A Breakdown of Democracy?

Democratic South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson could possibly have suffered a stroke today at around 11:30am in his Washington D.C. office. He is, at the time of my writing this, undergoing a comprehensive evaluation by the stroke team at George Washington University Medical Center. While I remain hopful that he will continue his senatorial duties through 2008, a gigantic question mark looms.

If Johnson could not, for any reason, fulfil his senatorial duties, then his replacement, as specified in Article III Section 10 of the S.D. State Constitution, would be chosen by Republican Governor Michael Rounds. It is at this point that I wonder: where is the democracy in that type of system? Can the people not choose their state legislator's replacement if one cannot complete his/her term? The California State Constitution keeps the power with the people in an event such as might play out in S.D. in the coming days, as our governor would have to hold an immediate election for the people of CA to choose his/her replacement. That sounds like democracy. But that's not how it works in South Dakota.

A republican governor would obviously choose a republican senator for a replacement, and the balance of power in the Senate would shift back to the republican party.

And so I ask you: When the people of the United States of America have spoken in favor of a Democratic Senate, how can one man--the Governor of South Dakota--have te power to decide in which direction to tip the balance of power for the entire U.S. Senate, to take away that for which We the People have so strongly and nationally chosen?

Its unjust, isn't it? Well, lets all wish Senator Johnson a complete and speedy recovery so we don't have to watch this potential breakdown of democracy play out.

Questioning the Holocaust

In the fifteenth century, intelligent people were skeptical about the shape of the Earth. Even after Columbus' discovery in 1492 that the world was indeed round, many remained defiant because they had not seen overwhelming evidence with their own eyes. Aristotle thought the Earth was the center of the universe, but in his time, the topic was still open for debate since no one could prove or disprove his theory with hard evidence. With advances in technology and science, documented, irrefutable evidence proves without a doubt that the Earth is indeed round and it obviously revolves around the sun.

If Aristotle was alive today, he would have to revise his theory. Thus, intelligent people can be proven wrong when an overwhelming preponderance of hard evidence is brought to light.

If i told you that the sky is not blue, or that 4+4=10, would you believe me? You wouldn't, because you could cite myriad sources to prove me wrong.

So why is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, obviously an intelligent person, attempting to deny that the Holocaust ever occurred?

You're losing me, Mahmoud. Tell me this didn't happen:

"The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty, and bestiality were so over powering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room where there were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations mere to "propaganda."
President Dwight D Eisenhower, shown in the last photo above, upon his visit to Buchenwald Concentration Camp, 1945
(note the skeletons of incinerated corpses in the foreground)

Genocide in Darfur: Cause and Effect

Saturday, gunmen firing rocket-propelled grenades attacked a convoy of 30 civilians carrying medical aid and relief supplies in the Darfur region of western Sudan. Those who were not burned to death in the attack were shot.

This is the latest massacre in a three-year war that the World Food Program calls “a humanitarian crisis in one of the most forgotten corners of the world.” Some experts place the death toll over 400,000 with over two million displaced since the conflict began in 2003.

The attack took place as human rights groups held protests against sexual violence in Darfur, where they say thousands of women and girls have been raped by Arab militiamen known as the Janjaweed, who work under the auspices of the Sudanese government.

A full-scale, government-sponsored military operation, with support of the Janjaweed, began as a counterinsurgency. It now appears aimed at total annihilation of the African tribes in the Darfur region.

“Every day we surveyed evidence of killings,” says Brian Steidle, a photographer for the African Union, and a former Marine. “Men castrated and left to bleed to death, huts set on fire with people locked inside, children with their faces smashed in, men with their ears cut off and eyes plucked out, and the corpses of people who had been executed with gunshots to the head. We spoke with thousands of witnesses -- women who had been gang-raped and families that had lost fathers."


“Women and children bear the greatest burden. The Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps are filled with families that have lost their fathers. Every day, women are sent outside the IDP camps to seek firewood and water, despite the constant risk of rape at the hands of the Janjaweed. Should men be available to venture out of the camps, they risk castration and murder. So families decide that rape is the lesser evil.”

