Hobbesian Hurricane: Katrina and Man’s Nature

“It is a war zone” (AP)

“This is our tsunami” (Mississippi citizen)

“It looks like a third world country” (Reuters)

“Total devastation” (Democracy Now)

"It's devastating. It's got to be doubly devastating on the ground” (CNN - Bush)

Katrina has brought the Gulf Coast back to a pure state of nature. No power, no ice, no clean water, no food, no shelter, no security and no law. Looting began before the winds subsided. Law enforcement officers were also seen stealing property and contributing to the mayhem. Thus, Thomas Hobbes was correct in his vision of a lawless world, where every man is out for himself and life becomes, “nasty, brutish and short.”

I have family and friends in the region. My grandfather’s home is gone. My cousin’s home is gone. My aunt’s home is gone. I am joyful that they are not among the dead or injured. Yet, this catastrophe brings out the best and the worse in people. Many have flocked to the Gulf Coast to help. However, many have moved in for a quick dollar; don’t think that all help in this situation is altruist. In the next few days you will hear of scams and frauds from all walks of life coming to the “aid” of people in need, only to bamboozle them into revealing social security numbers, bank accounts, and personal finance records. The lawlessness of the region breeds this type of “hurricane scam”.

In the months to come it will be evident that survival of the fittest will reign. Lines will be long, hospitals will be turning away the needed, food will be in short supply, petrochemical laced water will find its way into every corner and the helpless will need more than prayers. Moreover, this quite possibly may be the closet Americans get to understanding the plight of billions around the world. (1 in 5 Americans own a passport – See Reid The United States of Europe) Disease, destruction, and malnutrition are the cornerstones of many societies around the world and Katrina has brought this reality to America. The US and more specifically the Gulf Coast will overcome this cataclysmic event, however I wonder if the memory of Katrina will open our eyes to the disasters around the world as well.

Sunni Marginalization

The Shi'ite and Kurdish-led government will move forward with an incomplete constitution and further marginalize the Sunni minority. This comes as Sunni’s themselves are in-fighting. The result will be guerrilla war for much of the next decade. This guerrilla war will not be labeled a civil war by our corporate media, for civil war carries with it nasty connotations. Such as: oil price increases, terrorist infiltration, increase poverty, genocide, and war-lordism, additionally the impact of “Bushcratization” of the region will be lost.

Thus Iraq is in a state of pure flux. A bogus constitution will go to referendum and the Shi’ite/Kurd communities will vote, but this will leave out the most disfranchised portions of society; consequently, forging a deadly alliance between foreign extremists and Sunni radicals. Our military presence in the region will only grow. Changing from a war of liberation(?) to a conflict, or maybe we can call it a police action.

African Lip Service: Part II

Man I hate being right, unfortunately it seems to always be about mistaken effects. To recap, I have already illustrated that African Aid was and currently is a farce. (See African Lip Service) These were great promises, of monetary aid and support, from our leaders in the West (on both sides of the Atlantic) and the eventual disappearance, of this opaque aid, when the boom microphones were turned off. After which I received comments (see Evenhanded) alluding to the nature of Africa (are they naturally inclined to be corrupt?) and the constant corruption of African leaders (why throw good money after bad?).

It seems that aid has been promised, given and delivered; to the most needy in Africa: US workers. I know it is difficult to get a 10 ounce Kobe filet in sub-Sahara Africa but tough times call for corrupt measures.

As the Guardian of London reveals, “Two charities, ActionAid and the World Development Movement, accused the Department for International Development (DfID) of paying out "phantom aid" to the poor, after it was revealed that more than £700,000 of a £3m project was spent on hotel bills and meals for US workers. According to an investigation by BBC Radio Five Live, DfID donated £3m to Malawi relief projects. Of that cash, £586,423 was spent on hotels for a US consultancy agency, the National Democratic Institute. Another £126,062 was allegedly spent on meals.”

Now I know what your saying, “700, 000 pounds that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the vast underhanded corruption of dictators like Robert Mugabe, Teodoro Obiang Nguema, and Isaias Afwerki just to name a few.” However, we are trying to set an example. We are, like it or not, an example of how to be just and without exception, follow the rule of law. That is the onus set upon us when we “promise aid”. These corruption charges, each party is innocence until proven guilty, add fuel to the despotic fire of Africa. Moreover, these charges raise real concerns about the oversight and functionality of such “aid”.

Sunday Muse V

Sunday Muse for the week that was:

I will tear down the winter house

Along with the summer house:

The houses adorned with ivory will be destroyed

And the mansions will be demolished

Declares the LORD

Amos 3:15

Fireworks in September: Bolton and the UN

Preemption, hardliners, neoconservatives, realists and the occasional liberal interventionalist will all flock to the UN in three weeks. The Security Council and General Assembly will be decked out in full smiles and hands shakes. Custodians will be shining brass name plates with obscure names such as: Eritrea, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Seychelles, and Tuvalu. However, the real show will be between our self appointed UN ambassador and a consensus document which was in place before he cursed out his first subordinate in the State Department.

In fact, “The amendments begin ominously on page one of the 40-page document where, among a list of core values such as freedom, equality and the rule of law, the US - in a none-too-subtle snipe at the Kyoto protocols - wants to delete "respect for nature". The amendments continue in a similar vein over the remaining pages, weakening references to the millennium development goals (agreed by 191 members of the UN five years ago as a strategy to combat poverty), deleting a statement that force should be a "last resort" when dealing with security threats, and so on.”

The bout has been set. Bolton vs. 191 countries. Can he bitch slap all of them into submission? It will take some time and effort, two things Bolton has shown to be lacking. Moreover, the roar from Neoconservatives will be fierce, in fact, Bolton is bound to fail and in doing so the NEOCON can place the onus of diplomatic failure on the cumbersome and outdated UN. Consequently, this is a domestic political move which will echo off the walls in Congress and reverberate throughout the country. New billboards of “Get US out of the UN” will crop up and people will ask themselves, “What in the hell is a UN?”

It is important to note that the UN was spearheaded by the US, in all actuality it was our brainchild. It is also important to note that the UN is a massive bureaucracy and a slow moving mechanism. That is one of its objectives: diplomacy and rational debate. The importance of the UN was to become a body of deliberation and consultation. Contrary to popular belief, it is not a covert operation with clandestine actions. For when it tries to become one it is uncovered and people either are prosecuted or resign, just ask Benon Sevan. That is the beauty of the organization, with so many countries and competing interests it is almost impossible to get away with lies, out-right fabrication, misleading information, doctored documents and the outright manipulation of intelligence. Well, I did say ALMOST impossible. However, with Bolton at the helm the US has decided to end the diplomatic dance which is so necessary in this world, and go with preemption; which as we have seen throughout the Middle East, has a proven track record.

Capitalism and Inequality, you can’t have one without the other.

