Bosnian Serb War Criminal Arrested

Aide to wanted Mladic is arrested

A former Bosnian Serb general and close aide to top war crimes suspect Ratko Mladic has been arrested in Bosnia.

Zdravko Tolimir, 58, is one of the top fugitives sought by the UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague for his alleged role in the Srebrenica massacre.

Gen Mladic has evaded arrest for years. He is wanted for war crimes against Muslim civilians in the 1990s.

Correspondents say Mr Tolimir's arrest, confirmed by the Hague tribunal, could speed up the search for his ex-boss.

He was detained in eastern Bosnia close to the border with Serbia and just a few kilometres from the town of Srebrenica, where up to 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were killed in July 1995.

Preparations are being made for his transfer to The Hague.

.............................................................

He was considered the third most important person on the list of those indicted for war crimes by the ICTY, after Gen Mladic and his wartime political leader, Radovan Karadzic.

Both Gen Mladic and Mr Karadzic have been indicted for genocide over the killings in Srebrenica and the 43-month siege of Sarajevo, which claimed more than 10,000 lives.

Gen Tolimir was an intelligence officer and senior aide to Gen Mladic at the time of the massacre at Srebrenica, which was carried out by Bosnian Serb soldiers under Gen Mladic's command.

Gen Tolimir is accused of helping to plan and carry out the murders, which have since been internationally recognised as genocide.

With his arrest, only five of the 161 people indicted by the UN tribunal remain at large, including Gen Mladic and Mr Karadzic.

I for one am elated. I believe whole-heartedly in international and transnational justice. International law, for all the arguments about it and the recalcitrance of states, does exist--the problem is getting states to enforce it (fairly). So here we have a great example of a time that it is working. Is it perfect? No. For from it. But I would love to see it expanded, and to see leaders held to account for mass crimes.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6709693.stm

Russia blames US in missile row

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said a recent ballistic missile test was in answer to US plans to create a defence shield in Central Europe.

Mr Putin said it was a "response to maintain the strategic balance in the world", in what he called a "new round of the arms race".

He added that Russia would continue to improve its resources.

Russia tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile, which can be armed with up to 10 warheads, on Tuesday.

"Our American partners have left the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty," Mr Putin told a press conference.

"We have warned them then that we will come out with a response to maintain the strategic balance in the world."

'New weapons'

Mr Putin defended Russia's actions, insisting they were not the "initiators of this new round of the arms race".

"(Our partners) are stuffing Eastern Europe with new weapons," he said.

"A new base in Bulgaria, another in Romania, a site in Poland, radar in the Czech Republic. What are we supposed to do? We cannot just observe all this."

He added: "These actions by Russia should not be feared, they are not aggressive, it's just an answer to rather tough and unjustified unilateral actions by partners."

Washington wants to deploy interceptor rockets in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic to counter what it describes as a potential threat from "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea.

The US maintains its system is not directed at the Russians, but Moscow says its security is being threatened.

Russia's test launch took place at the Plesetsk cosmodrome in northern Russia on 29 May.

The missile, called RS-24, was designed to evade missile defence systems, the Russian defence ministry says.

The test missile successfully struck its target 5,500km (3,400 miles) away on the far eastern Kamchatka peninsula, the Russian Strategic Missile Forces said.

(Originally on BBC website click here for article)

Privacy Issues in the Digital Age

I think I have found an interesting topic for discussion, technology versus privacy. Over on the MSNBC website, they are doing a series of articles on the issue called Privacy Lost: No Secrets in the Digital Age. Some things to consider directly from the first article in the series:

• Hewlett Packard executives hiring private investigators to spy on employees and journalists.
• Rep. Mark Foley sending innuendo-laden instant messages – a reminder that digital communication lasts forever and that anonymous sources can be unmasked by clever bloggers from just a few electronic clues.
• The federal government allegedly compiling a database of telephone numbers dialed by Americans, and eavesdropping on U.S. callers dialing international calls without obtaining court orders.
• Privacy will remain in the headlines in the months to come, as states implement the federal government’s Real ID Act, which will effectively create a national identification program by requiring new high-tech standards for driver’s licenses and ID cards.
• The simple act of surrendering a telephone number to a store clerk may seem innocuous — so much so that many consumers do it with no questions asked. Yet that one action can set in motion a cascade of silent events, as that data point is acquired, analyzed, categorized, stored and sold over and over again. Future attacks on your privacy may come from anywhere, from anyone with money to purchase that phone number you surrendered.
• ...MySpace pages laden with fraternity party photos might one day cost (someone) a job.
• Virginia Shelton, 46, her daughter, Shirley, 16; and a friend, Jennifer Starkey, 17, were all arrested and charged with murder in 2003 because of an out-of-synch ATM camera. Their pictures were flashed in front of a national audience and they spent three weeks in a Maryland jail before it was discovered that the camera was set to the wrong time.

