MLK and O-B-A-M-A . . . and other stuff.

Update/Explanation: First, let me say that I can't fault anyone celebrating the end of BushCo. And I'm glad that there is such a diverse crowd celebrating Obama's inauguration. It looks odd cause I'm not quite used to it. It's nice. Plus, it doesn't come across as some racial coup d'etat. I guess, what I was trying to get at is the cheap grace America has tried to obtain for its racial history. As an activist for justice and equality, what African Americans are looking for isn't just black faces in a system that ultimately remains racist; what we and many others are looking for is radical change where everyone has equal opportunity and justice rules the day.
___________________________________________________________________

Oh my goodness! America has just been loving itself the past few days, huh? Granted, my memory doesn't extend all that far; but, I have never seen such commotion!

Sorry about my absence the past, what? three weeks give or take? CFIDS is no joke. Especially when you have several appointments and places to be.

Now. Don't get me wrong. I'm excited about Obama's inauguration as anybody else. I made phone calls for his campaign. He's signed my copy of The Audacity of Hope. I watched him announce his bid for the candidacy for president two years ago. I'm a fan.



But all this big to do? He's only flesh and blood, people. Only flesh and blood. He can't do anymore than Congress allows, and the Republicans appear to be preparing for needless and pointless battles. They're already making a big deal out of the move to go digital. What's next? Blocking the move from 8-tracks to mp3s?



And all these happy white people? What's that all about? Now. Again. Don't get me wrong. I'm as happy as anyone to see the first president of African descent. But the man had to run not just as a "don't box me in as black" candidate; he had to run the unblack-campaign. I mean, he chided African American fathers; do you remember any other group being chastised by any other candidate? Did anyone chastise white voters for their racism, even when they admitted to it? Did anyone chastise Latino voters about not learning English? Er, um, no. Just us.



So what are all these white people happy for? It's almost as though they think electing the first black president absolves from all the sins of the past. Er, um, no. It's not like the choices were equal and they decided to give the black guy a chance. No. Barack Obama was the best choice from the moment he announced. Then, they berated him as too presumptuous. He was too popular. All he had were his speeches. And let's not forget, with probably 99.9% of the black vote and a hefty proportion of Latino and Asian votes, he still only won by 6% in the popular vote. He didn't even get half of white people. So . . . Excuse me for being cynical, but all the smiles from white Americans?

But. These white folks are white folks who voted for Obama. So, sure, live it up! But lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Don't get me wrong. I do believe that we as Americans rise and fall together. But I strongly disagree with Michael Strahan's promise to see himself "as more American" and less African American. Sorry. I like being African American. I revel in it. And, no, not the "gotta get whitey!" aspect; but the rich cultural and historical aspect. Denying my African heritage would be like denying my own existence. Literally.

I have to say, though. Seeing such a diverse crowd celebrating an incoming president. Wow! I guess, I have to thank W for doing such a horrific job! As Chris Rock pointed out, W screwed up so bad, he mad it hard for a white man to run for president! That's not easy.
___________

Now. The war in Afghanistan. Initially, I thought it was understandable. I wasn't a big fan, but I got it. Now . . . Well, let's just say having family over there really changes things. It brings it home, no pun intended. Lauren and Jamie are hurting over their girls, who, by the way, are fine. Aside from testing the limits of acceptable behavior in the absence of their usual disciplinarians, I'm not sure if they're aware that Lauren and Jamie are gone. But Lauren and Jamie are homesick for their children. And, in sum, that's just one reason to avoid war. You know? It should be our very last option in reality, not just rhetoric.

War, Hoo!

Lauren and Jamie left earlier today before the youngest one's next dose of cold/flu medicine. The middle child turns 3 Monday. The oldest one looked at me like I was stupid when I offered to throw, as if it were a ball, some kind of Army rag doll with Lauren's picture as the face. Lauren asked the oldest, "Who's that?" "Mommy! You!"

But in other news, toddlers shouldn't be able to "talk with their eyes" the way this kid can.

Let's not kid around here. The only people this war in Afghanistan has helped are the terrorists and poppy growers and whatever private companies are in charge of "reconstruction."

Can you even think of a war that wasn't waged because one side wanted something the other side had? Or, in our case, wanted to try some ill-conceived experiment of democracy by force. I mean, really. Democracy by force? Was there no English major to tell the neo-conservatives in BushCo that "democracy by force" is a contradiction in terms?