The notion of equality is ballyhooed in many circles. There is the natural equality of man. There is equality under the law. However, do not be confused about economic equality. In a free-market system, equality is the starting point not an end (disregard prior-determinates). It is important to view free-market capitalism without Social-colored glasses. The basic premise is inequality. The maxim is scarcity. Economics 101 gives us this premise. Consequently, countries try to expand the base of goods by employing the labor and /or natural resources of other countries. This can be done in numerous ways: war, theft, treaties, liberal economic strategies and the ephemeral globalization we see today.

Globalization is an immense topic for academics and politicians alike. Everyone from Joseph E. Stiglitz to Jagdish Bhagwati reveal the demons and angels of this global network of trade, commerce, ethnic strife and governmental upheaval. I concur with F.A. Hayek, where capitalism and free markets grant indivduals the most choices within the constraints of any economic system. He also reveals that regulations many be needed. In other words, the invisible hand must be occasionally washed .

We have, in our infinite primate wisdom, chosen this ruthlessly competitive economic structure. I will even go as far to say that it is the only economic system which best suits our animalistic nature. Our Hobbesian- reptilian brain is more at ease in an economic market of ‘dog-eat-dog’. The competition of a free market is natural, even though paradoxically unequal. Thus, when the UN establishes that, "Ignoring inequality in the pursuit of development is perilous," …"Focusing exclusively on economic growth and income generation as a development strategy is ineffective, as it leads to the accumulation of wealth by a few and deepens the poverty of many." This is the creature we have created. You can’t have one without the other.

In juxtaposition, socialism cripples choice and renders opportunities empty. Communism crushes innovation and debilitates free thinking. Anarchy will thrust us into an abyss of violence, fear and perpetual war. Free-market systems are not prefect and it will never create a utopia, however it avails the most opportunity for change. Globalization is just a precursor to a much deeper and more expansive free-market structure. What is needed in this time of economic re-birth (within the developing world) is real commitment to free-market structures, from developed as well as developing countries.

In other words, some countries do not need to privatize their entire water, oil or natural resources to be seen as partners in the market system. Slow and gradual change will help stem the tide of ethnic upheaval and strengthen the bonds of governmental legitimacy between the people and the elected. So when, “the United States recently introduce(s) more than 750 amendments that would eliminate new pledges of foreign aid to poor countries, instead focusing on issues such as terrorism and security.” This sends a mixed message, and after a mixed message is received most countries will fall back into old grooves of market manipulation and systematic underdevelopment. The US government is the most important player in the international scene for free-market development. Thus, it will take more than Shell or Exxon Mobil to facilitate free-markets. Governments can help with free-markets; business will only help with monopolies, for you can’t have one without the other.

Islamcracy: a misnomer?

Draft of Islamic Constitution:

Article (2): 1^st – Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

What are the rules of Islam and what are the principles of democracy? Can these two theological/political philosophies truly coexist? Is secularism doomed to be placed on a Liberal pyre?

Let’s take an empirical approach to this situation. List below are a few quotes from the Koran. Granted that this is a small selection, the point is still clear; these “rules” would need to be unquestionably followed. For as the constitution states, these are “undisputed” and therefore complete and perfect:

• “The unbelievers are like beasts which, call out to them as one may, can hear nothing but a shout and a cry. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they understand nothing.” (2:176)

• “Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. ... (I)f they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evildoers” (2:190-93)

• “Those to whom We (God) have given the Book, and who read it as it ought to read, truly believe in it; those that deny it shall assuredly be lost” (2:122)

• “(We) shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate” (2:216)

• “Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell- an evil resting place!” (3:12)

This is a short repository of quotes. (There are many more in the same vain) Most of the above “undisputed law” is quite unrelenting. This approach to government is one of absolutes. All or nothing and judgment is passed from imams or mullahs, not legislators or judges. Take any scenario of public or private crime. The punishment must come from the Koran, for it is undisputed, it can not be wrong, it is perfect in everyway.

In fact, it can not be erroneous to any degree. For, if it was to become fallible then Islam itself would end. In this circumstance, religion becomes the ultimate doublethink and would create a schism within the minds of the people. This breach would grow and eventually collapse upon itself. In effect, the merger of Islam and democracy, as one in the same, will lead to the end of one and the blossoming of the other. Unfortunately, democracy is lead by the people. Thus in this situation these individuals reflect a dogmatic and blinding faith to Islam, which will be the ruin of democracy, federalism, and Liberal freedom.

Can they make my Sandal into a Jack Boot?

Yes, they can!! Straight from the 700 Club come J.J. Boots. (Jesus Jack Boots) Colors range from red, white or blue and your choice of over 100 passages from Leviticus or Deuteronomy embroidered on the straps. (Straps can be loosened for corporal mortification) On the soles of your J.J. Boots you get holy-tread with an artistic interpretation of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez holding a Koran. Supplies are limited and selection depends on your born again status (50% off - if you are holding public office- we will cross-reference your name with our national database and expansive voting counter). The J.J. Boots are stylish and well constructed (made in China), additionally all petroleum products, which were used in the construction, come from Lake Maracaibo. If you act now the first 500 lucky souls will have their J.J. Boots signed by Tony Perkins himself!!*

*If you are secularist, humanist, atheist, Muslim, Mormon, Catholic, Jew, free-thinker or if you read books over 100 pages a fee is applied to all orders (additional 200%) and correct sizes can not be guaranteed. Please send all monies to the care of the 700 club. Remember only you; marching in lock step with your J.J. Boots can prevent communist infiltration.

Book Review: Presidential Power by Richard Neustadt

“My theme is personal power and its politics: what it is, how to get it, how to keep it, how to use it.” (1) This personal power is presidential power. As many have said in the past, the President is the most powerful man in the free world. When stated in this manner it gives the impression of awe and might. However, Richard Neustadt reveals that this power is subtle at times and difficult to cultivate. Presidential Power is a reflection of a practitioner in the White House. Richard Neustadt worked in the White House during FDR’s and Truman’s presidency. He had first hand knowledge of presidential action in and outside of Washington. This intimate view explores, “the power problem of the man inside the White House.” (2) His approach is one of personal reflection and observation. However, his understanding of power in the highest office of the land is unparalleled.

The essence of presidential power is “the president’s influence on governmental action.” (3) Can the president get what he wants when he wants it? Moreover, can the President move the men of the White House to act and perform to his liking? According to Neustadt, his influence must reach five constituents: Executive officialdom, Congress, Partisans, Citizens, and Foreign allegiances. It is up to the President to see that they (constituents) do feel obligated to do what he wants done. This is where his influence, knowledge, status, prestige, and his ability to persuade and manipulate the system determines whether what he wants done will in fact be done.