I think each one could be a valid starting point for a discussion. Where should a person's privacy rights extend to in this new age where your personal information is a traded commodity, where employers spy on employees and there are cameras on every street corner? Can privacy be regained? Should it be regained? How much would you be willing to give up to known or unknown entities for market research? for security? for convenience?

There are other issues brought up in the later articles in the series too. The difference in the US vs Europe is what is in the third article:

Europe:

• Personal information cannot be collected without consumers’ permission, and they have the right to review the data and correct inaccuracies.
• Companies that process data must register their activities with the government.
• Employers cannot read workers’ private e-mail.
• Personal information cannot be shared by companies or across borders without express permission from the data subject.
  
• Checkout clerks cannot ask for shoppers’ phone numbers.

There is also a side-by-side comparison of the US versus the EU on the second page of the article (click here to go directly to page 2 of this the 3rd article). It is an interesting and telling difference. There is quite a divide between the two.

What are your thoughts on this one?

Interrogation Methods Criticized by Head of 9/11 Commission

WASHINGTON, May 29 — As the Bush administration completes secret new rules governing interrogations, a group of experts advising the intelligence agencies are arguing that the harsh techniques used since the 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.

The psychologists and other specialists, commissioned by the Intelligence Science Board, make the case that more than five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has yet to create an elite corps of interrogators trained to glean secrets from terrorism suspects.

While billions are spent each year to upgrade satellites and other high-tech spy machinery, the experts say, interrogation methods — possibly the most important source of information on groups like Al Qaeda — are a hodgepodge that date from the 1950s, or are modeled on old Soviet practices.

Some of the study participants argue that interrogation should be restructured using lessons from many fields, including the tricks of veteran homicide detectives, the persuasive techniques of sophisticated marketing and models from American history.

The science board critique comes as ethical concerns about harsh interrogations are being voiced by current and former government officials. The top commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, sent a letter to troops this month warning that “expedient methods” using force violated American values.

In a blistering lecture delivered last month, a former adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called “immoral” some interrogation tactics used by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon.

But in meetings with intelligence officials and in a 325-page initial report completed in December, the researchers have pressed a more practical critique: there is little evidence, they say, that harsh methods produce the best intelligence.

My first response to this was positive, at least from the standpoint that current methods of "enhanced interrogation" are not only immoral but ineffective. Then I started to worry that the powers that be will take this more as a message that waterboarding isn't enough, and we need to develop more "effective" techniques, maybe the kind applied during the Argentine Dirty War of the 1970s and 80s or by the KGB in the 1960s. Hopefully the former.

A little FYI, the term "enhanced interrogation" that we heard bandied about by the Republican nominees (save for the notable dissent of McCain and Paul) originates with the Nazis. In German the phrase is "Verschärfte Vernehmung" or "sharpened interrogation." Here is a link if you're interested. In the interest of disclosure, the link is to a blog at the Atlantic Monthly. Take it as you will.


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html

For the NYT story, go here:

www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/washington/30interrogate.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

People You Should Know: Stephen Harper

Stephen Harper

- Prime Minister of Canada
- Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
- M.A. degree in economics from the University of Calgary
- The Harper government has identified five policy priorities, in the areas of federal accountability, tax reform, crime, child care and health care
- To date, the government during Harper's prime ministership has avoided dealing with many of the more controversial social policy positions of the Conservative party, although they have followed through with increasing the legal age of consent from 14 to 16 years, and have promised a free vote to revisit the issue of same-sex marriage.
- Following a debate and vote in the House of Commons, the Harper government renewed the NORAD agreement with the United States, making it permanent and adding maritime defence to the agreement, which previously covered only air defence. Members of the NDP who were highly critical of the agreement, arguing that the arrangement will reduce Canadian sovereignty over the country's internal waters.
- insists on his right to choose who asks questions at press conferences

Right-to-die issues divide Americans

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
(Original Story)

NEW YORK - More than two-thirds of Americans believe there are circumstances in which a patient should be allowed to die, but they are closely divided on whether it should be legal for a doctor to help terminally ill patients end their own lives by prescribing fatal drugs, a new AP-Ipsos poll finds.