And what about all the chicken-hawks? Those "patriots" who completely support the military but can't join themselves because they have "other things to do." Yeah. I understand now. Nobody wants to miss the birth of their children or a child's birthday. No mother wants to leave while a child is still sick. (Even though, when I was visiting, the medicine was working, and this little person was dancing like someone auditioning for Soul Train! Well, when it comes to energy and effort if not quite yet craft.) No father wants to miss the milestones in his children's lives like the first time they use the potty. (Only the oldest of Lauren and Jamie's children is potty-trained, which means I'll only offer to baby-sit that one.) Though, you do have the ever so brazen who are perfectly happy sending others to fight the battles they want to win - the chickenhawks.

It's no secret. I have no intentions of ever joining the military. And depending on the circumstances, I'm not willing to marry anyone who did; even if he's been discharged.

But I do have a suggestion or two before our next military adventure. I propose that a change be made to the Constitution that all family members of Congresspeople who vote for pre-emptive war who are fit for battle must join the military. The same goes for the family members of the President who carries out the wishes of the Congress.

Unless we are actually hit by a country, we should never enter war. Yeah, I'm willing to risk those initial American lives. Often, we have enough intelligence to be prepared for such strikes and prevent any acts of terror. We had the intelligence before Pearl Harbor and 9/11. We should start using it and hold in distrust those politicians who don't.

See, violence begets violence. War begets war. I don't know what reasonable excuse we have for not invading Saudi Arabia when 17 of the 19 attackers on 9/11 were Saudis; the royal family doesn't practice religious much less political freedom; the version of Islam that tolerates such violence is taught in schools that receive financial support from individual Saudis, members of the royal family, and even sometimes Saudi Arabia as a nation. But I do know that my cousin and her husband are gone; Americans, Afghans, and Iraqis are dying; and, bin Laden has gotten exactly what he wanted.

"They say we're fighting to keep our freedom, but Lord knows there's got to be a better way" (Whitfield and Strong, 1969). - No1KState, 2008

UPDATE: Car bombs in Iraq kill at least 25, wound 64
As Taliban nears Kabul, shadow gov't takes hold

My Two Soldiers

Blagojevich smalojevich. Barack Obama has had nothing to do with this pay-for-play scandal. Whatever Blago had in mind, it's clear he knew that bleeping Obama was only interested in giving him bleeping appreciation.

And to the US Senate Republicans: come of it! Stop hating on the UAW. The labor union isn't the problem. US auto companies haven't been making cars people want to buy. When I buy a car, I don't even have intentions of buying from the US auto industry. So, if you wanna clear out the ranks of upper-level, executive management, please do. But leave the union alone. Cause the way I see it, you're coming up against to philosophical contradictions. One is that the cost of workers in the North is too high, especially do to healthcare cost. One way to get rid of the healthcare cost burden on employers would be some sort-of "socialized medicine" via national medicaid/medicare for all, some sort-of single payer system. At the very least, we got to get rid of the system we have know: healthcare for profit. Sorry. People's lives shouldn't depend on insurance companies' bottom lines. And some form of "socialized medicine" will help cut costs for American business - and that's important to you, right?

The other contradiction you're up against is this notion of the free-market. The way I've understood it, in a free market, labor is a form of capital. Why are you so willing to help one side of the free market, business, but not the other, labor? In a truly free market, labor is allowed to make the same self-interested decisions that business is allowed to make. So, in the end, quit hating on a system you purport to support.

Now that I've expressed my feelings about that, I'm moving on. The Republicans are idiots. They're being obnoxious to block the American auto bail-out, or rather, bridge loan. And they're being especially obnoxious to demand Obama come clean about any contact and talk he or his staff or any emissary may have had with Blagojevish. I repeat: if we know nothing else, we do know that Blagojevich was angry that Obama wouldn't play game with him. Doesn't that clear Obama? Quit trying to paint him with Illinois corruption and call me when the Cubs win the Series, or the Bulls win the Finals. I have bigger fish to fry.

My cousin and her husband are due to be ship out to Afghanistan in early January. Hence, my title. And, quite frankly, I'm conflicted about the situation. I understand we need to finish the job in Afghanistan's, and I'm pissed that lame-a, er, -duck Bush didn't do so in the beginning. And the latest reports are that Afghans aren't do any better than they were before. For some, especially women, the situation has become worse. Just a few months ago, I watched part of a special about Afghan women setting themselves on fire as acts of rebellion against someone, be it an abusive husband or an abusive mother-in-law. (I don't know whether or not they had access to guns. But I do know that women aren't likely to use guns to commit suicide. And, I suppose, watching "your" woman burn to death at her decision can stick in the craw of the men who claim control of them.) I only watched part of the special because my stomach couldn't take it. Many of these women were unsuccessful at the quick suicide they intended and eventually died slow, painful deaths. They lived long enough to tell their story, so I guess that's something to support. But watching these talking faces with charred skin and lips noses burned off was more than I can take. Don't get me wrong. When it comes to the crime dramas I love so much, I can stomach stuff like that. I know it's fake. But when it's real, it causes not just my stomach to ache, but my heart as well.