Influence and persuasion go hand in hand, however action consists of five common factors, defined by Neustadt. First, the President’s involvement must be clear. Second, the orders he gives must be publicized. Third, the men whom are ordered to act must have the tools and equipment at their disposal to carry out the order. Fourth, there can be no doubt about the authenticity of the order. Lastly, the orders must be from the President’s own mouth, not through bureaucratic channels or other high-ranking officials. These actions are defined as “self-executing orders (and) are anything but everyday affairs.” (4)

Self-executing actions are rare. Direct command actions are more rare, save for a military strike. More commonly the President must have a keen ability to persuade ‘Washingtonians’ to his way of doing things. As Neustadt explains, “Truman is quite right when he declares that presidential power is the power to persuade. Command is but a method of persuasion, not a substitute, and not a method suitable for everyday employment.” (5) Everyday employment is directed through institutional channels. Power is not solely placed at the feet of the President; it permeates throughout the government. In essence, Washington is sharing power through institutions. Neustadt reveals, “the constitutional convention of 1787 is supposed to have created a government of ‘separated powers.’ It did nothing of the sort. Rather, it created a government of separated institutions sharing powers.” (6)

Consequently, the President will have many different barriers and obstacles to overcome, within Washington. His place in the oval office becomes a hindrance, because of the institutional framework of the government, and ironically a blessing because of these institutional mechanisms. This situation ultimately reveals true leadership, influence, and persuasion skills of a President. In fact, as a result of these constraints, effective persuasion translates into bargaining. Neustadt states that, “power is persuasion and persuasion becomes bargaining.” (7) In other words, an effective President can not rely on command and control strategy for governmental action. An effective President will have the tools of persuasion, which will create many opportunities for bargaining. Bargaining does not mean submissive and superior agendas, bargaining means convincing others that his agenda takes precedence over others. As Neustadt communicates, “ a president’s persuasive task … is to induce them to believe that what he wants of them is what their own appraisal of their own responsibilities requires them to do in their interest, not his.” (8) Not only does the president need to move his agenda, he must convince others his agenda is theirs. This is not an easy task, however “most outcomes turn on bargaining.” (9)

Likewise, bargaining is also an effectiveness gauge placed upon the president. For, “the men he (the president) would persuade must be convinced in their own minds that he has skill and will enough to use his advantages.” (10) This becomes a function of time. Men working with the president will see over time whether he will ‘follow through’ with his actions. If the President is true to his word then bargaining will be more lucrative. As a result, the President will appear strong and his perception as a leader will be enhanced. This perception, derived from bargaining outcomes, will translate into power. Conversely, “if his failures seem to form a pattern, the consequence is bound to be a loss of faith in his effectiveness.” (11)

Furthermore, this perception will enhance his public prestige. When outcomes are made public his influence will grow, thus the public will be more likely to support his policies and initiatives. In this situation the President’s power increases, however if outcomes are lacking then prestige will decrease. In effect, prestige is a function of outcomes. The difficulty with public prestige, nonetheless is the fact that, “Presidential standing outside Washington is actually a jumble of imprecise impressions held by relatively inattentive men.” (12) As a result, “a President’s prestige is thus … a factor that may not decide the outcome in a given case but can affect the likelihoods in every case and therefore is strategically important to his power.” (13)

In conclusion, the President must work within institutional structures developed to share powers. He must be motivated, skilled and above all else a master of the persuasive art. If all factors are in line then he can produce outcomes through bargaining, thus transforming it into power.

1. Neustadt, Richard E. Presidential Power. New York: The New American Library, 1960. p. vii. (All additional footnotes will refer to this text)
2. Ibid
3. p. 15
4. p. 37
5. p. 41
6. p. 42
7. p. 46-47
8. p. 53
9. p. 54
10. p. 64
11. p. 67
12. p. 89
13. p. 93-94

A Look at Power, from Federalist 66-77 and Cato V*

The central theme of this set of papers is power. Particularly presidential power and the checks granted through institutional mechanisms. Federalist 67 reveals the power of appointments and the filling of vacancies in the Senate. Hamilton is quick to point out that these appointments will be temporary. Federalist 68 addresses the electors and the election of the president and reveals, “the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.” (413) This good administration is produced through the Electoral College. Federalist 69 refers to the character of the president. The position of ‘chief magistrate’ will include the following: 4 year term, liable to be impeached, veto power, commander and chief, pardons, legislative adjournment, treaties, receiving ambassadors and nomination of ambassadors. In this list Hamilton states that the power of the president would be equivalent to that of a governor. Federalist 70 informs us of the problem with having a feeble president. For, “the ingredients which constitute energy in the executive are unity; duration, an adequate provision for its support and competent powers.” (422) This can only occur with one person. If more than one person holds the office then vagueness and ambiguity will reign. Federalist 71 adheres to the logic of term length in office for the president. “A duration of four years will contribute to the firmness of the executive in a sufficient degree to render it a very valuable ingredient in the composition … it is not long enough to justify any alarm for the public liberty.” (433) Federalist 72 reveals the need for the president to have the right of reelection, for “to continue him in the station in order to prolong virtues and to secure to the government the advantage of permanency in a wise system of administration.” (435) If not then this will “depriv(e) the community of the advantage of the experience gained.” (437) Federalist 73 narrows the focus of power on the right of the president to use the veto stipulation in the constitution. Hamilton views this power necessary for “additional security against the enaction of improper laws.” (441) Federalist 74 centers the discussion on the president as commander and chief. This power will be tempered by “the reflection that the fate of a fellow – creature depended on his sole fiat would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution.” (446) Federalist 75 expounds the international nature of the presidential powers and focuses on treaty power. Hamilton sees “the management of foreign negotiations point out the executive as the most fit agent in those transactions.” (449) Furthermore a check in this power would be seen in the Senate. For, “the joint possession of the power in question, by the President and Senate would afford a greater prospect of security than the separate possession of it by either of them.” (451) Federalist 76 reveals the need for appointments to be vested in one man. For, “one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices than a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superiors discernment.” (454) Federalist 77 furthers the discussion of appointments and reveals the need for singular control of appoints for public accountability. So that, “the blame of a bad nomination would fall upon the President singly and absolutely.” (459)

Cato V is a decisive account, in Hobbiesan ilk, that presidential power should not be granted to one man. More importantly the powers in the constitution are, “vague and inexpert” which can lead to malcontent and down right deception by the executive. (317) Moreover this scenario could potentially, “lead to oppression and ruin.” (317) Furthering this attack is the notion of the Electoral College. Cato reveals that the people do not elect the President and this will create an immeasurable distance between the chief magistrate and the people. Finally, Cato gives a historical reflection of tyrants and states that “Americans are like other men in similar situations” referring to the notion of absolute power will corrupt absolutely. (319)

*All sited work is from the following two works:

• The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates by Ralph Ketcham (Introduction) signet classic
  

• The Federalist Papers (Paperback) by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, Clinton Rossiter, Charles R. Kesler (Editor) signet classic
  

