Murder Capitals of the World

Reliable global crime statistics are hard to come by, but here are five cities that stand in a class all their own when it comes to brutal, homicidal violence.

STR/AFP/Getty Images

Caracas, Venezuela

Population: 3.2 million

Murder rate: 130 per 100,000 residents (official)

What’s happening: The capital of Chávez country, Caracas has become far more dangerous in recent years than any South American city, even beating out the once notorious Bogotá. What’s worse, the city’s official homicide statistics likely fall short of the mark because they omit prison-related murders as well as deaths that the state never gets around to properly “categorizing.” The numbers also don’t count those who died while “resisting arrest,” suggesting that Caracas’s cops—already known for their brutality against student protesters—might be cooking the books. Many have pointed the finger at El Presidente, whose government has failed to tackle the country’s rising rates of violent crime. In fact, since Chávez took over in 1998, Venezuela’s official homicide rate has climbed 67 percent—mostly due to increased drug and gang violence. Ramón Rodríguez Chacín, who recently resigned as interior minister, claimed in July that homicide has dropped 27 percent since January—but experts say he’s just playing with numbers. As for Caracas, some speculate that its murder rate is closer to 160 per 100,000.

---

PIETER BAUERMEISTER/AFP/Getty Images

Cape Town, South Africa

Population: 3.5 million

Murder rate: 62 per 100,000 inhabitants

What’s happening: A European bastion in the heart of turbulent South Africa, picturesque Cape Town nonetheless has the country’s highest murder rate. The city’s homicides usually take place in suburban townships rather than in the more upscale urban areas where tourists visit. According to the South African Police Service, most of the Cape Town area’s violent crimes happen between people who know one another, including a horrific case last year in which four males doused a female friend in gasoline and lit her on fire. Occurring just outside city limits, the incident apparently happened after the assailants had taken hard drugs, the use of which has risen along with Cape Town’s violent crime rate. The whopping 12.7 percent rise in the city’s murder rate from 2006 to 2007 certainly has local politicians worried, especially as South Africa prepares to host the 2010 World Cup. The government has hired more police officers to prepare for the tournament, which could help cut crime in soccer-fan hot spots. But until better efforts are made to police Cape Town’s poverty-stricken townships, it’s unlikely that the murder rate—an average of 5.9 per day—will see any major drop.

---

MARIO TAMA/Getty Images News

New Orleans, United States

Population: 220,614 to 312,000 (2007); estimates vary due to displacement of people after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Murder rate: Estimates range from 67 (New Orleans Police Department) to 95 (Federal Bureau of Investigation) per 100,000

What’s happening: With its grinding poverty, an inadequate school system, a prevalence of public housing, and a high incarceration rate, the Big Easy has long been plagued with a high rate of violent crime. Katrina didn’t help. Since the hurricane struck in 2005, drug dealers have been fighting over a smaller group of users, leading to many killings. On just one four-block stretch of Josephine Street, in the city center, four people were murdered in 2007 and 15 people shot, including a double homicide on Christmas day. A precise murder rate is hard to pinpoint because the population is swelling quickly, approaching its pre-Katrina numbers. Whether you use New Orleans’s own figures or the FBI’s, however, the city remains the most deadly in the United States, easily surpassing Detroit and Baltimore with 46 and 45 murders per 100,000 people, respectively.

---

ALEXEY KONDRASHKIN/AFP/Getty Images

Moscow, Russia

Population: 10.4 million

Murder rate: 9.6 per 100,000 (estimate)

What’s happening: Moscow’s murder rate is nothing compared with that of Caracas or Cape Town, but the city still ranks way above other major European capitals. London, Paris, Rome, and Madrid, for instance, all had rates below 2 murders per 100,000 in 2006. The Russian capital’s homicide rate is down 15 percent this year from last, but the recent surge in hate crimes—including the deadly beating of a Tajik carpenter by a gang of youths on Valentine’s Day—suggests that the lull might be temporary. Sixty ethnically motivated killings have already happened this year, part of a sixfold increase in hate crimes committed in the city during 2007. Several of the murders have been attributed to ultranationalist skinhead groups like the “Spas,” who killed 11 people in a 2006 bombing of a multiethnic market in northern Moscow. The Russian government has finally stepped up to combat the problem, assisting migrant groups and cracking down on street gangs. Still, the continued rise in extremist attacks is worrisome. And along with migrants, journalists and other high-profile people in Moscow might also want to be a little wary in Russia—62 contract murders took place in the country in 2005, according to official statistics.