So, part of me understands we may need the military to stabilize the situation enough so that, I would hope, we could send in more nonmilitary aid. But I hate that my cousin and her husband's lives are at risk. Now, I must confess, my cousin, who I'll call Lauren, and I aren't that close. I haven't really spoken to her in almost a year. But she's my cousin, and I love her. And I think she was dumb to have joined the army in the first place. I mean. First of all, I don't believe the myth that for this country is all that honorable. I mean, for me, it kinda depends on the war. I don't know. I just don't think America is worth my life. It's kind of hard to explain, so I'll leave it for a later post. Suffice it to say I think dying for America means you've died to maintain a system that cause more harm than good. And, I just can't accept the notion of dying for America in the face of having committed my life to Christ. I and anyone else who professes to be a Christian is supposed to be seeking God's kingdom and righteousness, and I just don't think America represents either one.

Plus, all the military deaths I can think of post-WWII haven't been for "freedom." They've been for oil or just maintaining control of the world. All this hype about winning the Cold War without bloodshed is just that - hype. Hundreds of thousands have died in the "Cold" War between Russia and America. Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing the situation never came to a war of nuclear weapons, but really. Do you really think someone would've turned America into a communist nation against our will? If you do, it's no wonder you think Al Qeada or any other terrorist organization could turn us into a Muslim country against our will. Or that the immigrants from south of the border will suddenly turn us into a Spanish-speaking 3rd world country. You're delusional.

Did I mention I'm actually angry at Lauren for having joined the Army in the first place? That's why I'm a bit conflicted about her and her husband, who I'll call Jamie, being called to Afghanistan. That's a choice they made as much as a mess BushCo. created. Now, from what I understand, the army was a way out for him. But her? She just initially joined the National Guard for the grad school money. It's not like she couldn't have earned scholarships or my aunt and uncle couldn't have chipped in. In fact, another aunt of ours said they would've gone door to door raising money for my cousin to go to school. For generations, our family has supported education, starting with my great-grandfather who opened a school.

And here's what really bothers me. Lauren and Jamie have three children. Three. One child should be two-years-old by now. Another turns three after Christmas. The oldest turns four in February. So, with 12-16 month tours, my cousin and her husband are going to miss the birthdays of their children, and the missing starts right away.

And what happens if Lauren and Jamie die? I know all of my family will do whatever we can to take care of the children. In fact, that's not even anything I personally have to worry about. But it's something the children will have to deal with. One memory I have of the oldest when she wasn't quite one is of her picking up telephones and remote controls and saying into them, "Elno. Doing!" as though she were expecting Lauren on the other end. And I can hear my cousin always answering the phone, "Hello? How you doing?" I'm not sure the children are old enough to understand death. In my mind, I can only imagine how long they'll expect their parents to be on the other side of a ringing phone or opening door.

Then again, what happens if Lauren and Jamie both survive? We know that post-traumatic stress disorder is under-reported and undertreated. Are they going to be the same parents the children remember?

I'm just conflicted about this whole thing.

And to top it off, cause I feel it needs to be, bin Laden has lived to see his nefarious plan come to fruition. At this point, over 4200 American soldiers have died in Iraq alone. That's more than the number of people who died in the 9/11/01 attacks. 540 Americans have died in Afghanistan. I haven't even started on the number of dead, injured, or displaced Iraqi and Afghan civilians. The total is well over 2 million. Closer to 3 million I would venture to guess. And for what? Are we really any safer? Isn't Obama still sending out messages? And last I heard, this whole Gitmo/torture/rendition method has been working against us; and, according to someone who's talked to foreign insurgents in Iraq, there's an untold number of American deaths due to US torture of so-called enemy combatants.

And now, the Mumbai attacks.

What of my cousin? What of her husband? What of their children? What of them and other families like them. Has this venture really been worth it? If you think it has, you're either delusional or evil. Maybe both.

Me Getting Back in the Game

I came across this while I was online.



My health took a downturn this pass month. Hopefully, this is the beginning of an upswing. It's not as though I haven't had any thoughts. I have many. Like . . . why do commentators keep questioning Obama's decisions? Didn't he win without taking their advice? And I don't know about anyone else, but I knew "change" was in the ideas and manner of governance, not necessarily the faces. Anyone can change faces and bring in people with the same old ideas. That's cosmetic. Real change occurs with leadership and ideas - ideas like the ones lined out in this video and ideas like making these vlogs.