Sunday Muse IV

And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Exodus 21: 23-25

Book Review: Congress: Keystones of Washington Establishment by Morris Fiorina

“To recount … by working to establish various federal programs (or in some cases fighting their establishment) congressmen earn electoral credit from concerned elements of their districts. Some federal agency then takes Congress’s vague policy mandate and makes the detailed decisions necessary to translate the legislation into operating programs. The implementation and operation of the programs by the agencies irritate some constituents and suggest opportunities for profit to others. These aggrieved and /or hopeful constituents then appeal to their congressman to intervene in their behalf with the bureaucratic powers that be. The system is connected when congressmen decry bureaucratic excesses and red tape while riding a grateful electorate to ever more impressive electoral showings.” (67)

Thus the key to the Washington establishment is not the bureaucracy but the Congress itself. This situation is solidified by the stable nature of the members in Congress. In other words, the “resources he possesses to invest in his reelection effort … (are) more productive political strategies than previously. And these strategies are an unforeseen … by-product of the growth of an activist federal government.” (35) This activist federal government can be translated into lawmaking, pork barreling and casework. Unfortunately, according to Fiorina, lawmaking is in the back seat when compared to pork barreling and casework. As Fiorina reveals, “pork barreling and casework … are basically pure profit.” (43) Profit which is in the form of reelection. Moreover, “the key to the rise of the Washington establishment (is) the growth of an activist federal government (which) has stimulated a change(s) in the mix of congressional activities. A lesser proportion of congressional effort is now going into programmatic activities and a greater proportion of congressional effort is now going into pork-barrel and casework activities.” (44)

This situation has arisen because of incumbent security and the ability of the incumbent to understand the pulse of his or her district. This does not occur because of redistricting, party identification, or pecks by incumbents. The key to the incumbent success is the activist federal government. This creates a cycle explained above. In conclusion, “the overreaching theme of this work is that responsiveness in that narrow sense (responsiveness to district concern only) can impede responsiveness in a larger sense (national concerns tend to take a back seat).” (134) Moreover, “the problem with Congress is that congressman conscientiously, openly, and as a matter of electoral survival assiduously (serve) the special interests of their districts. And in the absence of the coordinating forces of strong parties of presidential leadership, the general interest of the United States gets lost in the shuffle.” (129)

I'd rather be a hammer than a nail? (A Short History of Social Revolutions)

"Administrative and military breakdowns of the autocracies inaugurated social-revolutionary transformations." 112 This is a precondition for social revolution. With the sounds of the crumbling old regime in the distance and the smoke still bellowing in the air a new variable marches on the horizon, yes the mighty peasants wrapped in a shroud of party ideology and whistling to the cadence of the urban proletariat. Standing on shattered ground are the landlords and the gentry, coat of arms and ducats in hand, waiting for divine reprieve?

"They (peasants) struggled for concrete goals-typically involving access to more land, or freedom from claims on their surpluses." 112 This struggle was the beginning of the end for the landed class. The struggle was perpetuated by solidarity, autonomy and the relaxation of state controls for the peasant class. Give them in inch and they will take a mile. Specifically, the noble noose was loosened through kinship groups, community institutions, historically specific arrangements, agrarian rental systems and local government.

Examples of such historical bamboozling:

The French peasants in the late 1700's were landowners, which give them control of the land itself, developing a sense of fortitude and strength, which the peasants should never have or get away with. Moreover, the rental claims were amassing at an ever-climbing pace. Proprietorial rent payments, seigneurial dues and income taxation dug at the core of peasant life and began to fester, leaving sores of discontent and anguish. And then the blister popped. Ahh the ooze of revolution saturated with hate and displaced rage.

This ooze needed a virus to create an infection, which would bring any state structure to its knees, a disease of economic distress. Now the preverbal shit hits the fan, harvest failure, unemployment, estates general called, payment of taxes end and bread riots scream through the countryside; the echoes of 'let them eat cake' bounce off cave walls in the Rhone region to the delight of no one.

And in mother Russia life is cold, hard and full of borsch. Red faces cry in their beet soup as emancipation only brings doubt and disillusionment with the tsarist plan of reorganization and industrial manipulation. But at least they have the obshchina and temperatures in the teens during March. The peasant in the face of reinforced nobility and no real individualism (Mill is overrated anyway) begins to stand a little taller and realizes that mother Russia is the man in the mirror. For, "the overall effect of the post Emancipation measures (were) to increase the peasants collective handling of their own local political affairs and thus to render the villages more autonomous and solidarity against outsiders." 132 More power and nothing to do, a recipe for frustration and conflagration. The missing ingredient was a failed war. But wait the Japanese are willing to supply a little sugar to the revolutionary cake of mother Russia. Crushed by the island nation mother Russia was reeling in disbelief and the peasants were ripe for a massive uprising. Fortunately for the tsarist hierarchy the military was able to regroup just in time to clamp down on those bothersome peasants. But the die had been cast.



States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China
-by Theda Skocpol (citied works)

Is Party Leadership Personal or Contextual?

The central question is whether the exercise of legislative strategy depends on the leader or context of the party? The leadership literature focuses on individuals and their accomplishments. Contextual literature relies on the institution as the bearer of constraint and freedom. In other words, each approach to legislative action is polarized into two different extremes of explanation.

Leadership first grew out of party cohesiveness in the 1960s. Later this party unity was broadened in the 1990s by Republican reforms. These reforms were based in the accountability of committees to the party. These are institutional changes. These changes are further bolstered by what Cox and McCubbin’s argue as “legislative cartels.” The leadership position is seen as a “central agent” who helps broker deals between groups. Conversely, this is absent in the Senate because of the independent nature of that institutional group.

Consequently, the Senate is an example of personal leadership style. A firm example of this type of personal leadership is LBJ. Moreover, “leadership is more individualized in the Senate leaders than the House because Senate leaders lack the institutional resources available to House members.” (Cox and McCubbin’s) Even with these institutional resources Ripley (1967) argues that there are three distinct leadership patterns available for House Speakers: Collective, Figurehead, and Personal. However, looking at leadership styles and personality is “generally … idiosyncratic.” (ibid) A better explanation is through institutional and political constraints. According to Strahan (1992) these constructs on leadership are divided into three parts: Institutional, Partisan and Agenda-related.

Institutional context is the structure and guidelines for congressional behavior. This sets the stage for committee positions and demotions. Partisan context is the internal workings of each party. This can be broad or narrow, but party cohesiveness is an important part. In other words, “strong parties exist when each party’s mass base is homogenous, yet the bases of each party differ.” (ibid) Lastly, agenda-related context is also a constraint which affects leadership power. Narrowly defined, agenda are issues which the party finds solutions to and consensus about.

In conclusion, “congressional leadership is best understood as due to the interaction of personal and contextual factors, an interaction that is more evident when leaders’ personalities make them go beyond what the context permits and allow them to take advantage of the context to increase their power.” (ibid) In effect, the party is an elastic bubble. This bubble increases and decreases according to issues, majorities, and divided government but most importantly the specific leader placed inside.

As the world turns...

