool in a way that changes the way people think about and learn about government? And affect government?

Evolution: Yay or Nay?

Tell me what you make of these statistics... should the United States be embarrassed by this monkey business?

WTF?? Part 3, Guest Blogger: Hanadi Riyad

I asked a former classmate of mine to write an essay on her views on the the Gaza incursion.  Hanadi is from the region, which makes this situation all the more immediate for her--my hope is that some of this urgency will be conveyed to my readers.

Without further ado, Hanadi Riyad:

"Cast Lead and ME Shift"

As I was thinking of what to write exactly for this short essay, I elected to write from my own personal perspective as based on my daily life and observations as a Middle Easterner. I decided that it is very important for us to realize what a lot of analysts are neglecting to discuss: the reverberating impact of the Israeli invasion of Gaza on the region and the shifts of political roles and landscapes it caused in the Middle East. The on-going blockade aside, the Israeli genocide against the Palestinian people of Gaza, otherwise known as "operation Cast Lead," was a turning point in Middle Eastern politics and public opinion. On the bright side, Palestinians were made to feel less abandoned by the people and citizens of the world. On the dark side, the international community's failure to respond proportionately to the Zionist aggression against Gaza enhanced the Palestinian people's feelings of separation and alienation from the official international system and its ultra-statist institutions. It also widened the gap between the Palestinian and Arab public and their leaders and "representatives."

The numerous public and civil protests against the Israeli aggressions against Gazans first came as a surprise to everybody in the Middle East; they displayed an unfamiliar feeling of human solidarity with the people of the world. In 1948, the Palestinian people were officially abandoned by both the international powers and their people. The feelings of guilt that plagued the people of Europe over the Holocaust presented the perfect chance for the colonial powers to present Zionist Jews with Palestine as compensation. This is the first time since then that the world has witnessed that number of protests against Israel. In France, Spain, the US, Russia, and many other European countries, protestors showed the increasing disenchantment with the Israeli state and its Zionist "cause." I think some of those protests were also driven by the sense of guilt some people, especially Europeans, are feeling over their governments' complicity in the extermination of the Palestinian people and support of the Israeli occupation. The frequent use of the word "holocaust" to describe the latest atrocity against Gaza indicates the people of the world's awareness of the connection between the Holocaust and the Israeli extermination of Palestinians.

However, what did not come as a surprise to anybody in the Middle East was the lack of action on the part of the international powers; some of the blatantly biased and pro-Israeli stances many governments took on the Gaza invasion produced a feeling of repulsion and disgust with those governments. Indeed, the famous and atrocious statement made by the EU presidency spokesperson Potuznik, calling the ground op "defensive," is one example of such a stance. Only either total ignorance of Middle Eastern politics or total inhumanity could have compelled that Czech official to say something as biased as that. I mean, even Olmert and Peres called the op "offensive." What is really significant though is the resulting public disrespect for the UN amongst the Middle Eastern public; this was mainly produced by the Israeli disregard of the UN cease-fire resolution passed on 8 January and its constant targeting of the UN schools where civilians had taken refuge. Not only the sanctity of educational institutions was violated, but also the authority of the UN was dismissed and attacked. There is this conviction now that the UN has backed Israel for too long now that it cannot stand in its face anymore. Only armed resistance is capable of that.  

The gap between the Arab regimes and the Arab public has been there since the artificial states of the Middle East were formed by the colonial powers at the time; now, it's wider than ever. The way that Arab governments split into two camps, the "moderate" or "pro-Israeli" and the "radical" or "pro-Palestinian" was predictable. However, never an embassy of an Arab state was attacked in another Arab country. Egyptian embassies all over the Arab world were attacked vigorously and repeatedly by protesters against the Egyptian refusal to open Rafah crossing into Gaza. While people threw shoes at Egyptians embassies, a lot of Cuban and Turkish embassies were thrown with flowers and roses. For the first time in my life, I heard Arab opposition leaders call, loudly and clearly, for coups and revolutions against various conspiring Arab regimes. Of course, these would be the ones that have the same interest as Israel and the US to terminate the Palestinian resistance and keep their regional hegemony intact, such as Saudi Arabia.

These are only my views and I do not presume to represent neither all Middle Easterners nor the majority's opinion. This is how I see things standing right now in the Middle East in the aftermath of the Israeli ground op in Gaza.

WTF?? Part 2: What is Hamas?

For Part 2 of our series on the Israel/Palestine conflict entitled "WTF??" we will address the question: What is Hamas?

In my research, I have come to fully realize the extent to which American media distorts what Hamas really is. Check out this segment from the Fox News Network:



So let us analyze what how this interview describes the Hamas group. For one, the "expert" who describes to us Hamas and its motivations is a man who works for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies-- a neoconservative think-tank dedicated to "promoting pluralism, defending democratic values, and fighting the ideologies that threaten democracy." This is a very pro-Iraq War group that strongly supports the policies of Israel's ruling party.