Mostly, though, this pass month, I've been wondering about the world and my place in it. How to go about making the changes I think are necessary in the way I think is best. How to join the elite black intelligentsia that still pushes and strives for justice and equality for all.

Of course, there was Thanksgiving. I enjoyed the football games. I enjoyed the food and the family. My RN cousin had worked the night shift the previous night and warned us to call 911 if anything happened to anyone cause, as she put it, "I'm off the clock."

But it wasn't lost upon me that America was acquired by means of mass genocide and that my presence here in America represents other crimes against humanity.

Now, I'm caught between a couple of life decisions. Whether to follow the advice of my pastor, which wasn't really "advice"; or, to do what I think is right and best for me. Not that I would personally have any problem not taking his advice, I just gotta consider the impact it might have later. You know? How the people I seek to help might take such move. And then there's opportunities at another church, which may allow me the flexibility I seek and the opportunity to serve that I desire so much.

Oh, and let me not even start on my trouble with men. I could've sworn this guy liked me. Even after I explained some of my circumstances and some other things, he was still down. Then, almost 10 days past without a word from him! Was I really wrong for saying that was rude? I mean, really?

The Mumbia attacks strike me as almost inevitable and certainly foreseeable. The only question is will the West continue the cultural and economic hegemony that creates the circumstances that nurture such hate. Not that murder is ever justifiable. But I get the point they were trying to make; and, sometimes, that's the only way to get the attention of the powers that be. The problem that be often would rather continue to be powerful rather than humble.

I'm still around. Thinking and praying for guidance. And those of you who know the words of prayer, pray for me (A little shout out to the southern Black Church.)

Oh, Dear Lord

I had a post in mind about black racism, and indeed, I will get to that.

But first, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr and Zionists. Rev. Jackson is quoted as having said "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House. There's even more about it in an Israeli newspaper.

Now, while I promised more international flavor, I certainly didn't intend this to be it. But, you know what? It is, and it's important to discuss. So here's my opinion.

I strongly disagree with the Zionists. I can understand why any religious Jew longs to see the reconstruction of the Temple. I understand that, and I think it's important that it be rebuilt if possible. Not necessarily on the same site, but I have no idea how Jews observe what I read of the Torah without a Temple. And I think it's important that people of other beliefs, even if I disagree, are allowed to follow their faith.

That said, I do not agree that Israel has some inherent right to exist. If we accord territory by who fought to obtain and maintain it, then certainly Israel has proven that land belongs to them. But I disagree with the underlying idea. If I had my druthers, Amerindians would still be in control of both North and South America. Are, at least, there'd be equality of power. Palestinians would still be in charge of what's now Israel.

But, now, it is what it is. And what we face is an Israel that kills and murders as many Palestinians as they claim Hamas kills Israelis. What we face is an Israel that is breaking the Accords by extending it's reach and settlements more and more into Palestinians lands. They do this and get away with it because the US backs them. And it is wrong. Absolutely wrong.

It's wrong for a few reasons. I'll go through a few.

• Israel's presence and our support for Israel is behind much of the terror and killings in the Middle East, our war in Afghanistan and illegal invasion of Iraq notwithstanding.
• The Holocaust, as terrible and horrible as it was, and it happened - 12 million dead - does not entitled Israel to land that's not theirs and wasn't given to them by the previous occupants. And it certainly doesn't excuse their oppression, suppression and repression of the Palestinian people. I'm a Christian. Our Holy Book includes much of the Jewish Holy Book. I know of God's promises to Israel. But, Israel broke their end of the promise. Israel broke their end of the Covenant. That's how they ended up under the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Persians, and the Romans. And until they make right with God . . .
• And one thing I also know about the Covenant between God and Israel is that they aren't allowed to have any alliances with other nations. So, even though Zionist Christians think they're helping Israel but pressuring the US government to support Israel through groups like AIPAC, they're actually helping Israel continue to break their Covenant with Jehovah.
• And even if such alliances were allowed, God certainly doesn't approve of what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people.

I think what Rev. Jackson is pointing out is that up till now, the US has always been an broker with a conflict of interest. Hopefully, under an Obama administration, the Palestinians will have a more influential voice. Maybe they can get justice. I agree that Rev. Jackson is coming at this from an African-American standpoint. Just because Israel has the power and might to do something, doesn't mean it's right.

Which, interestingly enough helps bring me to the topic of "black racism." Ha! Just the idea of "black racism" makes me laugh. Like we've been calling the shots for the past 100 years or so. It's as ridiculous as the idea that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Democrats fighting Republican attempts to regulate the sub prime loans is what has gotten us in the trouble. Anyone who believes that hasn't taken the time to find out the truth, or is just an outright idiot to believe that Republicans fought for regulation of industry. Republicans fighting for regulation? Are you kidding me?