---

TORSTEN BLACKWOOD/AFP/Getty Images

Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea

Population: 254,200 (2000 census)

Murder rate: 54 per 100,000 (2004 official figure)

What’s happening: The capital of island country Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby might seem like a surprising addition to this list. But its high violent crime rates, along with high levels of police corruption and gang activity, helped earn the city the dubious title of “worst city” in a 2004 Economist Intelligence Unit survey. With gangs called “raskols” controlling the city centers and unemployment rates hovering around 80 percent, it’s easy to see how Port Moresby beat out the 130 other survey contenders. Port Moresby’s police don’t seem to be helping the crime situation—last November, five officers were charged with offenses ranging from murder to rape. And in August, the city’s police barracks were put on a three-month curfew due to a recent slew of bank heists reportedly planned inside the stations by officers and their co-conspirators. Rising tensions between Chinese migrants and native Papua New Guineans are also cause for alarm, as are reports of increased activity of organized Chinese crime syndicates.

From Foreign Policy Magazine
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4480&print=1

Just some interesting (and sad) statistics. Particularly sad that a US city is on the list. But having had some (notable bad) experiences in New Orleans, I am not surprised. I have found it comparable to many developing world cities I have visited, and I only imagine its level of development has declined since Katrina. Very sad.

Palin on CBS...

...answers questions about...the economy...sort of...



I am not going to comment. Evaluate among yourselves.

Sorry about the commercial. That is the price you pay for CBS letting you embed their video clips.

Update: Ok, I said I wouldn't comment, and I will really try to keep this to a minimum, but if you have not watched the interviews in their entirety then I urge you to find them. Posted here is what I found quickly on CBS. Definitely watch the foreign policy interview that aired 9.25. It made me very, very uncomfortable. She sounds a lot like Bush: she knows very little about international relations, and what she does know she uses to saber rattle against perceived threats. Worrisome. She is also just wrong on lots of points, I mean factually wrong.

Pastors To Preach Politics From The Pulpit

by Barbara Bradley Hagerty

This weekend, 33 ministers are expected to preach a sermon that endorses or opposes a political candidate by name. This would be a flagrant violation of a 54-year-old law that bans tax-exempt organizations from involvement in political campaigns. iStockphoto.com

All Things Considered, September 24, 2008 · On Sunday, more than 30 pastors across the country are expected to preach a sermon that endorses or opposes a political candidate by name. This would be a flagrant violation of a law that bans tax-exempt organizations from involvement in political campaigns.

Among the pastors expected to violate the ban is Pastor Gus Booth.

Booth will endorse Republican nominee John McCain — four months after delivering a sermon opposing the two main candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

In May, Booth told his 150 congregants of the Warroad Community Church in Warroad, Minn., that the next president will determine policy on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion.

"If you're a Christian, you cannot support a candidate like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton," Booth said.

With that, Booth gleefully zipped by the line barring ministers from engaging in political campaigns. The IRS bars people from endorsing or opposing specific candidates from the pulpit. Booth sent an article about his sermon to the IRS so the agency wouldn't miss it. He and his elders knew he would be jeopardizing the church's tax-exempt status.

But, he says, it's his job to evaluate candidates in light of biblical teachings.

"Bottom line is, I'm a spiritual leader in this community, and spiritual leaders need to make decisions. We need to lead spiritually, and we need to be able to speak about the moral issues of the day. And right now, the moral issues of today are also the political issues of today," he said.

The Pulpit Initiative

On Sunday, 33 ministers will take part in a nationwide effort to violate the 54-year-old ban on political preaching and endorse or oppose a candidate from the pulpit. The effort is called the Pulpit Initiative.