No offense to Cindy Sheehan, but there is relevant news occurring in the world that might be granted some thought. Unfortunately, the media circus, complete with lawn chairs, a big top and primates, has made Cindy’s crusade a story for a summer domestic news vacuum. Thus, the event is unmistakably worth universal attention and resources.

Whatever happened to the journalist zeal for the untold story? So if you are so inclined here are a few stories which are not concerned about – camps, white crosses, pick-up trucks, bias media, port-a-potties, shot guns, bike rides, bar-b-que, naps or pundits.

• Brain drain puts new strain on Iraq
• Bombs explode across Bangladesh
• Niger way of life 'under threat'
• Pakistan 'honour killing' of five
• Hope for eliminating 'latent' HIV
• North American Leaders 'Micro-Managing' Environment Deal
• 31 killed in rioting at seven jails
• Xue Muqiao
• Triple bombing kills 43 in Baghdad
• Studies find racial differences in US health care

I predict a riot! (Special thanks to the Kaiser Chiefs)

According to William Fisher, Gen. Myers is referring to the, “87 ” ”new” photos and four videotapes taken at Abu Ghraib … those turned over to Army investigators last year by Specialist Joseph M. Darby, a reservist who was posted at the prison.” Gen. Myers is certain that these new photos will increase the already abundant insurgency strikes, create new riots and a host of other misfeasance.

Moreover, he views the unveiling of these photos as dangerous and may have the result, “that Al Qaeda and other groups will seize upon these images and videos as grist for their propaganda mill, which will result in, besides violent attacks, increased terrorist recruitment, continued financial support and exacerbation of tensions between Iraqi and Afghani populaces and U.S. and coalition forces.” Additionally, he sees riots and violence escalating in the wake of “new” photos and videos. This is a very shrewd move by the Pentagon, first if the photos are available for the public at large and violence increases (a direct correlation not needed) then blame the ACLU and its cohorts for bringing the photos to light. If U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein agrees with Pentagon logic then the photos will never see the light of day and the military as well as others will again dodge another truth bullet. Specifically as “Michael Ratner, president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, note(s) … (the White House does not want to) prosecute the real culprits: Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales, Generals Miller and Sanchez, and others.” Thus, as Mr. Ratner points out, it is time to “kill the messenger.”

Granted are the views of Gen. Myers, The Pentagon, The White House, and State Department, on one side and the ACLU, the Centre for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace on the other. However, there are deeper issues. Violence will surely rise and insurgency attacks will escalate, however to what cost? Is truth fungible in a time of war? Is it necessary for the American public to view such atrocities? Is it important for the military to be held accountable for human rights violations? Or does the end justify the means? If one US solider is saved due to torture and humiliation, does that create an ethical vacuum where actions can be ‘deemed’ reasonable? Does the American public truly care about the atrocities of some far off prison filled with Iraqi’s, when our own soldiers are being killed?

We must take the moral high ground. Societies are not equal in such classifications. This may seem like liberal heresy; however ethics and morals are not subject to situational relevance. Ethical and moral capital are the underpinning of an intellectual government configuration and more significantly the rule of law. Ethics are needed the most when no one else is looking.

In the hellish pits of Abu Ghraib to the Federal penitentiaries of America; if human life is in our care then our ethical standards must be uniform. This is the character of a civilized and enlightened culture, for terrorism is not the end all be all of evil in this world, thus we must not retrogress back into the age of strappado’s and the “Spanish Chair”.

It is the greatness of America which has brought us to a point where when we see beheadings and torture of civilians, the likes of which would make Torquemada recoil, we cry out, “This can not be! We can not let this happen!”

Consequently, in the act of repulsion we actively call out for higher ethical treatment, a treatment which we are accustomed. This is evidence of moral capital, some societies lack moral capital while others are rich beyond measure. With each “new” photo and video, publicly displayed or not, we auction our moral capital in favor of a bankrupt ideology we are so desperately trying to change.

As the Chief naps …

“The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country,” Bush said. “I have been willing to do so as a last resort in order to secure the country and provide the opportunity for people to live in free societies.”

Beyond his mixed metaphors of ‘opportunity and freedom’ which clearly describe the state of Iraq at this very moment; the detriment to the US grows faster than the centrifugal force spinning out uranic oxide. The nuclear weapon links between Pakistan and Iran are clear. According to Global Security Newswire, instruments and reactor parts received through “an illicit nuclear smuggling network” (can anyone say A. Q. Khan) have made there why to Iran via Pakistan. Thus, the situation is even direr then first thought, for if the Pakistani government or affiliates of the government are involved in nuclear proliferation then we must, according to the Bush Doctrine, attack both Iran and Pakistan simultaneously. However, there is a bright side to this dilemma, for this might be the closest we get to the Caspian Sea and the rich ‘freedom and opportunity' that waits us there.

Sunday Muse III

Sunday Muse for the week that was:

All that pass by clap their hands at thee; they hiss and wag their head at the daughter of Jerusalem saying, is this the city that men call the perfection of beauty, the joy of the whole earth?

All thine enemies have opened their mouth against thee:
They hiss and gnash the teeth:
They say, we have swallowed her up:
Certainly this is the day that we looked for
We have found, we have seen it.

Lamentations 2:15-16

The End of Faith (The most important book no one is reading)

The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris embodies the true fundamental nature of ‘why the world is in conflict’. Based on sound logic and penetrating reason Sam Harris asks the questions no one else seems to bother with or discuss. The book is critical for anyone interested in finding a true and complete solution to terrorism, extremism and religious fascism in the world.

The culprit is faith. Yes, religious faith, according to Harris, is the belief system in which men and women become "suicide bombs" thinking that this action will bring everlasting life. Yes, faith is the underlining notion that this life is just a repository for greater things to come. A belief system which can not be questioned for it is mired in a world of ‘religious explanation’. For example, if one does something in the name of God then we can not discredit the belief only the action. In other words, we see the terrorists deed as horrific and unthinkable, but we fail to blame the faith which inspired the action, and centrally caused the destruction in the first place.

The seed of most destruction and suffering in this world derives from faith. Ironically, each religion has it own faithful warriors willing to lay down the gauntlet in the name of God, Yahweh or Allah. Thus each religion is pitted against one another, for each religion, at its core, must be intolerant of the other. Each religion is the ‘only true’ religion. This creates a faith based paradox where we live with groups that are doomed to hell however we must tolerate these infidels until such time. Or, as history has shown and Harris’s examples of the Spanish Inquisition, Holocaust and Islamic Jihad remind us that faith has decimated more lives than it has claimed to save. This book must be read by all, even though 90% of Americans believe in some form of God and thus have faith in this God, the facts remain that faith is the root of ignorance and war in this world.