Routine torture in Darfur, Sudan: Amputation of the Hands and Feet
**Warning!!! Extremely Graphic Content**
The campaign of mass killing and torture began when Darfurians, fearing that an end to the generation-long conflict in southern Sudan would divide access to the country’s resources between the ruling elite and the southerners (leaving Darfur empty-handed), accused the Sudanese government of neglect. Two local rebel groups — the Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudan Liberation Movement — blaming the Sudanese government for oppressing non-Arabs in favor of Arabs, staged an armed rebellion in early 2003. Khartoum responded by unleashing the Janjaweed and the Sudanese military on the black African civilian population. The atrocities they have committed include ethnic cleansing; impeding international humanitarian efforts; bombing civilian targets; and murdering, starving, maiming, torturing, displacing, and raping civilians (Wikipedia).

“When asked why their villages were attacked and burned, most of the refugees said it was because of their black skin,” claims Jerry Fowler, a Washington Post reporter who went to Darfur in 2004. “They believe that the Khartoum-based government of President Omar Hassan Bashir wants to give their land to his Janjaweed allies who, like him, are Arab. Members of the black African tribes will simply have to go. Like the Janjaweed, the Darfurians are Muslims. But culturally and ethnically they retain an African identity, of which they are proud. They also tend to be more settled than the nomadic Janjaweed. Racism undoubtedly does play a part in Bashir's support of the Janjaweed, as the blacks are seen as inferior” (Jerry Fowler, Washington Post). Human rights organizations, other journalists, the U.S. Department of State, and the United Nations have also documented evidence of ethnic and racial bias in the region.

After fighting worsened in July and August 2006, the United Nations Security Council approved Resolution 1706 which called for a UN peacekeeping force to supplant or supplement a poorly funded, ill-equipped 7,000-troop African Union Mission in Sudan peacekeeping force. Sudan strongly objected to the resolution and said that it would see the UN forces in the region as foreign invaders (Wikipedia).

"Sudan has made it quite clear to the whole world that it will not accept U.N. peacekeepers," said Kofi Annan, head of the United Nations. "If the Sudanese do not give their consent, no government, not yours or mine, is going to give troops for a peacekeeping operation in Darfur. . .I have gone out and indicated to the Sudanese that if they cannot protect their people, and they are refusing to let the international community come in and assist, they will be held individually and collectively responsible for what is happening and what happens."

As of today, over 200,000 refugees have poured into neighboring Chad, carrying with them the contagious humanitarian plight. Armed Janjaweed, crossing the Sudanese border in pursuit, clash with Chadian military forces. Regional stability is threatened as Sudanese and Chadian rebel militias have built a base from which to plan an overthrow of Chadian president Idriss Deby. Hundreds of thousands of famine-stricken residents of the Central African Republic (CAR) fear for their lives as the conflict spreads south from Chad and Sudan into CAR’s northern territory, where foreign rebels have teamed up with local militias, threatening an overthrow of its government as well.

HOW TO HELP STOP THE BLOODSHED

Phytoplankton on the Decline

NASA Scientists, with the help of the orbiting Sea-Viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS), have been charting some distressing data since 1997. SeaWIFS has been witnessing a strong decline in global levels of phytoplankton, the microscopic base of the marine food chain which also absorbs, and converts into oxygen, about half of the planet's greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. The tiny phytoplankton prefer cooler water, and as sea temperatures rise, they simply cannot survive. What does this all mean? As levels of carbon dioxide rise, the temperatures of the earth and its oceans rise. It becomes a vicious cycle, with phytoplankton dying off in huge numbers and becoming incapable of maintaining stable levels of o2 and co2 in our atmosphere. This causes the co2 levels, and global temperatures, to rise even more, resulting in greater losses of the crucial phytoplankton. This may not appear immediately over the whole planet. The tropical oceans will take the biggest hit, while the oceans around the poles may get greener. Consequent shifts in food for local ocean wildlife are expected to be dramatic.

Operation Elf and A Mall Bust from Santa

I saw this on CNN just now, and thought you all should know. This guy here, nicknamed 'Deputy Elf,' clocked and nabbed over 150 speeders in just over two hours. Twenty motorcycle cops waited for his dispatch, and then pulled over the speeders, one by one, in Orange County, Florida. One angry person called the OC Sheriff's Dept., complaining that "it's despicable to use an icon like Santa to catch speeders."