The results were released Tuesday, just days before Dr. Jack Kevorkian is freed from a Michigan prison after serving more than eight years for second-degree murder in the poisoning of a man with Lou Gehrig's disease.

Kevorkian's defiant assisted suicide campaign, which he waged for years before his conviction, fueled nationwide debate about patients' right to die and the role that physicians should play.
Though demonized by his critics as a callous killer, Kevorkian — who is to be released Friday — maintains relatively strong public support. The AP-Ipsos poll found that 53 percent of those surveyed thought he should not have been jailed; 40 percent supported his imprisonment. The results were similar to an ABC News poll in 1999 that found 55 percent disagreeing with his conviction.

The new AP-Ipsos poll asked whether it should be legal for doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to help terminally ill patients end their own lives — a practice currently allowed in Oregon but in no other states. Forty-eight percent said it should be legal; 44 percent said it should be illegal.
More broadly, 68 percent said there are circumstances when a patient should be allowed to die, while 30 percent said doctors and nurses, in all circumstances, should do everything possible to save the life of a patient.

A majority of respondents — 55 percent — said they would not consider ending their own lives if ill with a terminal disease. Thirty-five percent said they would consider that option.
Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law took effect in 1997. Through last year, 292 people — mostly stricken with cancer — have died under its provisions, which allow terminally ill, mentally competent adults to administer life-ending medication prescribed by a physician.
In addition to Oregon, three European countries — Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands — authorize assistance by doctors in the deaths of patients.

Oregon's law has been reaffirmed by state voters and has survived intense legal challenges, but has yet to be emulated in any other state. Bills have been defeated by lawmakers in Vermont, Hawaii, Wisconsin and Washington; ballot measures to allow physician-assisted death have lost in Washington, California, Michigan and Maine.

The current battleground is California, where a bill similar to Oregon's law is moving through the legislature. Even if it were to win final passage, there is uncertainty whether Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger would sign it; he recently suggested the issue should go directly to voters as a ballot initiative.

Assemblywoman Patty Berg, a co-author of the bill, said it gives a terminally ill patient "the power to chose the time, place and circumstances of their death." She contended that most Californians support the measure, but that it faces tough opposition from the Roman Catholic Church, some conservative Protestant churches, and the California Medical Association.
"Physicians look at it as the ultimate abandonment of a patient," said medical association spokesman Ron Lopp. "That's not the physician's role, to aggressively hasten death."

The AP-Ipsos poll showed that religious faith is a significant factor in views on the subject.
Only 34 percent of those who attend religious services at least once a week think it should be legal for doctors to help terminally ill patients end their own lives. In contrast, 70 percent of those who never attend religious services thought the practice should be legal.

Just 23 percent of those who attend religious services at least weekly would consider ending their own lives if terminally ill, compared to 49 percent of those who never attend religious services.

There also was a divide along partisan lines, with 57 percent of Democrats saying it should be legal for doctors to help terminally ill patients end their own lives compared to 39 percent of Republicans. Similarly, 56 percent of Republicans felt Kevorkian should have been jailed, compared to 31 percent of Democrats.

Men were more likely to say they would consider ending their own lives if faced with a terminal illness — 43 percent of men would consider the option, compared to just 28 percent of women. And 53 percent of men think it should be legal for doctors to help end the lives of terminally ill patients, compared to 44 percent of women.

Southerners and Midwesterners are most likely to oppose assisted suicide. The poll found that 59 percent of Northeasterners feel the practice should be legal, compared with 52 percent in the West, 45 percent in the Midwest, and 43 percent in the South.

The AP-Ipsos poll involved telephone interviews with 1,000 randomly chosen adults from May 22-24. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Just a Sick Reality Show...or an Insightful Commentary?