The following quotes are just a sample of the logic and reason placed at your feet when reading this work:

• “Words like “God” and “Allah” must go the way of “Apollo” and “Baal,” or they will unmake our world.” 14
• “This means (creationism or intelligent design) that 120 million of us (Americans) place the big bang 2,500 years after the Babylonians and Sumerians learned to brew beer. If our polls are to be trusted, nearly 230 million Americans believe that a book showing neither unity of style nor internal consistency was authored by an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent deity.” 17
• “Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance – and it has no bona fides, in religion terms, to put it on par with fundamentalism.” 21
• “Moderates merely ask that we relax our standards of adherence to ancient superstitions and taboos, while otherwise maintaining a belief system that was passed down to us from men and women whose lives were simply ravaged by their basic ignorance about the world.” 21
• “Religion, being the mere maintenance of dogma, is one of discourse that does not admit progress…if religion addresses a genuine sphere of understanding and human necessity, then it should be susceptible to progress; its doctrines should become more useful, rather than less. Progress in religion, as in other fields, would have to be a matter of present inquiry, not the mere reiteration of past doctrine.” 22
• “The point is that most of what we currently hold sacred is not sacred for any reason then that it was thought sacred yesterday.” 24
• “Religious faith represents so uncompromising a misuse of the power of our minds that it forms a kind of perverse, cultural singularity – a vanishing point beyond which rational discourse proves impossible.” 25
• “Give people divergent, irreconcilable, and untestable notions about what happens after death, and then oblige them to live together with limited resources. The result is just what we see: an unending cycle of murder and cease-fire.” 26
• “… there is something that most Americans share with Osama bin Laden, the nineteen hijackers, and much of the Muslim world. We, too, cherish the idea that certain fantastic propositions can be believed without evidence.” 29
• “Because most religions offer no valid mechanism by which their core can be tested and revised, each new generation of believers is condemned to inherit the superstitions and tribal hatreds of its predecessors.” 31
• “We live in an age which most people believe that mere words – “Jesus,” “Allah,” “Ram” – can mean the difference between eternal torment and bliss everlasting.” 35
• “If one didn’t know better, one would think that man, in his fear of losing all that he loves, had created heaven, along with its gatekeeper God, in his own image.”36 (Bold Added)
• “... religious moderation still represents a failure to criticize, the unreasonable (and dangerous) certainty of others…we live in a country in which a person cannot get elected president if he openly doubts the existence of heaven and hell…no other body of “knowledge” (is) require(d) (of) our political leaders to master.” 39
• “…faith is little more than the shadow cast by our hope for a better life beyond the grave.” 39
• “Nothing that a Christian and a Muslim can say to each other will render their beliefs mutually vulnerable to discourse, because the very tenets of their faith have immunized them against the power of conversation.” 45
• “Our president regularly speaks in phrases appropriate to the fourteenth century, and no one seems inclined to find out what words like “God” and “crusade” and “wonder-working power” mean to him.” 47
• “…we are conservative in our beliefs in the sense that we do not add or subtract from our store of them without reason.” 61
• “But the fact that religious beliefs have a great influence on human life says nothing at all about their validity.” 64
• “It (faith) is the search for knowledge on the installment plan: believe now, live an untestable hypothesis until your dying day, and you will discover that you were right.” 66
• “The men who committed the atrocities of September 11 were certainly not “cowards,” as they were repeatedly described in the Western media, nor were they lunatics in any ordinary sense. They were men of faith – perfect faith, as it turns out – and this, it must finally be acknowledged, is a terrible thing to be.” 67 (Bold Added)
• “It takes a certain kind of person to believe what no one else believes. To be ruled by ideas for which you have no evidence (and which therefore cannot be justified in conversation with other human begins) is generally a sign that something is seriously wrong with your mind.” 72
• “…while religious people are not generally mad, their core beliefs absolutely are.” 72
• “The dangers of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human begins to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy.” 73
• “Apart from the Bible’s heterogeneity and outright self-contradiction, allowing it to justify diverse and irreconcilable aims, the culprit is clearly the doctrine of faith itself.” 85
• “Unfortunately for fanciers of Mary’s virginity, the Hebrew word alma (for which parthenos is an erroneous translation) simply means “young woman,’ without any implication of virginity. It seems all but certain that the Christian dogma of the virgin birth, and much of the church’s resulting anxiety about sex, was the result of a mistranslation from the Hebrew.” 95
• “The doctrine of transubstantiation was formally established in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council (the same one that sanctioned the use of torture by inquisitors and prohibited Jews from owning land or embarking upon civil or military careers), and thereafter became the centerpiece of the Christian (now Catholic) faith.” 99
• “But the truly sinister complicity of the church came in its willingness to open its genealogical records to the Nazis and thereby enable them to trace the extent of a person’s Jewish ancestry.” 103
• “The fact that people are sometimes inspired to heroic acts of kindness by the teaching of Christ says nothing about the wisdom or necessity of believing that he, exclusively, was the Son of God.” 106
• “The fact that religious faith has left its mark on every aspect of our civilization is not an argument in its favor, nor can any particular faith be exonerated simply because certain of its adherents made foundational contributions to human culture.” 109
• “In Islam, it is the “moderate” who is left to split hairs, because the basic thrust of the doctrine is undeniable: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates; and conquer the world.” 113
• “It is time we recognized that all reasonable men and women have a common enemy. It is an enemy so near to us, and so deceptive, that we keep its counsel even as it threatens to destroy the very possibility of human happiness. Our enemy is nothing other than faith itself.” 131 (Bold Added)
• “40 percent of those who eventually voted for Bush were white evangelicals.” 155
• “Tom Delay, is given to profundities like “Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world. Only Christianity.”… he (Tom Delay) attributed the shootings at the Columbine High School in Colorado to the fact that our schools teach the theory of evolution.” 156
• “The idea of a victimless crime is nothing more than a judicial reprise of the Christian notion of sin.” 159
• “When one looks at our drug laws – indeed, at our vice laws altogether – the only organizing principle that appears to make sense of them is that anything which might radically eclipse prayer or procreative sexuality as a source of pleasure has been outlawed.” 160
• “…that the Creator who purports to be beyond human judgment is consistently ruled by human passions – jealousy, wrath, suspicion, and the lust to dominate. A close study of our holy books reveals that the God of Abraham is a ridiculous fellow – capricious, petulant, and cruel – and one with whom a covenant is little guarantee of health or happiness.” 173
• “That our Paleolithic genes now have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons at their disposal is, from the point of view of our evolution, little different from having delivered this technology into the hands of chimps. The difference between killing one man and killing a thousand just doesn’t seem as salient to us as it should.” 195
• “Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time. It is the denial – at once full of hope and full of fear – of the vastitude of human ignorance.” 221
• “In the best case, faith leaves otherwise well-intentioned people incapable of thinking rationally about many of their deepest concerns; at worst, it is a continuous source of human violence.” 223

An Iraqi Constitution

A community of equal persons based on liberty, tolerance, property, human rights, security and freedom; have come together to establish a federal republican democracy in the cradle of civilization. This government will uphold the rule of law, establish justice and strengthen the incontrovertible rights of all citizens, regardless of race, creed, gender, religion or affiliation. Said rights will include but not be limited to civil, political, economic, social and cultural.