"That's specifically why we didn't use Santa Claus," Ken Wyne of the Orange County Sheriff's Office said. "We didn't choose a nativity scene. We chose an elf. An elf is known for their impish behavior. If you're going to speed in Orange County, you never know who's going to be on the street corner."

And then this: This mall santa helps authorities tackle a shoplifter on his way out the door, and gets in a nice sucker kick as well. Hilarious.

Foley's Folly

I just read the instant messenger conversations between Mark Foley and the pages. Goodness gracious, it gets pretty intense. I feel really bad for the guy. While I realize that what he did was wrong, unethical, and illegal, it's unfortunate that his instant messages are available for the world to see. Here they are if you're interested in experiencing the fall of a congressman:

Exhibit 13: Ethics Committee on Standards of Conduct

Ouch. It makes me wince to put myself in his shoes. I can only imagine how embarrassed he must be.

Israel Has Been Nuclear for Decades

Who knew? And reading this just now on Reuters.com, I wasn't surprised at all. I feel like I knew this already. But did I? Obviously not, since defense secretary-elect Robert Gates, at his confirmation hearing on Tuesday, apparently let the cat out of the bag, breaching a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy which dates back to the 1960s. In his opinion, Iran might be seeking a nuclear weapon because "they are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf." This 'open secret' between the United States and Israel, which has existed since the Nixon administration, is seen as "a major irritant for Arabs and Iran, which see a double-standard in U.S. policy in the region," says Dan Williams of Reuters. Israel has neither confirmed nor denied the allegation.

If you're still questioning it after that last statement: next time you're caught in a huge lie, try neither confirming nor denying it.

Where are We Going? Where Have We Been?

full transcript of the Iraq Study Group news conference

I get the impression that some of these reporters here have not read the commission. Perhaps they only read the first few pages? The Lee/Hamilton report is pretty specific. Why are some asking questions in this forum about specifics that are discussed at length in the report itself? It appears that all questions and answers addressed points that have already been addressed in the commission report, except this one:

Question: When you recommend something like engaging Iran, which the president has been very clear will only happen after they verifiably suspend [uranium inrichment], it seems to set up the need for the president to pull a 180. Does he have the capacity to do that, in your opinion, sir?

Baker: You know, I've worked for four presidents and I used to get questions all the time: tell me about this president versus that president or the other president. And I never put presidents I worked for on the couch. So I'm not going to answer that, because that would mean I'd have to psychologically analyze the inner workings of his mind. And I don't do that.

Obviously, he didn't answer the question, but he did raise the point that presidents look to other presidents for guidance. Hopefully, Bush will do his homework on the Cold War Era and see that diplomacy works where military offensives do not.

Some pertinent reader comments via email to CNN:

Marshall Krause of San Geronimo, California
The proposed diplomatic solution will not work because President Bush and his advisors are unwilling to make Iran and Syria real partners in the solution... I applaud the report's strong urging that Bush strongly step our effort to get a negotiated and mutually acceptable solution to the Israel/Palestine dispute. This would stabilize the entire area.

I concur with the second part. Our president needs to bring Iran and Syria to the negotiating table, if for no other reason than to show the world that he is capable of making attepts at diplomacy. And please read my post entitled "Full Text Sources for the Unbiased Truth," where I have presented a link to the 2002 Bin Laden Letter to the American People. In it, he makes abundantly clear the issue that arabs have with America's stance vis a vis the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. But the first part, I hope, is no longer true.

Stuart Shepherd of Springfield, Missouri
I feel at this point that a support role is about the only thing the U.S can do. We need to accept the fact that there is no winning this war. If we continue on the present course, this will go on and on for years and deplete our resources that could be directed towards defending our own borders and true homeland security.

It's true, from a historical perspective, that spreading our resources too thin will have grave consequences for America. For all those in disagreement with this, please read the first few pages of "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: 1500-2000." Countries that lose their place in the global power balance do so because they squander their wealth and have too many global interests at stake which cannot all be supported to the extent necessary to sustain them.

Joe Linares of Feeding Hills, Massachusetts
I took the time to read the document. Well done, well written. Now... Bush needs to take his cowboy boots off, chew a bit on humble pie, roll up his sleeves and get to work. That is what the 2006 elections told him. I have no idea how you are suppose to work with 'your adversaries if you don't talk to them.