It's just like the misleading news and advertisements that somehow, ACORN is engaged in voter fraud. I guess, Americans don't take time to think. So, let me help you work this out logically. Let's say a false registration reaches the County Board of Election. The B of E is gonna reject it and the person won't get to vote. Problem solved. What CNN and Lou Dobbs should really be investigating and screaming bloody murder over is the widespread, national, Republican attempts to have people illegally removed from the voter rolls. I mean, in some states, they're actually trying to argue that people who've houses have been foreclosed on shouldn't be allowed to vote because they have no address. But, you can read more of that in some of my previous posts.

So, "black anti-white racism." According to lots of people, including Pat "When will they finally fire him?" Buchanan, it is a real phenomenon. And I think this myth is also something we'll need to work through logically and slowly. Follow me now, and don't be afraid to interrupt and ask questions.

First of all, somehow, the popular connotation of "racism" has morphed from the idea that people of color are inferior to white people, the idea that one group of people are inferior or superior to another group, to the idea that someone hates another person simply because of the color of the skin.

Well. Let's see. Here's one definition from American Psychological Association (APA):

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races
determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that
one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine;
discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

The problem is that white Americans ignore the destructive power of the first two and amplify the last one. That way they can deny being racist because they don't hate blacks. Even though our system of government and white Americans' beliefs is underlied by the idea that they are superior.

On the flip side, when blacks express anger and frustration at the racism inherent in our society, when white hear the Dr. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, white Americans here that anger and frustration, equate it to hate, then accuse African Americans of hating whites and therefore being racist.

Which goes to prove what angers blacks so much - that anytime you criticize the country, white Americans take it as a racist attack - that shows that they do, in fact, equate themselves with the system and that the system is indeed biased in their favor.

URG!!!!!!!!

So is their hatred in the black community? "You betcha." Do we teach it to our children? Do we preach it in our churches? Yeah. But it's not hatred of white people. You silly, silly white people. It's the hate of a system built against us. It's the frustration that even when we're twice as good as any white job applicant for example, sometimes we're still not considered equal to a whites. Yes, we hate injustice.

Then there's the fact that whites hate the fact that blacks don't trust them. Oh! their indignation at our questioning their motives behind the attacks and smears and reasons for not voting for Obama. They get so self-righteous when we point out that clearly they're not considering a black person equal to a white person even though said black person is far superior.

You wanna know why all that indignation and red-faced umbraged fall of nonlistening ears? It's because you first of all don't know, or do a good job or pretending not to know, what racism is. You excuse yourself of racism, point of fact, Pat Buchanan and Bill Bennett still have jobs. But when we speak out about it, you accuse us of racism when we're just fighting for justice.

And here's the other reason we don't trust you. Well, most of us don't trust most of you, especially white Christians. Why are you ignoring our outcry against the injustice of racism as defined in the first 2 sections? Why do you so easily accept the injustice of white supremacy?

Voter Suppression in Mississippi

Still At It
Posted by dday
Hullabaloo
August 22, 2008.
http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/
This time, in Mississippi.

We often chronicle the voter suppression and
intimidation machinations from the right. There's also
the use of US Attorneys to investigate Democrats at
fortunate times for their Republican opponents. Despite
the high-profile nature of the Don Siegelman case and
others, this element of the Republican machine hasn't
been shut down. In fact, it's in full force in a Senate
race in Mississippi.

As federal courtwatchers wonder if the Mississippi Beef
Plant investigation will entangle Senate candidate
Ronnie Musgrove, a Federal Election Commission check
shows U.S. Attorney Jim Greenlee contributed to his
opponent.

Greenlee was nominated for the U.S. attorney post in
2001 by President George W. Bush, supported by
Mississippi Sens. Thad Cochran and Trent Lott.
On Oct. 11, 2002 - just weeks before then-U.S. Rep.
Roger Wicker won another term in Congress - Greenlee
made a donation of $200 to Friends of Roger Wicker [...]
In U.S. District Court, where Greenlee is the chief
prosecutor, two Georgia company executives recently
pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign
contribution to then-Gov. Musgrove's 2003 re-election
campaign. They admitted they hoped to ask Musgrove for
help as they realized the Mississippi Beef Plant
construction project was in trouble.

The project ultimately failed, leaving hundreds of
people out of work and the state of Mississippi holding
the bag on millions of loan guarantees. Two men have
gone to prison on related fraud charges.

However, Musgrove has not been indicted and repeatedly
insists he did nothing wrong.