Item	Iraq Framework for Constitutional Development
Regime	Federal, Proportional Representative, Bi-Cameral
Congress Mode of Election:	Upper house will be composed of popularly elected members from the 18 administrative districts (provinces). One representative for every 55,000 inhabitants. (At current population levels this will include 462 representatives) A term of 2 years will be established for each representative. The minimum threshold will be 10%. Candidates must have resided in the province for at least one year and must be at least 20 yrs old. Senators will represent a lower house. One Senator from each province, for a total of 18. A term of 3 years will be established for each Senator. Candidates must have resided in the province for at least 2 years and must be at least 25 years old. A minimum threshold of the vote will be set at 10%. Term limits for lower house will be set at 3 terms, for the lifetime of candidate.
Congressional power of the Upper House	All national bills will need a majority to be passed and sent to the Lower house for ratification. The Prime Minister will originate in this House. If a tie occurs the Prime Minister will cast the deciding vote.
Congressional Power of the Lower House	Upper House bills will be voted on and a majority must be reached to ratify the law. The President will be elected from the Lower House.
Prime Minister Powers	Prime Minister will appoint a cabinet for advice and counsel. These members must be approved by the Upper House. Prime minister will vote in the Upper House if a tie occurs.
Presidential Powers	Presidential Powers are ceremonial in nature. The President does not have veto power. He or she will be the national symbol of unity and strength. President will appoint Supreme court judges.
Amendments	Amendments must be created in the Upper House and be ratified by 2/3 of the Upper and Lower House and the provincial governments.
Judicial Courts	Supreme courts will be appointed by the president and ratified by the Upper and Lower house. There will be seven Supreme Court justices. The court will not have judicial review, only minimal influence on policies. Terms of court appointees will be for life.
Central Bank	The central bank will be independent. It will influence monetary policy, interest rates and natural resources. Natural resources will act as the reserve for all loans. Through these funds education and health care will be available to all citizens.
Provincial Government	Each provincial government will be autonomous. It will consist of a popularly elected assembly. The assembly will create a charter for appropriate government. The charter will not override or be superior to the national constitution. Members of the assembly will serve for 3 years. Term limits are at the discretion of the province. Local taxation and administrative control will be centered in the provincial government.

Cold War II: Without Deterrence

"By the grace of Allah, all design parameters for the flight were validated," a military statement said. A careful mix of religion and cruise missiles was launched from Pakistan this morning, solidifying a new Cold War without deterrence. Pakistan, without warning its neighboring adversary India, launched “the missile, named Babur, (which) has a range of 310 miles”. This range may seem insignificant to Soviet and US Cold War experts but it is key when dealing with countries that share a common border. Moreover, this cruise missile is designed to carry nuclear warheads.

As The Independent records, “Pakistan and India, which both carried out nuclear tests in 1998, often carry out tit-for-tat missile tests capable of reaching deep inside each other's territory. In March, Pakistan successfully test fired its longest range nuclear-capable Shaheen II missile, which can reach 1,250 miles. India has said that it will test its longest range missile, the 1,865-mile Agni III, by the end of the year. It already has the intermediate range Agni I and Agni II versions of the missile. India also has the short-range ballistic missile Prithvi, the anti-tank Nag missile, the short-range surface-to-air Trishul missile, and the supersonic cruise missile, Brahmos, in its arsenal.”

This situation can easily spin out of control. Even though both countries have agreed on a “hotline” to avoid catastrophic nuclear disasters, this small stop gap measure seems pointless in the face of religious and nationalist fervor. The difference between the Soviet and US Cold War and the new Cold War is cemented in the underlining religious need for such weapons. These weapons are not only used for national defense but in defense of religion. Thus this Cold War will inevitably become hot. In fact, these two countries have a built in dispute over Kashmir which can ultimately lead to the regions demise. For a more in-depth analysis of the conflict see Part I: Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Saudi Arabian Dilemma. (August 2, 2005)

The Bush Doctrine a Failure.

Weapons of mass destruction, bombs and explosive materials crossing the broader into Iraq, a defiant and strong Islamic leader, and a region poised to explode; these are the elements within Iran and the Middle East at the present moment. The European Union and United Nations are deliberating and Bush says a peaceful conclusion can be brought about through dialogue. However, the fact remains that Iran is an eminent threat to the region and particularly US troops in Iraq. Thus the question begs to be answered, why haven’t we attacked Iran?

Iran has been dubbed a member of the axis of evil and a state sponsor of terrorism. Our own Sec. of Defense clearly feels that the weapons for the Iraqi insurgence are been supplied by Iran. We have clear reasons, without defective intelligence, stove piping or trickery that WMDs are on the verge of production. What more do we need to do, or are we now back at the beginning where “we do not bring out new products in August”. (This was a government comment alluding to the Iraq War.) Either way this threat, according to Bush’s own foreign policy, must be dealt with “without a pass or veto from any foreign body”.

Simply put, the Bush doctrine is a complete failure and can not be implemented again. The Iraq situation is dire and the policy makers were either unaware of the depth or unwilling to understand the length of conflict in the region. Consequently, Iran has seized on this failed policy and used it as a leverage to move forward. All the while shrewdly understanding that the US can not invade, for Iran’s intelligence services have clear and uncompromising views at the forces which would be used in war. Moreover, they are inclined to wager that the US does not have the fortitude or more significantly the troops to invade another Muslim country.

Iran has the upper hand and the US is left watching. Watching what it deemed reprehensible in the first place, an Iranian nuclear power. Wisdom, intelligence and forethought about a war in the Middle East would have served this nation better, then recoiling, backtracking and meager planning. The Middle East is now ripe for nuclear jihad and preemption has cemented the way.

The Patriot Act a Red Herring?

As more information comes to light about national security intelligence prior to 9/11 it seems quite irrational to have created a new bureaucracy in the hopes of solving a problem which was already identified. In today’s New York Times, an article of significance has come to light which underscores the ability of pre-9/11 intelligence to identify and locate terrorists. Apparently, a high level military team known as Able Danger had, “in the summer of 2000 … prepared a chart that included visa photographs of the four men (Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers) and recommended to the military's Special Operations Command that the information be shared with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the congressman, Representative Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, and (a) former intelligence official said Monday.”

This can be seen as a lie or a liberal rouse to damage the President and his national security team before the attacks; however the point is that the intelligence services had creditable evidence BEFORE the attacks. In other words, the intelligence services were working, just not acted upon. This is a critical challenge to the 9/11 commission findings that it was an internal problem between CIA and FBI intelligence services and their inability to communicate with one another. The fact still remains that the information was clear and actionable. Thus a failure to act is not justification for a new federal bureaucracy (Dept. of Homeland Security) or new and obtrusive legislation, namely the US Patriot Act.