Well put.

Ken Salsman of Pleasanton, California
The Iraq Study Group has done a passable job, but they still leave serious questions unanswered that directly impact the viability of their recommendations. While they suggest improving the justice, oil sector and reconstruction, they fail to address how that is possible with the current situation on the ground... Though I applaud the efforts of the study group, and its non-partisan structure, I am left asking why there are no cultural experts on the panel.

Well, I got the impression from reading the document that the three above suggestions will not be plausible without implementation of a broad-reaching diplomatic offensive. I'm sure that the commission does not these goals can be acheived in a vacuum. And it appears that the first step is getting all of the players to the table for discussions. This cannot happen overnight, obviously. I agree with this person's opinion that there should have been a cultural expert on the panel. America seems to not quite grasp the fundamental interests of all players in the Middle East, or the more subtle power struggles at play. Someone who truly understands the people of the region might have added a different and beneficial element to the commission.

Dean Yorgey of Alexandria, Virginia
Any plan that indicates we should remove our combat troops while we leave others to train the Iraqi Army is an invitation for another disaster. Our remaining troops would be kidnapped and murdered. The statement that, "we will stand down when the Iraqi Army stands up," is wishful thinking at best.

This is a very good point and should not be taken lightly. As far as I understand, the U.S. provided funds and armaments to the Afghanis during their war with the Soviets. Many of the arms that we supplied are being used against us now. Given the horrendous instability of the region, we should be very cautious about the underlying interests of the people whom we are supporting

Mark Aoki of Honolulu, Hawaii
The report is dangerous and incompetent in its recommendations. Sectarian violence will not stop until the combatants are separated. Iraq needs to be partitioned into a federation of Iraqi states controlled by a central government... The police forces in such areas would be immediately effective as they would be protecting their own, and it would employ and focus the entire nation.

This is a very iteresting point. Iraq was created at the end of WWII, and it could easily be partitioned again if everyone agrees that it's the best way forward. There are obviously regional implications for both plans, but it appears that the commission, after considering that approach, doesn't think it's the best idea. They cite the Kurds' fear of being overrun by another nation, and Turkey supports the Kurdish people. I will do more research in this area.

Patrick Story of Portland, Oregon
Based on my reading of the report so far, it appears to be the same old self-serving line from our ruling elite. As for our rescue by Syria and Iran, they have every reason to continue to stand aside and let Bush's elective war and occupation run their course to complete U.S. demoralization and impending bankruptcy.

I disagree with this post. First of all, it was a bipartisan commission. And secondly, I believe that too often people don't take the past and present into account in making judment calls about our policies. While I agree that American neo-imperialism has gotten us into this mess, we cannot separate ourselves from our interests and the interests of the Middle East. The commission report addresses this. Iran and Syria both have a direct interest in the stability of Iraq if for no other reason than they ultimately want peace within their own borders; both countries share a large border with Iraq, and a spillover of the Iraq mess into their countries would be detrimental to them. Please refer to page 50 of the commission report.

Swearing on the Holy Koran

in direct conflict with the first amendment of the constitution of the united states, conservative pundit dennis prager calls elected minnesota representative keith ellison's desire to be sworn in with the koran "an act of hubris ... that undermines american civilization." he continues: "insofar as a member of congress taking an oath to serve america and uphold its values is concerned, america is interested in only one book, the bible. if you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in congress." and many americans, in agreement with prager, are outraged. i've been following this story for a few days, but didn't write about it because i thought it would have disappeared quickly after these angry americans did some fact-checking on u.s. history and political science. but it hasn't. people are really up in arms about this. i'm not sure why we're even discussing this in a national forum, because the topic was addressed in amendment one of the bill of rights, ratified on december 15, 1791.

here's the first amendment, for those who are still unsure:

"congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

the establishment clause of the first amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over nonreligion.

why are we debating this? just give the poor guy a koran, swear him in, and lets move on to more important issues.