Scott Horton has taken notice of this one, as it shares
similarities with the Siegelman case that he's been
following closely - a former Democratic governor in the
Deep South, a Republican operative masquerading as a US
Attorney, and trumped-up charges designed to take down
Musgrove. These executives plead guilty to the illegal
contributions in a plea deal:

The three, all executives with The Facility Group of
Smyrna, Ga., were largely left off the hook on the more
serious charges that they had swindled the state out of
at least $2 million and had left the plant's vendors and
contractors holding the bag. Instead, they were allowed
in a plea bargain to confess to trying to buy influence
with Musgrove by steering $25,000 to the then-governor's
unsuccessful re-election campaign in 2003.

The orchestrated guilty pleas - and the prosecutors'
suggestion that more indictments could be forthcoming -
are a boon to the campaign of Republican Roger Wicker,
who was appointed to the vacant Senate seat in December
but is considered vulnerable. They leave a cloud over
Musgrove in voters' minds and provide more fodder for
negative campaign ads from the G.O.P. camp, even though
Musgrove has not been charged with any wrongdoing and
there's nothing in the court records to document he did
anything illegal.

Well, maybe we can get somebody over at the Justice
Department to investigate. Or I know, an independent
body like the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights! Anyone
know any of their new hires?

It looks like Hans von Spakovsky, an old TPM favorite,
is back in business. The former Justice Department
official, whose nomination to the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) was thwarted when Democrats objected to
his long record of support for restrictions on voting
rights, has been hired as a "consultant and temporary
full-time employee" at the ostensibly bi-partisan U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) the agency confirmed
to TPMmuckraker [...]

Among Spakovsky's duties will be overseeing the USCCR's
report on the Justice Department's monitoring of the
2008 presidential elections, a source inside the USCCR
told TPMmuckraker.

Spakovsky's hiring is at the request of Commissioner
Todd Gaziano, who works for the conservative Heritage
Foundation on FEC issues and has defended Spakovsky in
the press before. According to a federal government
source, Gaziano has recommended Spakovsky at the
government's highest payscale -- which would work out to
about $124,010 annually if Spakovsky was to stay for an
entire year.

Looks like we're in good hands.
_____________________________________________

Girl-child Just Ain't Safe in a House Full of Men

Sexual Assault in Military 'Jaw-Dropping,' Lawmaker Says

July 31, 2008

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A congresswoman said Thursday that
her "jaw dropped" when military doctors told her that
four in 10 women at a veterans hospital reported being
sexually assaulted while in the military.

A government report indicates that the numbers could be
even higher.

Rep. Jane Harman, D-California, spoke before a House
panel investigating the way the military handles reports
of sexual assault.

She said she recently visited a Veterans Affairs
hospital in the Los Angeles area, where women told her
horror stories of being raped in the military.

"My jaw dropped when the doctors told me that 41 percent
of the female veterans seen there say they were victims
of sexual assault while serving in the military," said
Harman, who has long sought better protection of women
in the military.

"Twenty-nine percent say they were raped during their
military service. They spoke of their continued terror,
feelings of helplessness and downward spirals many of
their lives have taken since.

"We have an epidemic here," she said. "Women serving in
the U.S. military today are more likely to be raped by a
fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq."

As of July 24, 100 women had died in Iraq, according to
the Pentagon.

In 2007, Harman said, only 181 out of 2,212 reports of
military sexual assaults, or 8 percent, were referred to
courts martial. By comparison, she said, 40 percent of
those arrested in the civilian world on such charges are
prosecuted.

Defense statistics show that military commanders took
unspecified action, which can include anything from
punishment to dismissal, in an additional 419 cases.

But when it came time for the military to defend itself,
the panel was told that the Pentagon's top official on
sexual abuse, Dr. Kaye Whitley, was ordered not to show
up despite a subpoena.

"I don't know what you're trying to cover up here, but
we're not going to allow it," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-
California, said to the Defense official who relayed the
news of Whitley's no-show. "This is unacceptable."

Rep. John Tierney, the panel's chairman and a Democrat
from Massachusetts, angrily responded, "these actions by
the Defense Department are inexplicable."

"The Defense Department appears to be willfully and
blatantly advising Dr. Whitley not to comply with a duly
authorized congressional subpoena," Tierney said.

An Army official who did testify said the Army takes
allegations of sexual abuse extremely seriously.

"Even one sexual assault violates the very essence of
what it means to be a soldier, and it's a betrayal of
the Army's core values," Lt. Gen. Michael Rochelle said.

The committee also heard from Mary Lauterbach, the
mother of Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach, a 20-year-old
pregnant Marine who was killed in December, allegedly by
a fellow Marine.

