As I see it

This past Friday, my wife and I had tickets to the SF Giants game. While standing for the national anthem and listening to the words I mentally dwelled upon the words "land of the free." Sometimes a nations anthem can tell you something about the country it represents, more precisely, the people of that country. Amidst the "bombs bursting in air" and "the amber waves of grain" the words "land of the free" really are the most important. It is this freedom which makes this country, at least in theory, so tremendous. I say in theory because, that is what this nation is founded upon, a working theory. The founding fathers showed the insights and the humility to admit that they didn't know everything and that no matter how hard they tried they could not accurately predict future events so they sought to provide the framework or parameters that a country should operate within. Now, throughout this nations history, which is still adolescent by most standards, certain people and events have pushed the outer edges of those parameters; McCarthyism, Segregation, any hate group which justifies their actions as being patriotic, the current Administration, etc.. Part of me likes to think that these people/groups, at least on some level, are just acting out their vision of what this country could or should be. And some wheels in those various machines may even see it this way. However, no matter how hard I try I cannot stick to this naivete and I realize that people are usually acting out of basic instincts. Usually fear and greed. For McCarthy, it was the demonized "communism" for their raison d'etre. For this current administration, it is Al Queda and now the ever broad "acts of terrorism." Unfortunately, terrorism, especially in some of the parameters that fits this usage nowadays, can mean a broad range of things. The fact that an underage kid using a fake I.D. to get into a nightclub can be arrested tried under the Patriot act as a potential terrorist is just one example of how a pursuit could be taken astray of it's initial purpose. Fortunately, on the street as it were, I have yet to hear of too many Orwellian interpretations of the current "war on terrorism" laws. (Except of course of all the Guantanamo Bay detainees. Let us remember that none of these people have actually been charged with a crime, hence the term detainees.) But since when does the news actually deliver...News? At current, this war on terrorism is one prong of a defense against people who wish to harm innocent people, this I have no problem with. Let us hope that that is where this war stays. How far away are we from hearing about incidents which are nothing but slightly different interpretations of these laws? How far are we from thought crimes?

With some of the wording in the Patriot Act and other pieces of legislation that are in various states of becoming laws, not as far as I would like. How unfortunately ironic would it be if we lost our "land of the free" in the very pursuit of trying to protect it. And shame on those who use fear and greed as the tools to do so.

Plame's Identity Marked As Secret

I am currently reading the book written by Plame's husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson "The Politics of Truth", about this whole ordeal. In short, the Bush administration outed Ambassador Wilson's wife because he would not endorse falsified documents stating that Niger was selling nuclear materials too Iraq.

Enjoy the article.
BB

Memo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst
By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 21, 2005; Page A01

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

What Africa Really Needs

Robert B. Reich
July 08, 2005



Robert B. Reich is the Maurice B. Hexter Professor of Social and Economic Policy at Brandeis University, and was the secretary of labor under former President Bill Clinton.

The average income per person in Africa is 11 percent lower today than it was 40 years ago.

That’s the bad news. Here’s the good: Ministers from the world’s eight richest nations agreed last month to write off $40 billion in debt owed by 18 of the world’s poorest nations, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa. African countries now spend up to 40 percent of their budgets on debt repayments, more than they spend on health or education. So debt relief will make a big difference.

And this week, the heads of the G8 nations getting together in Gleneagles, Scotland, hope to forge an agreement to double foreign aid to Africa to an eventual $25 billion a year.

But neither debt relief nor direct aid will give Africa and other poor nations what they really need to rise steadily out of poverty. They need to export what th

Rhetoric vs. Reality in London

I couldn't have said it better.
click on title for full article
enjoy
BB


By Sheldon Rampton, PR Watch
Rhetoric vs. Reality in London
I’ve had the pleasure of visiting London on several occasions. I’ve ridden the subways and walked the streets where Thursday’s awful terrorist attacks occurred. I have nothing but sympathy for the innocent people who were slaughtered, and nothing but contempt for the perpetrators of these crimes. According to pro-war bloggers like Jeff Jarvis, however, people like me belong to the “bomb-us-please crowd.”
This sort of dishonest rhetoric, sprinkled with name-calling, seems to be the best response that supporters of the war have been able to muster in response to George Galloway, a British member of parliament and prominent anti-war voice. Following the attacks, Galloway issued a statement in which he expressed condolences to the victims before pointing out that he had predicted previously “that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain.” Galloway called on his own government “to remove people in this country from harms way, as the Spanish government acted to remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq and by turning its full attention to the development of a real solution to the wider conflicts in the Middle East.”