Gay Rabbis, I'm Into It

the jews know the deal. wednesday, leaders of the conservative jewish community announced that they will ordain openly homosexual rabbis, with the caveat that the orthodox jews may continue to oppose it. "we as a movement see the advocacy of pluralism and we know that people come to different conclusions," said rabbi kassel abelson, speaking for the 25-member rabbinical assembly committee on jewish law and standards which issued a series of advisory reports. "these ... are accepted as guides so that the gays and lesbians can be welcomed into our congregation and communities and made to feel accepted," he added. this is what i'm talking about, and it makes me instantly consider the thousands of years that jews have been perscuted for their beliefs, practcing or non-practicing. they just want to live in peace. while consevative christians spend their time freaking out over the homosexual community--the split in the episcopal church over the ordainment of a gay, and the split in the evangelical community over gay marriage, and catholics continuing to live in denial of their obviously gay priests--the jews, jesus' people, show them all up. way to go, guys. what would jesus do? well ask the jews. he was one of them.

Baker III & Hamilton Commission

the long awaited iraq study group commission report by james baker iii and lee hamilton came out today. until now, president bush had used the coming of this report to buy more time in his unchanging 'plan' in iraq. he wanted to wait for it before making any decisions. well here it is:

the complete baker hamilton commission report

"the situation in iraq is grave and deteriorating," says the executive summary. "our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in iraq that will enable the united states to begin to move its combat forces out of iraq responsibly. we believe that these two recommendations are equally important and reinforce one another."

i'm sorry, but does it take a commission to come up with that solution? did bush not grasp this? hopefully he will now. as of yesterday, he remained essentially the only person in the united states who believed that we were winning the war over there. hopefully today, after reading this report, his ego will allow him to be convinced otherwise.

"the iraqi people have a democratically elected government, yet it is not adequately advancing national reconciliation, providing basic security, or delivering essential services. pessimism is pervasive. if the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. a slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of iraq’s government and a humanitarian catastrophe. neighboring countries could intervene. sunni-shia clashes could spread. al qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the united states could be diminished."

again, i feel like i've been saying this for months now. if one hasn't been keeping up with the iraq war, then i could understand this lack of foresight. but our own president has either been lying to the american people for quite some time now, or he has been completely out to lunch. the report also calls for increased diplomatic relations with all countries bordering iraq. well, now is the time for bush to open discussions with iran. ahmadinejad wants to talk. lets allow the un to handle the nuclear ambitions of that country. i realize that the united states does not want nuclear proliferation in iran, but we are part of the united nations, so lets let them do their job so that we, the us, can do ours diplomatically.

"the united states cannot achieve its goals in the middle east unless it deals directly with the arab-israeli conflict and regional instability. there must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the united states to a comprehensive arab-israeli peace on all fronts: lebanon, syria, and president bush’s june 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for israel and palestine. this commitment must include direct talks with, by, and between israel, lebanon, palestinians (those who accept israel’s right to exist), and syria. . . by the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of iraq. . .the united states must not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of american troops deployed in iraq."

it goes without saying that if we pull our troops from iraq, it will be up to the iraqi army to quell the violence on their own, which is why the baker/hamilton report calls for an increase of american troops embedded in the iraqi army to train them to support themselves.

"attacks against u.s., coalition, and iraqi security forces are persistent and growing. october 2006 was the deadliest month for u.s. forces since january 2005, with 102 americans killed. total attacks in october 2006 averaged 180 per day, up from 70 per day in january 2006. daily attacks against iraqi security forces in october were more than double the level in january. attacks against civilians in october were four times higher than in january. some 3,000 iraqi civilians are killed every month."

"iraq is in the grip of a deadly cycle: sunni insurgent attacks spark large-scale shia reprisals, and vice versa."

"in some parts of Iraq—notably in Baghdad—sectarian cleansing is taking place. the united nations estimates that 1.6 million
are displaced within iraq, and up to 1.8 million iraqis have fled the country."

"four of iraq’s eighteen provinces are highly insecure—baghdad, anbar, diyala, and salah ad din. these provinces account for about 40 percent of iraq’s population of 26 million. . .and the situation is deteriorating. . .however, most of iraq’s cities have a sectarian mix and are plagued by persistent violence."

"nearly every u.s. army and marine combat unit, and several national guard and reserve units, have been to iraq at least once. many are on their second or even third rotations. . .the american military has little reserve force to call on if it needs
ground forces to respond to other crises around the world."