Anyways, from the FOX interview, we gather a few assumptions:
1. Hamas is a terrorist organization, dedicated to the "destruction of Israel"
2. It was founded in 1987, and began suicide attacks in the 1990s
3. Hamas has established "major social services program" as a public relations "booster"
4. They were elected democratically-- gaining 62% of the vote
5. Compared to the governments of Hitler, Mao, Mussollini
6. Part of a global terror network-- at the center of which is Iran (and according to the neoconservative dude, nothing fundamental can be done as long as the current Iranian regime is in power... hmm, I wonder what that means??)
7. The caption at the bottom of the screen states: "Hamas wants Israel Gone, Palestinian State in its Place"
8. If Israel leaves without destroying Hamas, it will be seen as a "humiliation"

OKAY, enough of FOX, now I'd like you to see an interview done with Eric Margolis-- author of the book American Raj, a study that seeks to answer why there exists Middle East hostility towards the West (addressing historical, political and religious factors). Margolis was a journalist in the region for many years. Check out the interview, and then we will discuss:



Let's review:
1. Western media distorts what Hamas really is
2. It is a "national liberation movement" ... an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
3. Founded in opposition to the the corrupt and ineffective Palestinian Liberation Organization
4. Israel, in fact, quietly supported Hamas as a means to disrupt Palestinian unity
5. Has Hamas used "terrorist" tactics?
-they HAVE targeted civilians
-they HAVE used suicide bombers
-Why can't we call them "terrorists"?
-Well, the argument is that if Hamas had the same sophisticated weaponry that Israel uses, they would do the same... suicide bombers are the poor man's cruise missile
-But what about the civilians being targets? Margolis says that Hamas is morally wrong in this, and I agree. Civilians should never be the targets!
-But many of these attacks are "revenge" attacks... in retaliation for the attacks on Palestinians

6. The Palestinians have suffered 10-40 times more dead than the Israelis (but this doesn't excuse any attacks on civilians)
7. Hamas is a socio-religious movement, preaching "resistence to Western and Israeli dominance" ... and they remain hardliners against corruption
8. Provides many social services... schools, sewage, street-cleaning, etc... THIS is the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of Hamas.... making them respected and admired by their people
9. The armed resistance wing
-claim to be defending the "rights of 5-7 million displaced, homeless Palestinian refugees"
-won't recognize Israel until Israel recognizes the rights of those 5-7 million

10. Hamas is NOT a "threat" to the "existence of Israel"
-at most, they have 3,000 poorly trained gunmen
-basically, they are totally overpowered by Israeli forces ... they are like 'fish in a barrel'

11. The fearmongering by the Western media and Israeli government has made it nearly impossible for meaningful negotiation
12. Anti-semitism is infecting the Arab world like never before... it is as a result of the Israeli bombings and incursions

**Clearly this issue is more complex and dynamic than one FOX interview may suggest... and don't just take Margolis's word for it. Do some reading on your own and learn the history behind this conflict. What is Hamas? Why does this conflict exist (it hasn't been around forever, you know.)? What is "terrorism"?

Tomorrow evening, a guest blogger will be sharing her very personal views on the situation. Please stay tuned.

WTF?? Part 1: The Crimes of Israel... can you even imagine?

Welcome to Part 1 of a new Israel-Palestine segment I call "WTF??"... The point is to try and be more responsible citizens of the world by understanding what is really going on in the region.

As I prepare for a major post on the situation, I just want to show you some of the atrocities that have been going on.  

Have you ever heard of white phosphorous?   Well it's a nasty chemical weapon that is dispersed via smoke screen, and incinerates anyone who gets caught in its way... and no, kids aren't immune.

Politics aside for now... I want you to watch these videos and try to appreciate the human side of this conflict.  If you have any thoughts, please share.

Cracking Down on White House Lobbying... Your thoughts?

As I work on a piece on the Israel/Palestine conflict (researching and whatnot), I'd like to hear your input on President Obama's executive order, which cracks down on the lobbying in the White House. Check out the blog, and let us know what you think. Feel free to reply to the comments of others, and have some fun.

Obama's Ethics Policy Upsets Would-be Staffers

by Sam Stein

The decision by Barack Obama to restrict lobbyists from working on the same subject in his administration for two years was greeted with nearly unanimous acclaim among the pundits in Washington D.C. If there is one thing that unites congressmen and good-government groups it is support -- at least rhetorical support -- for limiting special interests.

But not everyone was overcome with joy over the Executive Order. For Democratic operatives who have the word "lobbyist" on their resume, Obama's move was a dagger to their dreams of administration jobs.

"All Appointees Entering Government," the new rule reads, "will not for a period of 2 years from the date of [their] appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to [their] former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts."

The issue, ironically, may not matter as much for the most senior of prospective administration officials. Obama maintains the right to skirt the restrictions. For instance, his deputy defense secretary will be William Lynn, who has previously served as a representative for the defense contractor Raytheon. Rather, the individuals squeezed most tightly by the restrictions could end up being those lower on the political totem pole.

"Today, I received the news that I won't be working for an Obama administration," said a Democratic friend of mine, who was part of a briefing team for the president's transition efforts but happens to be a registered lobbyist.

