"I don't think the report is true, but these crises work for those who want to make fights between people." Kulam Dastagir, 28, a bird seller in Afghanistan
The Big Picture | Friday Night Jazz: Favorite Holiday CDs
Topic: Music
8:39 am EST, Dec 4, 2007
Its that time of year: It started around Halloween, and by now I am already tired of walking into stores and getting assaulted with endless repetitions of really bad, really corny Xmas music we've all heard far too many times to enjoy any longer. (I say, F&%k Rudolph!)
Here's a way to get into the holiday musical spirit without having to endure the usual annoying cloying tunes. This is one holiday-themed list that won't make you ill.
Our family owns three of these and we have prefered them to the usual holiday crap for many years.
OPENING ARGUMENT: Ending Bush's War On Due Process (12/03/2007)
Topic: War on Terrorism
3:19 pm EST, Dec 3, 2007
There is a significant WOT Supreme Court hearing coming up.
Boumediene is an Algerian-born citizen of Bosnia with a Bosnian wife. He and five others were seized by police there in violation of Bosnian law on January 17, 2002, and handed over to the U.S. military. The six had previously been arrested on charges of plotting to bomb the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo, but Bosnia's Supreme Court had ordered them released for lack of evidence just hours before their abduction.
The government has provided no evidence to the public, to any court, or to Boumediene that he has ever supported terrorism in any way. It has not allowed his volunteer lawyers to see the classified evidence against him, to call witnesses in his defense, or to appear at the cursory military hearing in which a three-officer, judge-free "combatant status review tribunal" -- which was free to consider evidence obtained by torture -- found him to be an enemy combatant. And the administration claims that it can hold Boumediene for as long as it wants no matter what the outcome of the cursory review of the tribunal decision by a federal Appeals Court in Washington provided for by a 2006 law.
Stefanie wrote: Then again, I typically disagree with the Libertarian Party candidates on a couple of key issues, too. Point is, I wouldn't dismiss any candidate just for being imperfect.
I'm starting to get very critical of Paul. The language he uses is attractive to a lot of my friends and I don't think they should be supporting him. I think that they want to beleive that there is this person who is principled and beleives in individual freedom, but I don't think he actually shares the values that many of his supporters have.
He doesn't beleive the things that his supporters say he beleives.
People say that he is not anti-immigration, he is only against illegal immigration, but he has sponsored bills in the house this year that are targetted at legal immigrants and create substantial financial barriers for them.
He says he beleives in individual freedom, but his positions support the absolute power of state and local governments to impinge on Constitutionally protected rights.
In reality he is not a libertarian, he is a paleo-conservative. He wants to undo the financial structures created in response to the great depression, he wants to undo the international relationships that were created in response to the first and second world wars, and he wants to undo the civil liberties advances that were the product of the civil war. He wants to go back to the way things were in the 1830's wholesale, completely ignoring any and all hard lessons that we've learned along the way, and resurrecting numerous extremely evil systems in the process.
This is not just "imperfect" and I'm tired of hearing from apologists that we won't have the power to implement his entire agenda. His campaign is dangerous.
By completely ignoring the historical role of racism in American society, and the diminished but not insubstantial role racism by whites continues to play in our society, and focusing criticism only on advocates of "diversity," (even, apparently, when they advocate only voluntary, non-governmental action to achieve diversity), the Paul campaign is appealing to the Pat Buchanan (and beyond) wing of the "Old Right", while trying to preserve some plausible deniability on race to its more tolerant libertarian constituency.
That's not to say that personally Paul isn't really against racism; in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume that he is. Rather, the point is that his campaign seems to be taking the same unfortunate position that Goldwater did in 1964; condemning racism in general on principled libertarian grounds, but providing winks and nods that support from racists for racist reasons would be welcome.
Why is it in 2007 we have a serious presidential candidate using weasel words around the subject of racism, words that any "red blooded" member of the KKK or the neo-nazi movement would gladly stand behind? This isn't some offhand statement from 15 years ago. The essay on racism discussed here is featured prominently on his campaign website under "issues."
Is someone who can't manage to tell the KKK to go fuck themselves really presidential material? Is someone who can't manage to tell the KKK to go fuck themselves a defender of freedom?
Please do not give money to Ron Paul! He is an enemy of freedom!
Topic: Politics and Law
5:52 pm EST, Nov 30, 2007
Videos like the one linked here could not possibly be more dishonest. For a guy who claims to stand on principals one could not imagine a more deceitful campaign positioning. For a guy who claims to support freedom his actual legal positioning is more authoritarian than any candidate running! This is obviously an emotional appeal and you should not fall for it. Ron Paul does not stand for anything remotely resembling the freedom that you know. He is not a Libertarian!