"significant questions remain about the ethnic composition and loyalties of some iraqi units—specifically, whether they will carry out missions on behalf of national goals instead of a sectarian agenda."

"the entire appropriation for iraqi defense forces for for year 2006 ($3 billion) is less than the united states currently spends in iraq every two weeks."

"iraqi police cannot control crime, and they routinely engage in sectarian violence, including the unnecessary detention,
torture, and targeted execution of sunni arab civilians."

"the facilities protection service poses additional problems. each iraqi ministry has an armed unit, ostensibly to guard the
ministry’s infrastructure. all together, these units total roughly 145,000 uniformed iraqis under arms. however, these units
have questionable loyalties and capabilities. . .one senior u.s. official described the facilities protection service as 'incompetent, dysfunctional, or subversive.'"

"both iraqi and american leaders told us that as baghdad goes, so goes iraq. . . violence in baghdad, already at high levels, jumped more than 43 percent between the summer and october 2006. u.s. forces continue to suffer high casualties."

"iraq’s shia, sunni, and kurdish leaders frequently fail to demonstrate the political will to act iniIraq’s national interest, and too many iraqi ministries lack the capacity to govern effectively. the result is an even weaker central government than the constitution provides."

"as of december 2006,nearly 2,900 americans have lost their lives serving in iraq. an other 21,000 americans have been wounded, many severely. to date, the united states has spent roughly $400 billion on the iraq war, and costs are running about $8 billion per month. in addition, the united states must expect significant 'tail costs' to come. caring for veterans and replacing lost equipment will run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. estimates run as high as $2 trillion for the final cost of the u.s. involvement in iraq."

"the ability of the united states to shape outcomes is diminishing. time is running out."

"if the instability in iraq spreads to the other gulf states, a drop in oil production and exports could lead to a sharp increase in the price of oil and thus could harm the global economy."

"sixty-six percent of americans disapprove of the government’s handling of the war, and more than 60 percent feel that there is no clear plan for moving forward."

"recent polling indicates that only 36 percent of iraqis feel their country is heading in the right direction, and 79 percent of iraqis have a 'mostly negative' view of the influence that the united states has in their country. sixty-one percent of iraqis approve of attacks on u.s.-led forces."

so what should we do? the report calls for a "diplomatic offensive" in the region to ease tensions in the middle east. This call for diplomacy includes syria and iran. They cite each country's desire to quell destabilization in the region and to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe. it also suggests gaining control of iraqs borders, and promoting "economic assistance, commerce, trade" and "political support." Basically, it appears that the 79 recommendations just say 'lets clean up this mess that we've created.'

Full Text Sources for the Unbiased Truth

i've decided that since there's a million places in the mainstream media to get third-party, paraphrased, and biased versions of important documents, i'm just going to link to the horses' mouths whenever possible and pertinent. that way, you can form your own opinion. it's always better that way. so here are some to chew and swallow:

the full text of defense secretary donald rumsfeld's leaked nov. 6, 2006 memorandum to the white house, calling for a major change in iraq:
the memo

full text of united nations secretary general kofi annan's interview with the bbc, before stepping down from his post at the un:
the annan interview

full text of iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad's 2006 letter to president bush, roughly translated into english:
the letter to president bush

full text of ahmadinejad's 2006 letter to the people of the united states of america:
the letter to the people of the united states of america

transcript of anderson cooper's 11/26/06 interview with ahmadenijad:
the ahmadenijad interview

and for good measure, to answer some fundamental questions, here's osama bin laden's september 2002 letter to the american people:
bin laden letter to american people 2002

more to come.