Two weeks ago, more than 100 pastors squeezed into a hotel meeting room in Washington, D.C., to learn about the Pulpit Initiative, a brain child of the conservative legal group, Alliance Defense Fund. Attorney Erik Stanley walked them through it.

"If the IRS chooses to come after these churches, we will sue the IRS in federal court," Stanley said.

Stanley says pastors are fed up. In the past four years, the IRS has stepped up its investigations of clergy. It sent letters to 47 churches, including some liberal ones — not just for explicit endorsements, but also for using code words like pro-choice or pro-life in relation to candidates.

"What's been happening is that the government has been able to go into the pulpits of America, look over the pastor's shoulder, and parse the content of their sermon. And that's unconstitutional," Stanley said. "No government official should entangle itself with religion in that way."

Stanley says the pastors will try to take their challenge all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping that the current conservative-leaning composition of the court, headed by Chief Justice John Roberts, will strike down the ban. He says the law infringes on the religious speech of ministers.

Celia Roady disagrees. Roady, a lawyer and expert on charities law, says there's nothing to stop pastors from talking about issues in light of scripture. But, she says, "You simply cannot say to your congregation, you should not vote for Candidate X because of Candidate X's position on this one issue. That's simply the line that has been drawn."

Roady says if a church can endorse a candidate, it is using tax-free dollars — taxpayer money — to subsidize a political campaign.

But it's not merely tax deductions that are at stake here, says Ohio Pastor Eric Williams. He says it's also the attempt of some churches to move aggressively into politics.

"I ask myself, 'Hmm. Why would a religious leader want to oppose a candidate? Why would a religious leader want to stand up and ask for my support for a candidate who's running for office?' They want to gain influence in the governmental process," Williams said.

Williams is senior minister of North Congregational United Church of Christ in Columbus. He says he's seen this before. Two years ago, he reported two conservative megachurches for allegedly endorsing a Republican candidate for governor. The IRS investigated one of the churches. Williams is also concerned that pastors in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia will be telling their congregants how to vote.

"My concern is that an extreme segment of the Christian faith today is seeking to establish themselves as the public religion of our nation," Williams said.

Williams and some other ministers have filed a formal complaint with the IRS about the Pulpit Initiative. Several tax attorneys said they believe the churches will ultimately lose. They point out that in 1983, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on political endorsements by charities.

So what will happen if Booth's church in Minnesota loses its tax-exempt status?

"Big deal," he said. He added that he can get it back the next day because churches are automatically tax-exempt.

Besides, he said, electing "Godly people is more important than money."

From NPR.org.

An interesting debate. I think we all want to see state and church firmly separated, but this makes the line pretty hard however you look at it. Personally, I agree with the IRS that if ministers are politicking from the pulpit they should forego there tax exept status. But I certainly see the side that the goverment should not get to dictate what chruch leaders can advocate in their weekly sermons.

Vocabulary Terms for the Week

Bradley effect:

The term Bradley effect, less commonly called^[1] the Wilder effect, refers to a frequently observed discrepancy between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in American political campaigns when a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other.^[2][3][4] Named for Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor's race despite being ahead in voter polls, the Bradley effect refers to a tendency on the part of white voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a Black candidate, when, on election day, they vote for his/her white opponent.^[5]

One theory for the Bradley effect is that some white voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will appear to the pollster to be racially prejudiced. The reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well. The race of the pollster conducting the interview may be a factor into voters' answers. Some pollsters believe that they do not receive deliberately false answers from white voters. The Bradley effect, these pollsters believe, is caused by pollsters' failure to account for general political leanings among voters who are undecided between Democrats and Republicans.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

This term has surfaced in several news reports and blogs I have read lately. I will admit I was not clear on its definition so I needed to look it up. And that's one to grow on!