Furthermore, any new bureaucracy must have time to formulate policy and new chains of command. Thus enabling the mission to be completed, specifically the safety of America. In all likelihood this will take time; which is in short supply when dealing with terrorists whom have privatized the means of warfare.

Lastly, my inclination is that this report is just a fragment of intelligence which could have been acted upon. The point being, once again, that our intelligence services were in working order before 9/11, (granted not perfectly but quite effectively, retooling the mechanism would be have been a much more prudent coarse of action) unfortunately a convoluted and bulky bureaucratic apparatus has never brought about valid, necessary or timely adjustments in the federal government. Instead, such changes have increased expenditures, earmarks and consequently disabled the ability of agents to retrieve much needed intelligence. One step forward and two steps back, unfortunately this isn’t an experiment in social programs; it is an experiment with national security.

Standardized Summer Vacation

Advocates point to research that shows kids forget a lot of what they’ve learned over the summer.

“Teachers typically spend four to six weeks each fall re-teaching material that kids should have learned the previous year,” says Ron Fairchild of Johns Hopkins University.

With all due respect to Ron Fairchild and Johns Hopkins University but he has missed the educational boat. Summers have decreased and the school year has lengthened because of … anyone …anyone …that’s right STANDARDIZED TESTING. As noted in the article but passed over for more pressing problems with the Miami Seaquarium and its revenue shortfalls.

Moreover, standardized tests now consume at least two full months of in-depth training for students, the months of February and March are most likely to be the victims of death by ditto. The entire two months are devoted to nothing but state tests and the scores which are needed to become an ‘A’ school.

Granted that re-teaching is needed but this will always be the case. Children need refreshers just as adults need retraining. This is no surprise. Moreover, the push by some parents to end the horrible decline of summer is complete nonsense. The traditional summer recess was instituted for an agrarian society. We are far from those days of ma and pa needing help from the chit’len down on the homestead.

In my opinion, school should be year round. With breaks between quarters; within these breaks students will be assigned critical thinking projects (which is lacking in most situations) and further reading. Education is not a light switch to be turned off and on. It is a fire which must be kept ablaze. Parents and teachers alike need to think of the student first and Disney world second.

Iran: The next logical step

Within the next six months regular unmanned drones will be paroling Iran. These drones will be armed with ‘smart technology’ weapons and visual technology for reconnaissance. This is the first logical steps within the Bush Doctrine:

“This war will take many turns we cannot predict. Yet I am certain of this: Wherever we carry it, the American flag will stand not only for our power, but for freedom. Our nation's cause has always been larger than our nation's defense. We fight, as we always fight, for a just peace -- a peace that favors human liberty. We will defend the peace against threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. And we will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent… The gravest danger to freedom lies at the perilous crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology -- when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends -- and we will oppose them with all our power.”
President Bush
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002


Oppose them with all our power has turned into preemption. Understanding that the capability of the US armed forces is overwhelming, the next course of action in this ‘global struggle against extremism’ is Iran. There is no backing down or consultation and talks between President Bush and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are implausible. Politically the administration wants “a diplomatic solution with both countries, acknowledging that military action is not a good option. North Korea could retaliate against the South Korean capital, Seoul; Iran could step up support for anti-U.S. militants in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories”. Pragmatically war is in the air. Troops are posed to invade and Special Forces are targeting sites. This is not a drill. No matter how imprudent or irresponsible this action may seem to some or how improbable this action may seem to others it will occur. The aftermath of such a decision is now primary among American interests.

A regional war of this magnitude will create a conflict lasting well into 2025. Unless nuclear weapons are used, then the conflict will have untold consequences. Furthermore, this action will set the agenda for all presidents to follow and will hand-cuff billions of tax dollars for defense spending. Moreover, the cost in lives both Arab and American will be exorbitant. Thus the Bush doctrine will be the modus operandi for the next 20 years; this is the true legacy of G. W. Bush.

Sunday Muse II

Sunday muse for the week that was:

"If you hear that in one of the towns which Yahweh your God has given you for a home, there are men, scoundrels from your own stock, who have led their fellow-citizens astray, saying, :
"let us go and serve other gods," hitherto unknown to you, it is your duty to look into the matter, examine it, and inquire most carefully. If it is proven and confirmed that such a hateful thing has taken place among you, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword; you must lay it under that curse of destruction - the town and everything in it. You must pile up all its loot, offering it all to Yahweh your God. It is to be a ruin for all time and never rebuilt."
Deuteronomy (13:12-16)

"But the infidels who die unbelievers shall incur the curse of God, the angels, and all men. Under it they shall remain for ever, their punishment shall not be lightened, nor shall they be reprieved."
Koran (2:162)

Hiroshima: The media fallout

Understanding that the countless dead from the nuclear holocaust which was created from
“(a) bomb (that) exploded 580m above the ground. The air temperature at the point of explosion reached several million degrees Celsius. A few millionths of a second after the explosion, the fireball began to spread out, reaching a diameter of about 23m within 1/10,000th of a second with a temperature of 300,000C. Within 0.3 seconds, the fireball grew to more than 200m wide and released heat rays that devastated the city.”

When these sun rays of radiation filled fission eclipsed all life in Hiroshima this was just the beginning. The media fallout can be considered as ruinous. From the moment that images of Japanese citizens were scorched into rock and buildings reformed into there atomic particles the media was censored.

Within the hellish agony of thousands were differing reports. First was the report presented by George Weller and Wilfred Burchett. Both were affiliated with the Chicago Daily News. Burchett, while sitting in an atomic earthen hole wrote, “"In Hiroshima, 30 days after the first atomic bomb destroyed the city and shook the world, people are still dying, mysteriously and horribly - people who were uninjured in the cataclysm from an unknown something which I can only describe as the atomic plague."

This plague started a war between Macarthur’s censor board and journalists. The truth about the aftermath of the atomic bombs and the need to create an alternative reality in which "the Japanese are still continuing their propaganda aimed at creating the impression that we won the war unfairly, and thus attempting to create sympathy for themselves and milder terms. ... Thus, at the beginning, the Japanese described 'symptoms' that did not ring true."

The symptoms to which William L. Laurence called fiction now are clear truths about radiation fallout. Laurence one of the first true soldiers in the filed of embedded reporting was called on by the military to clear the air out the mistruths and lies by Weller and Burchett. For which he was rewarded handsomely with a Pulitzer Prize for his groundbreaking analysis of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

War in all its trappings must be made public. No matter how cruel or inhuman war is it must be revealed so that people may read, see and listen to the consequences. Why is this necessary? It is necessary for the preservation of future generations. It is important to calibrate the destruction within the confines of human suffering. Thus it is essential that the media in all its forms be made available for posterity.

Many may stray from the point of this review. Some may feel that I am siding with the Japanese during a global conflict against fascism. To the contrary I am highlighting the need to stop fascism in all its forms including the most corrosive: media.