Holy Lord God on a Bun

crazy crazy news. i've been keeping up with this one for about a week or so: across the country, a definite rift is forming in the evangelical community. it appears to me that we might be witnessing a milestone in religious history taking place right before our eyes. could this be compared to the east-west schism of 1054 or the first and second great awakenings? who knows, but key players in modern evangelical society have taken a hard look at the current political agenda of the church, and have decided that a big change in direction is needed. yesterday, in lake forest, ca, senator barack obama addressed a congregation of two thousand at pastor rick warren's second annual global summit on aids. "warren, best-selling author of "the purpose driven life" and influential conservative evangelical, decided amidst much fanfare last year that conservative christians had for too long ignored those suffering with aids. and he decided that was not in keeping with the teachings of jesus," say jake tapper and dan morris of abc news. obama's invitation to speak to evangelicals has angered many in the church who believe that his liberal views on abortion rights are in direct conflict with the morality of the evangelical community, claiming that putting obama behind the pulpit loans him an undue religious credential. "sen. obama's policies would nullify the right to life, and right now, that is the paramount moral issue of our day," says rev. rob schenck, head of the national clergy council. also at odds with the current tenets of the evangelical church is rev. joel hunter, the president-elect of the christian coalition of america. hunter has resigned this week before his term began because of the board's strong opposition to his desire to expand the group's agenda beyond opposition to abortion and gay marriage. he claims "they really weren't ready to risk expanding into these other areas. they were afraid of alienating the base. . .frankly, one of the ways that you provoke the most response from people is through anger and through fear. it raises a bunch of money. it raises the level of exposure." "christians have spent so much time evangelizing their politics that they've really corrupted the name of jesus," says conservative evangelical david kuo, former deputy of the white house office of faith-based initiatives. "are they so blind and possessed with such a narrow definition of life that they can think of life only in utero?" all this added to the earth-shattering resignation of superpastor ted haggard, following allegations of three-years of meth-induced visits with a male prostitute, has left many southern baptists asking 'what would jesus do?'

yeah, what would jesus do? maybe he would remind us that the bible was, to begin with, a five-hundred-year-long game of telephone from mesopotamia to europe, followed by rough translations from ancient languages. the book contradicts itself all over the place. those who choose to accept the book as literal truth face a harsh reality that they alienate themselves from mainstream science. didn't god give us these powerful brains, with which, collectively, we have, over many many generations, learned so much that would fascinate jesus today? would he say darwin was wrong? would he be a liberal or conservative? would he be miffed at the crusades and other such mass killings in his name, which, after all, are obviously the only reasons christianity even exists in america and elsewhere? have you ever wondered what religion you'd instantly associate with and follow without question if you were born in iran; india; china; ancient greece, south america, or egypt? would jesus agree with and support our president? exactly which denomination of christianity would he find to be the most in tune with his philosophy? would he be happy that an overwhelming majority of people in our country base their scientific beliefs about the origins of life off of a text written around the time of the invention of the wheelbarrow? how would he feel about these gigantic evangelical revivals on television? the mass-marketing and commercial exploitation of his name? america's lack of compassion for the sick and dying in the third world? genocide? the iraq war? gay marriage? our unabashed destruction of wildlife? who knows, but what's funny to me about all of this is that although christians the world over are biding their time until the second coming of christ, watching football and sucking down burger king, when someone emerges, claiming to be the messiah, they send in the heavy artillery and take his ass out :)

Ask, then Ask Again

i'm doing my best at the moment to sift out the myriad issues in the middle east, and as an american, i believe that it is wise to make an honest attempt to understand the underlying concerns of the arab world, the u.s. stake in it, and the global perception toward our country. here are some of my questions, on all of which i have opinions but seek the truth: what is the difference between a shiite and a sunni? why is the united states so deeply embroiled in the mideast conflict? why have we largely ignored africa's recent crises? why is there a mideast conflict? can it be resolved and how? are we there specifically because of our interest in mideast oil? why do arab muslims hate america? why do they all seem to agree on nothing except that they want america out their political affairs? why does israel exist? why does america support that country in the face of such obvious overwhelming opposition? if america pulled its support of israel, would anti-american agression end? why did america invade iraq? why won't our government open a dialogue with iran? why is anti-american sentiment growing in all parts of the world? is our 'war on terrorism' really a result of manifestations of lunatic islamic jihadists' hatred of freedom and democracy? what kind of man is osama bin-laden? why is he considered a 'freedom fighter' and 'rock star' by millions of people? can the united states maintain its current position as sole world superpower and global police watchdog? when and how can we pull our troops from iraq? what kind of man is and what are the intentions and motivations of mahmoud ahmadinejad? does the arab world harbor resentment toward the american people as a whole or just the american administration? how can america resolve its bitter tensions with the people of the middle east? how can america rebuild its credibility with the rest of the world? how bad could it get if we do not? is this whole mess solely our fault? does our current administration ask and re-ask these questions? how many of us 'common' americans ask and re-ask these questions?