A Dutch TV station says it will go ahead with a programme in which a terminally ill woman selects one of three patients to receive her kidneys.

Political parties have called for The Big Donor Show to be scrapped, but broadcaster BNN says it will highlight the country's shortage of organ donors.

"It's a crazy idea," said Joop Atsma, of the ruling Christian Democrat Party.

"It can't be possible that, in the Netherlands, people vote about who's getting a kidney," he told the BBC.

The programme, from Big Brother creators Endemol, is due to be screened on Friday night.

'Totally unacceptable'

The 37-year-old donor, identified only as Lisa, will make her choice based on the contestants' history, profile and conversation with their family and friends.

Viewers will also be able to send in their advice by text message during the 80-minute show.

When I first heard this story on the BBC this morning, I thought what a horrible, tasteless idea. Reality shows have gone too far (again). But, after listening to both sides in the debate, I wonder. The contestants have a 1 in 3 chance of getting a kidney on this show versus a 1 in 1000s on a donor list. Plus, if it and the debate surrounding it brings attention to the sad dearth of organ donors (a problem in the US as well), then maybe it will all be for the best. But still a little creepy no matter how you look it.

Oh, and they get around legal problems because in Holland a donor can choose the recipient so long as the donation is made while the donor is living. After a person dies the law stipulates it goes to the list.

Story excerpted from BBC NEWS. To read the story in its entirety, please visit:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/6699847.stm

My thoughts on today - Memorial Day

Today, it is important to take a moment aside from politics and debates to remember the men and women who served in the armed forces over our 221 year history. Brave souls who gave time and energy and in many cases their lives for a cause, but even more important than that to me - for today it is time to remember that they were living, breathing, loving people. They had families and friends. They had dreams and hopes. These men and women were just like you and I. They felt joy. They felt pain. Sometimes they triumphed, and sometimes they failed. They aren't just fallen soldiers to me on this day, they are much more important, they are men and women who lived and died. Today is not a day to remember the sacrifice they gave for me, that's everyday, today is a day to remember they were flesh and blood. Not to lament the loss of soldiers who ensured our freedoms, today I remember those soldiers had lives too. I never forget the sacrifices they made, but today, today is a day to remember not just their sacrifices, but them.

Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran

May 22, 2007 6:29 PM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

(Originally from here)

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region.

A National Security Council spokesperson, Gordon Johndroe, said, "The White House does not comment on intelligence matters." A CIA spokesperson said, "As a matter of course, we do not comment on allegations of covert activity."

The sources say the CIA developed the covert plan over the last year and received approval from White House officials and other officials in the intelligence community.

Officials say the covert plan is designed to pressure Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment program and end aid to insurgents in Iraq.

"There are some channels where the United States government may want to do things without its hand showing, and legally, therefore, the administration would, if it's doing that, need an intelligence finding and would need to tell the Congress," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism official.

Current and former intelligence officials say the approval of the covert action means the Bush administration, for the time being, has decided not to pursue a military option against Iran.

"Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike," said former CIA official Riedel, "but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides."

The covert action plan comes as U.S. officials have confirmed Iran had dramatically increased its ability to produce nuclear weapons material, at a pace that experts said would give them the ability to build a nuclear bomb in two years.

Riedel says economic pressure on Iran may be the most effective tool available to the CIA, particularly in going after secret accounts used to fund the nuclear program.

"The kind of dealings that the Iranian Revolution Guards are going to do, in terms of purchasing nuclear and missile components, are likely to be extremely secret, and you're going to have to work very, very hard to find them, and that's exactly the kind of thing the CIA's nonproliferation center and others would be expert at trying to look into," Riedel said.

Under the law, the CIA needs an official presidential finding to carry out such covert actions. The CIA is permitted to mount covert "collection" operations without a presidential finding.

"Presidential findings" are kept secret but reported to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other key congressional leaders.

The "nonlethal" aspect of the presidential finding means CIA officers may not use deadly force in carrying out the secret operations against Iran.

Still, some fear that even a nonlethal covert CIA program carries great risks.

"I think everybody in the region knows that there is a proxy war already afoot with the United States supporting anti-Iranian elements in the region as well as opposition groups within Iran," said Vali Nasr, adjunct senior fellow for Mideast studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"And this covert action is now being escalated by the new U.S. directive, and that can very quickly lead to Iranian retaliation and a cycle of escalation can follow," Nasr said.