By instituting the most transparent and open ethics policy of any presidential administration, Obama was bound to step on some toes. And he may have disadvantaged himself in certain ways. A high-ranking party operative told the Huffington Post back in December that he disagreed somewhat with the transition team's decision to restrict lobbyists from working on their areas of focus. He'd rather have the experts on staff.

"I understand not having a lobbyist for the NRA working for Obama," the went. "But I want someone who has spent their careers lobbying for stronger gun control laws formulating gun policy in the next White House."

For good government groups, this is a faulty hypothetical. The administration not only needed to make a clean break from special interests, they argue, but can easily fill its ranks with qualified individuals from outside the beltway.

"I think that stance assumes that lobbyists are the only free thinkers and knowledgeable thinkers in Washington that can help the government run better," said Scott Amey of the non-partisan public interest group, the Project On Government Oversight. "The ethics pledge that President Obama put out yesterday was only limiting lobbyists. And the one thing you have to remember is that lobbyists are representing clients that have financial interests at stake ... The Obama team has the waiver provision in there. If it determines that it is in the public interest, a lobbyist can still come and work for the administration. And there are certain times when those waivers may be more appropriate and reasonable than other cases."

POGO, in the end, did not think that such an exception should apply to Lynn, who has become the current face of Obama hypocrisy for the Republican National Committee.

Other watchdogs agreed.

"It appears to be a black-and-white case. I am unaware of what makes it so gray in the mind of President Obama," a former congressional budget staffer now with the Center for Defense Information told ABC News. "It certainly does not bode well for his effectiveness in the job," added Lawrence Korb, a military expert with the Center for American Progress.

But Gibbs justified the move in during Thursday's presser, making sure to reaffirm that the President is, at this point, setting a gold standard for White House ethics policy.

"We have experts who have studied the issue of transparency and ethics who have applauded the steps that the president took yesterday," he said, during his first press briefing. "That exceeds what any administration has previously done in this country. That's what the president pledged during the campaign and that is exactly what he did yesterday in signing these executive orders."

"Any standard is not perfect," he added. "A waiver process that allows people to serve their country is necessary."

Goodbye Señor Bush, Hello Ambiguous Future

As an eleven year old, I wasn't much into politics. I had a faint grasp that Clinton got into trouble over something with a lady (not his wife), that we had bombed someplace far away (which my family watched on the news... in night vision), and that Bush beat Gore after some confusion in Florida. Yes, George W. Bush claimed the presidency before I became politically aware; and for millions of young Americans like myself, this is truly significant.

Tomorrow we say goodbye to the man who played a crucial role in shaping the views of so many in this country. After 9/11, I remember the leadership the President showed... I remember how much support he had. Bush was confident and on message-- he assumed the role of valiant leader during a time when so many were confused and afraid... including myself.

W. told me to stand with the country. He assured me that this great nation would prevail and defeat evil. I believed and defended him for many years. But George Bush did not teach me how to be a patriot-- he did not teach me the inspirational power of our ideals. Instead, he showed me that in times of terror, we must fear and act with that fear in our hearts. No, Bush will never be known as the man who reassured us, once again, that "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror..."

George Bush, along with nearly every member of the Congress, taught me that the United States could do whatever it wanted. That our government is free to spy on Americans. To torture. I was duped, and became cynical. Bush's words brought American arrogance to center stage, and his blunt style made this country a laughing-stock. He is an embarrassment to liberty and to the Republic... forever a stain on the American tale.

But in this final night of his presidency, perhaps it is time to put a hold on the character assassination; perhaps a moment of self-reflection is in order. Let's start with a question: Who is truly responsible for the last 8 years? The blame-game is fun, but not so much in a democracy-- for in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.

It was ultimately American apathy, disillusionment, and ignorance that brought us Bush. Our inability to understand clear threats to the democratic fabric, and unwillingness to demand the best possible representatives has put us in a truly unfortunate position--one where the very essence of our ideals are slipping away.

But perhaps we are beginning to wake up... Obama did win an astonishing victory. He seems too good to be true, and maybe there is more truth to this statement than people would like to admit. Americans have, at the very least, denounced the ways of the Bush Administration, which is a start. But the complicit Democrats have escaped the wrath of voters, and will one day have to be reckoned with.

It is clear that Americans are ready for a new day, and tomorrow the next chapter of our story begins. The new President must help lead us out of the darkness that we have brought upon ourselves, but as he has said time and time again: this movement is about what we can do ourselves. President Bush is no more responsible for the economic crisis than a weatherman is for the weather, and a President Obama will not be able to fix the world. We must demand receptive and honest lawmakers. We must fight for reform and for our vital causes. We must rethink what place corporate America has in government, and what place America has in this world. And, indeed, we must develop the tools of the Internet so that we may enter an age of unprecedented civilian involvement in government.

President-elect Obama has taken serious strides, but America must be wary. Simply electing new people will not be enough. The restoration of responsible citizenship is the only way for us to survive.

With optimism and resolve.