Mary Lauterbach said her daughter filed a rape claim
with the military against Marine Cpl. Cesar Laurean
seven months before he was accused of killing her.

"I believe that Maria would be alive today if the
Marines had provided a more effective system to protect
the victims of sexual assault," she said.

In the months after her daughter filed the rape claim,
she said, the military didn't seem to take her
seriously, and the onus was on "Maria to connect the
dots."

"The victim should not have the burden to generate
evidence for the command," Lauterbach told the
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs.
"Maria is dead, but there will be many more victims in
the future, I promise you. I'm here to ask you to do
what you can to help change how the military treats
victims of crime and to ensure the victims receive the
support and protection they need and they deserve."

Another woman, Ingrid Torres, described being raped on a
U.S. base in Korea when she worked with the American Red
Cross.

"I was raped while I slept," she said.

The man who assaulted her, she said, was a flight
director who was found guilty and dismissed from the Air
Force.

Fighting back tears, Torres added, "he still comes after
me in my dreams."

The Government Accountability Office released
preliminary results from an investigation into sexual
assaults in the military and the Coast Guard. The GAO
found that the "occurrences of sexual assault may be
exceeding the rates being reported."

"At the 14 installations where GAO administered its
survey, 103 service members indicated that they had been
sexually assaulted within the preceding 12 months. Of
these, 52 service members indicated that they did not
report the sexual assault," the GAO said.

The office found that the military and Coast Guard have
established policies to address sexual assault but that
the implementation of the programs is hampered by an
array of factors, including that "most, but not all,
commanders support the programs."

"Left unchecked, these challenges can discourage or
prevent some service members from using the programs
when needed," the GAO said.

Tierney said, "what's at stake here goes to the very
core of the values of the military and the nation
itself.

"When our sons and daughters put their lives on the line
to defend the rest of us, the last thing they should
fear is being attacked by one of our own.

This Is Our Moment

Here's a video of Barack Obama's Berlin speech in its entirety.

But, of course, I gotta preface it with some of that special MHCTG love!

• McCain and McCain supporters, quit crying! Didn't you want Obama to get more "world" experience?
• Other so-called patriots, the USA isn't that great. You get pissy when people complain about the country abroad. You get pissy when people complain here. Get over it.
• McCain, you toured South America. You gave a speech in Canada. If you were really into waiting until you were president to speech to people in other countries, you wouldn't have given that speech in Canada. And Joe Watkins tried to explain why you're so incredulous - the difference was that Obama was overseas not just in another country. But we all know the truth - you're jealous. You can't get anybody to listen to you over here, much less anywhere else. -And oh. Sorry about the fact that two oil carriers ships collided and spilled oil in the Mississippi, thus ruining your plans to push more offshore drilling. (snicker, snicker) By the by, are you still in favor of offshore drilling today? (Hold strong, Democrats!)
• Lastly, Mac. I'll give you some advice. STOP TALKING ABOUT THE SURGE. You're confusing yourself and anyone else who's listening. And I guess that's really what you're banking out, right? That no one's listening. Well, I can't hate. Seems like that plan is working.

Now, some of the more saber-rattling parts I didn't care for. But, it wasn't half bad.

And now, the man of the hour . . .

It's About Time!

First, a quick note concerning my opinion of Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe needs to hold free and fair elections. Yes, he'd probably lose. In that case, he'd need to allow the democratically elected officials come to power. Yes, he and his supporters in government would probably also lose the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed. That's where the IMF and World Bank come in - quit giving lend countries these bogus loans with the economic terms that promote the sort of corruption we've seen arise in the developing countries were you lend money. Considering the years of slavery and colonialism, I can hardly see how any country in Africa doesn't have a budget surplus due to the reparations owed by the West. That aside, if the point is to grow a prosperous and dynamic economy that can support the country, you can't lend the money only to those in power. You have to do macro-lending and allow countries to develop more than one cash-crop.

Oh, and while I'm on the subject of African countries and their business relations to the West, if Big Oil would pay Nigeria and the people in the Delta their fair due, and treat the workers with due respect, so-called extremists wouldn't disrupt oil production.

Oh, and a note about Condoleeza Rice: When are you going to turn you humanitarianism on your boss, George "W is for War-Lord" Bush?

U.N. Security Council Says Sexual Violence Akin to War Crimes

By Maggie Farley, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer June 20, 2008
UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Security Council affirmed Thursday that rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, and called for measures to combat such attacks.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice introduced the U.S.-sponsored resolution at a special session attended by diplomats from 60 nations.