Other "lethal" findings have authorized CIA covert actions against al Qaeda, terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

Also briefed on the CIA proposal, according to intelligence sources, were National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams.

"The entire plan has been blessed by Abrams, in particular," said one intelligence source familiar with the plan. "And Hadley had to put his chop on it."

Abrams' last involvement with attempting to destabilize a foreign government led to criminal charges.

He pleaded guilty in October 1991 to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress about the Reagan administration's ill-fated efforts to destabilize the Nicaraguan Sandinista government in Central America, known as the Iran-Contra affair. Abrams was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush in December 1992.

In June 2001, Abrams was named by then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to head the National Security Council's office for democracy, human rights and international operations. On Feb. 2, 2005, National Security Advisor Hadley appointed Abrams deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy, one of the nation's most senior national security positions.

As earlier reported on the Blotter on ABCNews.com, the United States has supported and encouraged an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, that has conducted deadly raids inside Iran from bases on the rugged Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan "tri-border region."

U.S. officials deny any "direct funding" of Jundullah groups but say the leader of Jundullah was in regular contact with U.S. officials.

American intelligence sources say Jundullah has received money and weapons through the Afghanistan and Pakistan military and Pakistan's intelligence service. Pakistan has officially denied any connection.

A report broadcast on Iranian TV last Sunday said Iranian authorities had captured 10 men crossing the border with $500,000 in cash along with "maps of sensitive areas" and "modern spy equipment."

A senior Pakistani official told ABCNews.com the 10 men were members of Jundullah.

The leader of the Jundullah group, according to the Pakistani official, has been recruiting and training "hundreds of men" for "unspecified missions" across the border in Iran.

U.S. Agencies Correctly Evaluated Iraq, Panel Says

Click here for The Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Prewar Intelligence Assessments About Postwar Iraq

(Article lifted directly from the NPR website, click here for the article)

All Things Considered, May 25, 2007 ·

by Mary Louise Kelly and Michele Norris

The predictions of U.S. spy agencies on what to expect in post-war Iraq have mostly been proved accurate, according to a new Senate Intelligence Committee report. But several Republican senators have objected to conclusions in the report on pre-war intelligence assessments.

The senators and their staff considered a number of documents and previous investigations. But they relied most heavily on two papers from the National Intelligence Council — both of them previously classified — dated January 2003.

The papers looked at what the main challenges would be in a post-Saddam Iraq, and at the regional consequences of a war.

Their judgments turn out to be mostly on the mark, as the authors warned about the danger of sectarian violence and warned that both al-Qaida and Iran would try to exploit the situation in a post-Saddam Iraq.

The report was approved by a vote of 10-5, with two Republicans — Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel — crossing over to vote with the Democrats.

But the five Republicans who voted against the report have a number of issues with it.

On one front, they argue that the report's conclusions only highlight the issues that seem important to those looking at Iraq now — a prism that they say offers a distorted picture of what was presented to policymakers at the time.

The dissenters were also angry that a large chunk of the report is 81 pages of names — the people to whom the two National Intelligence Council reports were distributed.

While many of the names are blacked out, a good number of them are not.

Scooter Libby and Stephen Hadley at the White House are on page one of the report. The authors, it can be assumed, included the names for the sake of accountability, to show who had access to the warnings.

Republicans point out there are some factual inaccuracies in the list of names, saying that some people may have been on leave, or may never have seen the documents. The list, they say, sets a bad precedent.

The Senate panel has yet to produce its findings on a central question: whether the intelligence on Iraq was hyped by senior Bush administration officials to make the case for war.

Well, at least here's some news that's a bit more positive...

US minimum wage to get $2 boost

The minimum wage in the US is to rise by $2.10 per hour, to $7.25 from its current level of $5.15, the first time it has increased in a decade.

The US Congress voted in favour of the rise, which was attached to a bill funding the Iraq war.

Democrats promised to boost the minimum wage when they won control of Congress in elections in 2006.

The increase will be phased in over a two-year period and will accompanied by tax breaks for small businesses.

The White House negotiated a $4.84bn tax break to help employers pay for the increase in wages.