it's late, and i'm sure i've left many out. in reality, the list will never end. i'm on a quest, as i have been for a while, to find the naked truth at the bottom of these queries. i believe that it is the duty of the american people to ask these questions, it is our responsibility to do what is necessary to understand those with whom we share our lonely planet, and we must remind ourselves that "it is a misfortune, inseparable from human affairs, that public measures are rarely investigated with that spirit of moderation which is essential to a just estimate of their real tendency to advance or obstruct the public good. . .that the act of the convention, which recommends so many important changes and innovations, which may be viewed in so many lights and relations, and which touches the springs of so many passions and interests, should find or excite dispositions unfriendly, both on one side and on the other, to a fair discussion and accurate judgment of its merits." -- james madison, federalist no. 37

Alexis Says: Bush is No Coward

and i agree. he's instead a brave man to stand at his podium every day and face the world with the baggage he carries. if i was responsible for america's lack of respect around the globe, the recent fall of the republican party, and the current calamity in iraq, all the while maintaing the audacity to lie to everyone about the situation there, i would have bowed out a long time ago with my tail between my legs. but not g dubs. that guy can stand up to some pretty harsh criticism. i've been trying to figure out how he does it.

his enduring optimism is undeniable in the face of an obvious truth surrounding his presidency -- that he may very well go down in history as the worst president the u.s. has ever (not really) elected. the only thing that i can come up with is that there is an inherent downside to being the president of the united states: that people are so busy telling you what you want to hear that you don't get the naked truth. take those horrible singers that get booted off of american idol in the first round. you know, the ones that the english guy ravages with insults about how someone should have told him/her that they have sub-zero talent? i guess their mothers have chosen blind support over honesty. and the price they pay for not wanting to let a child down? their poor, unassuming babies tie their own nooses and brutally hang themselves for tens of millions of entertained viewers to ridicule.

but g.dubs won't go out like that. he just comes back for more, like a true cowboy. and cowboys are brave.

Syllabus and the Atom Bomb

i should have had a blog a long time ago. truth be told, i really know nothing about blogging so i'll just be flying blind here. since this is my first post, i thought it would be good to specify a few topics on which i'll mainly focus. in no particular order, they are: my general life and everyday experiences; news and current events (regional, national and international); government, politics, and policymaking; my car, my love/hate relationship with car ownership, and mechanics; books (mostly nonfiction because it's my first love) and music; hanging, working, and touring with my band; climate change and environmentalism; vegetarian life; crazy christians and other religious beefs; and the american problem.

i'll start on a light note writing about a heavy book i'm currently reading called 'the making of the atomic bomb' by richard rhodes. mr rhodes has really done his research here, covering in minute detail every aspect of the culmination of events that took place leading up to the invention and use of the atomic bomb. i just finished part one, which was a history of the scientific acheivements of the beginning of the twentieth century, starting with j.j. thompson, lord rutherford, albert einstein, james chadwick, niels bohr, and others, all of whom were the great forefathers of modern chemistry and physics. these guys gave us the atom. remember this from chem and phys 101? well, rhodes tells the story in eloquent prose. it reads like a novel. but i'll give you this: part one was tough to get through. i read it twice. theoretical and nuclear physics is tough to grasp, as i'm sure you could imagine. but now as i enter part two, what amazon.com calls "a sweeping epic, filled with terror and pity," i feel as if i have just spent the last month climbing the first giant hill on a rollercoaster, and now whoosh! this book is intense. i'll keep you updated. but since you're here and i think this story is rad, here's how badass these guys are: two nobel laureate friends of neils bohr, who left europe at the outset of hitler's war, left their gold nobel prize medals in his possession for safe keeping. in copenhagen, upon word that germany had invaded denmark, bohr thought of these medals and what to do to keep them out of hitler's hands. knowing that exporting gold illegally under german rule was a severely punishable criminal offense, he used his genius in a way that astonishes me. he literally dissolved the gold medals in acid, and just left them on his office shelf, like innocent bell jars filled with black liquid, until the end of the war. then he separated the gold back out and had them recast when the nazis were defeated. unreal!