Rice said the resolution brought an end to a debate about whether sexual violence was a security issue and belonged on the council's agenda. A similar resolution last year failed to pass, with several members disputing the need for it.

"I am proud that today we respond to that lingering question with a resounding yes," she told the Security Council. "This world body now acknowledges that sexual violence in conflict zones is indeed a security concern."

We affirm that sexual violence profoundly affects not only the health and safety of women, but the economic and social stability of their nations."

The resolution established U.N. procedures to monitor sexual violence in armed conflicts and called for the secretary-general to report in one year on their implementation. It also urges the U.N. to impose sanctions on violators.

Advocacy groups pushed the issue back onto the council agenda after China, Russia and South Africa said last year that sexual violence was an unfortunate byproduct of war and one that was addressed by a number of U.N. agencies, but was not a matter of international peace and security.

The resolution also urged the secretary-general to clamp down on peacekeepers who prey on vulnerable women and children instead of protecting them.

Despite an attempt by the U.N. to revamp the regulations and culture among peacekeepers and staffers after incidents of sexual exploitation over the last few years in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, reports of further abuses surfaced last year in several countries.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the council that he was committed to "zero tolerance" and "zero impunity" for sexual abuse by U.N. personnel and urged countries that provide troops to follow through with prosecution because the U.N. has no authority to try the perpetrators.

He pledged to strengthen the world body's code of conduct and hold supervisors accountable for assaults committed by soldiers and staffers.

The presence of high-level female officials at Thursday's meeting was deliberate. Rice chaired the gathering. France's secretary of state for human rights, Rama Yade, called for the prosecution of sexual violence at the International Criminal Court. British Atty. Gen. Patricia Scotland denounced recent attacks on women in Zimbabwe, especially the killing Wednesday of the mayor's wife in the capital, Harare.

The wives of the U.S. and British ambassadors to the United Nations also have worked to raise awareness that rape is a deliberate war tactic meant to intimidate and destroy communities, as seen in the former Yugoslav federation, Sudan's Darfur region and Congo.

After adopting the resolution, the council held an informal session to condemn increasing violence in Zimbabwe in the run-up to the June 27 presidential runoff election.

Next week, the Security Council will have its first formal meeting on the violence there and will be briefed by U.N. envoy Haile Menkerios, who was in Zimbabwe on Thursday.

South Africa, China and Russia have blocked official discussion so far, saying it would be interfering in a nation's internal affairs.

Rice cited concern among council members that "free and fair elections cannot possibly be held" in Zimbabwe because of the increasing intimidation of and violence against the opposition by the government of President Robert Mugabe, who is seeking reelection.

"I think that the mood in the room was one of extraordinary concern and a desire for President Mugabe to hear that there is tremendous international concern about what is happening in his country," the secretary of State told reporters after the meeting.

"I don't see anything that President Mugabe has done that has been helpful to Zimbabwean people, so maybe it's time for international pressure."

Gitmo and Hope

I didn't support the nomination of Judge Janice Rogers Brown to the federal court. It seemed to me she was too ideological to care about the truth, only about the outcome. I pretty much agreed with the People For the American Way and saveourcourts.com on Judge Brown. Judge Brown's record seem to show she only cared to protect corporations and government infringement on fundamental rights. And the fact that her nomination had come from this current administration only made her seem worse. So, no, I wasn't a big fan and this recent dissent isn't going to turn me into one. It does, however, give me hope. I mean, in what world is a group of persons not "persons"?

In other news important to me, Bob Herbert's assessment of New Hampshire primary results seem to be the most reasonable.

Uh, What? Run That by Me One More 'Gain

First, Mukasey says the Justice Department can't cooperate with Congress's investigation of the destruction of CIA tapes.

The Justice Department and the C.I.A.'s inspector general have begun a preliminary inquiry into the destruction of the tapes, and Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said the department would not comply with Congressional requests for information now because of "our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence."

No one's quite sure what's on the tape, but the Bush administration and the CIA had been instructed NOT to destroy the tape. Presumably, the tapes are of the CIA using torture. And, the Bush administration would cooperate with Congress, but they don't wanna the investigation to look political. In a move reversal its normal course of (in)action, Congress in planning to defy the administration.

Of course, there are questions about who in Congress was told about the tapes, what they were told about the tapes, and what they said about what they were told. Some say Congress wasn't told much. Dana Perino, White House Press Secretary claims Congress knew more than Bush.

Now, the Bush administration doesn't want a federal judge asking questions since Congress and the Justice Dept is already investigating CIA tapes.

In court documents filed Friday night, government lawyers told U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy that demanding information about the tapes would interfere with current investigations by Congress and the Justice Department.

Somebody please explain this logic!