Minimum wage workers are typically young, single and female and are often black or Hispanic.

Twin benefits

Previous proposals to boost the minimum wage have regularly been scuppered by arguments between Democrats and Republicans.

Earlier this year the proposal was approved by both houses of Congress but became one casualty of President George W Bush's veto of a previous funding bill which included Democratic plans to impose a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

The chairman of the Ways and Means committee in the House of Representative, Democrat Charles Rangel, said the new measure would benefit employees and employers.

"This package will help millions of American workers better cope with the rising cost of living while helping our businesses expand and hire new workers to keep our local economies vibrant."

Original article at the BBC website located here.

Oh course I don't think that 7.25 is nearly enough. I would have like to have seen it set it at around a dollar more.

Some Stats from Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) IV; Operation Iraqi Freedom 05-07

This is from the Office of the Surgeon Multinational Force in Iraq and Office of the Surgeon General of the United States Army Medical Command - Click here for the full report.

• "Only 47 percent of soldiers and only 38 percent of Marines agreed that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect."
• "Well over a third of soldiers and Marines reported torture should be allowed, whether to save the life of a fellow soldier or Marine … or to obtain important information about insurgents…."
• 28 percent of soldiers and 30 percent of Marines reported they had cursed and/or insulted Iraqi noncombatants in their presence.
• 9 percent and 12 percent, respectively, reported damaging or destroying Iraqi property "when it was not necessary."
• 4 percent and 7 percent, respectively, reported hitting or kicking a noncombatant "when it was not necessary.
• The study also reports that only 55 percent of soldiers and just 40 percent of Marines would report a unit member injuring or killing "an innocent noncombatant," and just 43 percent and 30 percent, respectively, would report a unit member destroying or damaging private property.

I don't even know what to say. I am speechless. This is not who I thought we were. If that's the American Way, I want no part of it. I am saddened and a bit sick... this is how we "liberate" people?

House Targets Gas-Price Gouging

On Capitol Hill, the House approved a bill that would ban price gouging on gasoline. A joint House-Senate committee discuss a radical idea: force the five major oil companies to break up.

Source NPR click here for blurb

This is quite disgusting

Pakistani UN peacekeeping troops have traded in gold and sold weapons to Congolese militia groups they were meant to disarm, the BBC has learnt.

These militia groups were guilty of some of the worst human rights abuses during the Democratic Republic of Congo's long civil war.

The trading went on in 2005. A UN investigative team sent to gather evidence was obstructed and threatened.

The team's report was buried by the UN itself to "avoid political fallout"... (click below for more)

Read the Article here on the BBC website

Just a little reminder and a question

I just wanted to remind the normal sane people out there that terrible hypocritical monsters are still filling the airwaves with veiled venomous bigotry and misinformation. I'm speaking about the fat drug-addled moron Rush Limbaugh. Why does this man still have a radio show? Who thinks he is politically or even socially relevant? I would rather listen to ice melt than waste time with this guy. He is pretty much everything that is wrong with the extreme and insane right in the USA.


Sorry, I just had to rant for a second there, please excuse me. I believe in the freedom of speech and the rights granted in the First Amendment. I just wish that it was used more for uniting and for the general fostering of goodwill and understanding - I feel this man's use of the radio is the antithesis of all things kind and pure and/or decent and positive.

Will someone please speak in Rush's defense, or the defense of those who listen to him? Failing that, will someone please tell me the draw of this man?

A little break from politics

To lighten things up a bit, here are a few neat things you might not know about and I thought were worth at least a second of a person's time:



Carolina Dog
A type of wild canine discovered in the southeastern US in the late 1970's.





William Walker
William Walker, born in 1824, was a lot of things in his life: physician, lawyer, journalist, soldier of fortune and president of Republic of Nicaragua from 1856-1857. He led a strange life. There's also a interesting and purposely anachronistic film based on his life called Walker.

Check out this cool site for Anagrams that I think is awesome!

How about a little Satan versus Jesus for a few rounds of immortal combat? Perhaps you prefer Eve or Moses? Try out Adult Swim's Bible Fight!










Are you going to the grandest gathering of geeks on the east coast? I am for the four(or is it fifth) year in a row. Dragon Con is one of the most amazing coming-together of gamers, goths, cosplayers, comic book fans, sci-fi guys and gals and actors, and fantasy artists and writers and, and you get the picture. It rules! You should go!