WHEN THEY SAY "AID", THEY MEAN "RAID

[Col. Writ. 6/13/05] Copyright 2005 Mumia Abu-Jamal

Recently, the news columns were full of a supposed dispute between the Americans and the British about foreign aid relief to Africa. If the news reports are to be believed, the British wish to push the Americans further, to provide more debt relief for countries staggering under their economic burdens.
The media image that arises is one of the rich, Western, White nations caring about the lives and conditions of starving Black Africa. And like many media images, it simply isn't true.
What is often lost in this angelic imagery is the truth behind the so-called aid. That 'aid' that was given years ago, was given to military dictatorships, and it was often military aid meant to strengthen dictatorships, against, not foreign attacks, but popular resistance, from their own people!
Indeed, in a 1960 meeting of the U.S. National Security Council, American spies and diplomats spoke rather openly about U.S. support for military regimes. The minutes of the meeting record them saying:
We must recognize, although we cannot say it publicly, that we need the strong men of Africa on our side. It is important to understand that most of Africa will soon be independent and that it would be naive of the U.S. to hope that Africa will be democratic ... Since we must have the strong men of Africa on our side, perhaps we should in some cases develop military strong men as an offset to Communist development of the labor unions. The President agreed that it might be desirable for us to try to 'reach' the strong men of Africa ... [Fr. NSA mtg., 1/14/60 as published in *Foreign Relations, 1958-1960, Vol. XIV*, pp. 73-78.]
From meetings such as this, came US 'aid' to such dictators as Zaire's late Mobutu,

Conspiracy theory for the day

But first:
Our hearts are with the people of London and may our peace and resolve only grow stronger in the face of those who wish to dismantle same.


Now,
If I wanted to gain support for war that was unpopular, in a place that was increasingly against the war, how would I do it?

Here is what doesn't make sense:
As of this morning the death toll was roughly 50 people dead in yesterdays attacks (again our hearts go out to our British neighbors).
Three blasts in the London transportation system on a weekday morning, thankfully not but, I'm surprised that more people weren't hurt. These fatality numbers could have been much worse. I've been on the Underground, having less than fifty people around is the exception not the norm. Blowing up one tube train could kill hundreds. To have three blasts in this city of millions and only have 50 dead maybe takes more planning than we think.

Increasing pressure is being exhibited on Tony Blair from his constituents on Britain's involvement in the war on Terrorism.
Support for Bushs' war is waning in England and without England the U.S. losses all credibilty on this crusade.
(Also, Tony Blair was addressing global warming at the G8 conference that is going on in Scotland. Another sore subject for Bush and what better way to excuse him from the meetings?)
What better way to gain constituent support than "an attack" in Londons' metro system? And, what better time to do it than during the G8 conference. (And that will teach hime to talk about Global warming)

Who is "the secret society of Al Queda in Europe"? Haven't they always been known as just Al Queda?

Now I don't like thinking that my government would kill for a cause, but than I know better.

Justice O'Connor's resignation letter

Kiss your liberties good bye as King George starts nominating.

Gay activists hail "historic" approval of marriage bill

In SPAIN of all places Gay marraige has been legalized. Can you get more Catholic than Spain....;oh, I guess you can, Italy. But not much more. Just goes to show you how far the United States is in the Dark Ages thought-wise.
I always think it is interesting that most of the people who are against gay rights don't know any gays. Sad isn't it that there are people who can spend so much time and energy trying to legislate and control people they don't even know.

Enjoy the article.
BB