In an essay the man called the incorporation doctrine "phony" and "dreamed up by activist judges to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution." Now I know that most of you don't understand what the incorporation doctrine is. Ron Paul knows that you don't understand, and he likes it that way.
The incorporation doctrine is the notion that things like the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and the Fourth Amendment right to be secure from search and seizure are individual rights that you personally possess and that no government, local, state, or federal, can take them away from you. It is a product of the Civil War, and the 14th Amendment, prior to which the Bill of Rights merely constrained the federal government, NOT THE STATES, and it was legal to own slaves and states like South Carolina refused Catholics the right to hold public office!
When Ron Paul calls the incorporation doctrine phony he stands opposed to 150 years of American jurisprudence, he stands opposed to the clear intent of the legal changes made in the wake of the Civil War, and he stands opposed to MY individual RIGHT to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom from unreasonable searches, as well as all of the other freedoms that have come to define what America means. He is not a defender of freedom. He is a defender of absolute power for state and local governments to violate the most fundamental tenets of our society. He is clearly an enemy of freedom. And so he is an enemy of mine, for this, and many other reasons. And worse he and his supporters are LIARS because they do not actually advocate the things that they claim they advocate. Do not fall into this man's twisted spell.
Alberto Santos-Dumont - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Topic: Technology
9:30 am EST, Nov 30, 2007
Between 1898 and 1905, he built and flew 11 dirigibles. With air traffic control restrictions still decades in the future, he would glide along Paris boulevards at rooftop level in one of his airships, commonly landing in front of a fashionable outdoor cafe for lunch. On one occasion he even flew an airship early one morning to his own apartment at No. 9, Rue Washington, just off Avenue des Champs-Elysees, not far from the Arc de Triomphe.
dennis4president.com - The Truth About Oil and Iraq
Topic: War on Terrorism
2:09 pm EST, Nov 29, 2007
"The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known and as of yet undiscovered oil fields open to foreign control.
"The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers, or share new technologies. They could even ride out Iraq's current 'instability' by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi Government is at its weakest, and then wait at least 2 years before even setting foot in the country. The vast majority of Iraq's oil would then be left underground for at least 2 years rather than being used for the country's economic development.
"The international oil companies could also be offered some of the most corporate-friendly contracts in the world, including what are called production-sharing agreements. These agreements are the oil industry's preferred model but are roundly rejected by all the top oil-producing countries in the Middle East because they grant long-term contracts, 20 to 35 years in the case of Iraq's draft law, and greater control, ownership, and profits to the companies than other models. In fact," this kind of contract is "used for only approximately 12 percent of the world's oil.
What if the left wing conspiracy theories about a war for oil turned out to be right? I mean, if you aren't paying attention, than whats to stop the oil companies from extracting the stuff from Iraq and unloading it on the international market without paying a lick of taxes to the Iraqi government and keeping all of the profits for themselves? Their honor?
I'm not completely sure, but it sounds like there might be something to this story.
What if the reason that we aren't seeing "political progress" to go along with the security progress is that the benchmark for "political progress" involves their agreement to hand over their natural resources to us, and they don't want to.
noteworthy wrote: With every passing day, Johnathan Rapley's conception of the New Middle Ages seems increasingly likely.
I don't follow how this comment relates to the context. Most of the news out of Iraq seems positive. Of course its complicated and fragile, but clearly this is progress. Worrying that too many refugees might return is a good problem to have.
I also don't understand George Packer's comment that these developments were "unanticipated by almost everyone on the American side of the looking glass." These are precisely the kinds of changes that were hoped for as a result of the surge.
I further don't understand why the Democrats are still calling for immediate withdrawl. Putting more troops in (in a calculated way) reduced the violence. As I've said before I think this is exactly what Kerry planned to do. The tactics change was clearly a product of the Democrat's electoral victory in 2006. The fact that there is a chance for peace should not vindicate the decision to launch this extremely bloody conflict in any way. All in all, this should be seen as a political ad tactical victory for the center left. Unfortunately, the left seems to have married itself too closely to over simplified prowar vs. antiwar rhetoric. The fact is that the situation is fragile and calls for immediate withdrawl are not rooted in a careful assessment of the situation.
There is a big problem though. Kucinich has been raising some interesting questions about the privatization of Iraq's oil. I don't have a good linkable reference, but I'll post one when I find it. He might actually have a point, but no one is listening, and unfortunately a discussion of what people are doing with oil also fits too easily into over simplified rhetoric and so the issue has a good chance of staying ignored.