USA.gov - Government made easy :-)

Question about Iraq: What to do in Babylon?

What exactly is our goal in Iraq? Was it to remove Saddam Hussein? If so, I doubt we have to worry about him taking back over (though as a believer in the rule of law, his trial was a joke!). Was it to remove the weapons of mass destruction? Oops, none there. To liberate the Iraqi people? Umm, most see us as invaders and want us out. So much so that the Iraqi congress is talking about setting a deadline for us to leave. To fight "them", being "terrorists", over there so we don't have to fight them over here (which btw there were no terrorist cells there until we arrived)? That doesn't make sense... first off, they are still here... secondly, terrorism cannot be fought in a physical location, it must be fought on the mental landscape of the men and women who hold anti-West opinions... third, that is a ridiculous strategy, not strategy cliche.

What is "Victory in Iraq"?

How many men and women must die before someone has a plan? Even the Generals are against what has happened in this war. Don't believe me, visit Vote Vets. Even better, just watch the videos below.





What was our goal? More importantly, what is our goals now?

Now I'm depressed. I'll be back when my spirit returns.

People You Should Know - Hu Jintao

Hu Jintao

- President of the People Republic of China
- Chairman of the Communist Party of China since 2003
- his political philosophy can be summarized by three slogans — a “Harmonious Society” domestically and a “Peaceful Development” internationally, the former generated by a “Scientific Development Perspective,” which seeks integrated sets of solutions to arrays of economic, environmental and social problems, and recognizes, in inner circles, a need for political reform (though studied, cautious and controlled).
- though the foreign press' freedom in China has been significantly increased, Hu has been very cautious with regards to the Internet, choosing to censor politically sensitive material to a degree more strict than the previous era of Jiang Zemin.

A few of my Political Opinions

I thought I might take a moment and, more for my future self than for anyone else, comment on my political opinions at this moment in time. I do reserve the right to evolve in my positions and change with maturity and age, but as of right now, these are my beliefs at this time.

Issues:

Iraq - I was against the war from the get-go. I disagreed on what I considered ethical grounds. We do have a responsibility, being the hegemon, to set an ethical standard of action for the rest of the world, that comes with hegemony. In addition, I also believe it is important that the USA, my country, stand for human rights and equal treatment in respect to human dignity and liberty. Invading another land that had not attacked us, especially without international approval, is the realm of the villain. We were the invaders, we are the occupiers, we now almost certainly have become the enemy (of the Iraqi people). I don't think we can just leave though. That is the major problem I am having with my conscience right now. I am conflicted. I never wanted us there, but now that we have destroyed their national infrastructure and fatted our corporate masters on the blood of our citizenry and theirs, we have a responsibility to help repair part of the chaos we caused. Two wrongs still do not make a right. I say we ask for international help and guidance in the reconstruction of Iraq, especially from the other Muslim nations in the region. We want the new republic to be a safe place and a legitimate nation that can participate on the world stage. We should want more to make the Iraqi people a success not make Iraq an American "victory", to do so we need to seek help from the rest of the world. We should open up Iraq to the world business community and to the assistance of other nations that are not in the Coalition of the Willing.


2. Abortion - The most basic tenet of my philosophy is free will. I do not want anyone to tell me what to do with my life or body as long as I am not doing harm to another person. Once a fetus is viable outside the womb entirely, then that route should be taken. Other than that, I am completely pro-choice. Perhaps one day technology will make a fetus viable outside the womb from the moment of conception, until then, I am effectively pro-choice.

3. Taxes - I am for progressive taxation... um, any questions?

4. Health Care - I would actually like to see a national health care system instituted. I think that the have-nots should have access to the same health care afforded to the wealthy. That is part of what "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" means to me.

5. Stem Cell Research - I am pro-technology across the board. I think we should fund research in nearly all facets of biology, physics, astronomy, nanotech, computer technology, so on... The US in the mid 2oth century pushed and funded math and science and just because the Cold War is over that's no reason to stop that. I think we should heavily fund education.

6. Death Penalty - I am not in favor of the death penalty, except in the few cases where the accused and convicted offender asks to be executed, then being his free choice, it should be allowed.

7. Gun Control - I believe that US citizens should be able to own and purchase firearms. Now, I do think we as a people should have a frank and straight forward discussion on which firearms are able to be purchased and who should be restricted and/or kept from buying them.

8. War on Terror - Much like the "War on Drugs", this is a nebulous pit for the government to throw money down and use as excuses to bomb and/or invade other nations. Without clearly defined goals this "war" is a joke. I do think the US should engage in intelligence gathering and military operations on entities that attack our nation (as an aside, I do not like and will not use the word "homeland", it sounds too much like "fatherland"), example al-Qaeda. But used in current form, the "War on Terror" lacks real meaning. I say specific goals for specific targets, not more nebulous wars!

9. Political Corruption - I think that penalties for corruption in the government, on any level, should be very stiff. These types of crimes are abuses of trust and power on a grand scale and should be one of the most severely punished offenses. On that note, something should be done to curb the influence of lobbyists and their ilk, maybe the penalties for laws violated by them should be quite stiff for them too.

There are some issues that I am still formulating my opinions on... any questions, feel free to ask. For right now, I am going to bed.

The Republicans Debate on MSNBC

Having just finished watching the first Republican debate, I must say, I didn't realize that the trinity to them was Father, Son and Holy Reagan. I was completely blown away by the number of times they invoked his holy name. Reagan, Reagan, Reagan... everyone seemed to try and link themselves to Ronald Wilson Reagan, the Golden Yesterday of the Cold War politics and Trickle Down Economics, an administration that SOLD ARMS TO IRAN and denied that AIDS was an issue in the US. I just don't get it... but I rarely fall on the right anyway.

People You Should Know - Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin

- President of Russia since December 31, 1999 (in his second, & according to the current Russian Constitution, last term)
- launched an initiative to replace the direct election of the governors and presidents of Federal subjects of Russia with a system whereby they would be proposed by the President and approved or disapproved by regional legislatures
- in the wake of 9/11 attacks the in the United States, he agreed to the establishment of coalition military bases in Central Asia before and during the US-led invasion of Afghanistan
- opposed the US led invasion of Iraq
- said during the February 2007 annual Munich Conference on Security Policy, that the United States displayed an "almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations"
- "Russians generally support Putin’s concentration of political power and strongly support the re-nationalization of Russia’s oil and gas industry" - World Public Opinion.Org
- is very accomplished at Judo

2 Things - Politics (and 2 Political Cartoons)

You know, I used to be one of those people who said things like, "Why the hell are people campaigning almost 2 years before the election? That's ridiculous!" But you know what, I usually also end up being one of those people that says, "I wish I knew more about the candidates. Why don't they let the people know more about them?" Well, with nearly a year and a half before the 2008 election, they are letting us know more about them. All the candidates have websites where you can find out some information about them, some websites are more thorough than others but of course that is politics. Interestingly the lower some one is in the polls, the more information they give for specific plans on their website (or so it seems). Point being, I am not going to complain next year about not knowing the candidates, I am going to start to get to know them right now.

Speaking of letting us know more about them, the MSNBC/Politico Republican debate is tonight and should replay again over the weekend (the dems debate did) check your local listings for times on either or both. The debate tonight should be interesting if nothing else. I know little about the Repubs candidate to tell you the truth. The bits I know, I read on their websites and heard in little clips on tv (see here for the extent of my knowledge). So I am willing to give them a fair chance at getting my vote. Though in all honesty that's going to be very hard for any Republican to do, my values are so different from theirs. Well, we'll see.

People You Should Know: Ahmad Shah Massoud

Ahmad Shah Massoud

- Military leader of the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (UIF, Jabha-yi Muttahid-i Islami-yi Milli bara-yi Nijat-i Afghanistan), also known as the Northern Alliance
- fought against both the Soviets and Taliban in Afghanistan
- "Hero of the Afghan Nation"
- "Lion of Panjshir"
- Assassinated on September 9, 2001 by al-Qaeda agents

Mitt Ronmey's Favorite Novel

Mitt Ronmey's favorite novel is Battlefield Earth? I mean, come on! There's tons of American Literature that far surpasses this crap! Hell, there's a thousand sci-fi novels that are better than this scientologist swill!