But seriously, I do not doubt the effect, and (sadly) it may well rear its ugly head in this election. This should also be a reminder that racism, even that little bit where people say to themselves "I don't hate (insert appropriate minority) but I just am not comfortable with one in the (insert appropriate office)" is alive and well in the land of equal opportunity. One might tell themselves that that is not racism, but rest assured it is. Racism isn't necessarily about hate or animosity, it is about prejudice broadly writ (see Mirriam-Webster, definition 2 if you want a cite). Prejudicing based on race is racism, even if one hates to admit it. And given that in most polls in swing states less than 35% of white men support the black candidate, some amount of racism is almost certainly afoot. Which makes me wonder if women are just less deposed towards racism. Maybe they just better know what prejudice feels like.

How do the Candidates Vote?

http://www.votesmart.org/index.htm

There has been a lot of criticism of Obama's habit of voting "present", essentially refusing to take a stand, on certain issues. This is certainly troubling to a lot of people, and it should be. My friends who supported Clinton pointed it out a lot and now the McCain campaign is doing the same. And they probably should. Bowing out because your voting record could cost you points later is certainly a weak response all around, and I would rather have a candidate that is willing to stand up and take an unpopular position.

That said, I thought I would take a look to see how often Obama has voted present (not voted) rather than taking a stand. And yes, he does vote present pretty often. But then I wondered how that compared to McCain. Well, lo and behold, he does it pretty often as well. I found this interesting and thought I would do a little more research into it. What strikes me immediately are two things. First, Obama doesn't vote when the margin of win or loss is large. This basically tells me he is being strategic (if not a bit lame) and side stepping votes that might show up in a negative campaign ad. Both candidates also seem to avoid voting on particular issues. McCain apaprently avoids voting on Energy Policy issues whenever possible. Obama skips a lot of these as well, but not nearly as often. Obama seems more likely to avoid voting on tax and budget issues.

Admittedly, I haven't done too much in depth research, so I would be interested if anyone finds some real patterns beyond the brief couple that jumped out at me. The point is, though, voting present seems to be pretty common, so I am not sure if Obama is too far outside the flock on that one. The website above has an extensive list of votes (for the past 10 years or so) as well as grades from various interest groups.

A Conservative for Obama

My party has slipped its moorings. It’s time for a true pragmatist to lead the country.

Leading Off By Wick Allison, Editor In Chief (DMagazine.com)

THE MORE I LISTEN TO AND READ ABOUT “the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate,” the more I like him. Barack Obama strikes a chord with me like no political figure since Ronald Reagan. To explain why, I need to explain why I am a conservative and what it means to me.

In 1964, at the age of 16, I organized the Dallas County Youth for Goldwater. My senior thesis at the University of Texas was on the conservative intellectual revival in America. Twenty years later, I was invited by William F. Buckley Jr. to join the board of National Review. I later became its publisher.

Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance, a recognition of the fallibility of man and of man’s institutions. Conservatives respect the past not for its antiquity but because it represents, as G.K. Chesterton said, the democracy of the dead; it gives the benefit of the doubt to customs and laws tried and tested in the crucible of time. Conservatives are skeptical of abstract theories and utopian schemes, doubtful that government is wiser than its citizens, and always ready to test any political program against actual results.

Liberalism always seemed to me to be a system of “oughts.” We ought to do this or that because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of whether it works or not. It is a doctrine based on intentions, not results, on feeling good rather than doing good.

But today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative” credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.

Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth.

This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse.

Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.

“Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.

from: http://www.dmagazine.com

Just some food for thought, and an insightful piece overall. And for the record, I would like Liberals and Conservatives to be so thoughtful and ideologically consistent in their political decision making.

McCain Anti-Obama Ad: Obama Loves Chavez

ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, McCain-Palin 2008 released its latest Spanish television ad, entitled "Obama-Chavez." The ad highlights Barack Obama's pledge to meet with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez without precondition during the first year of his presidency. The ad will be televised in Florida.




English Script For "Obama-Chavez" (TV :60)

ANNCR: Did you see who Obama wants to talk with?

CHAVEZ: Go to h*ll, you filthy Yankees!

ANNCR: Barack Obama says that he would meet Chavez without conditions.

CHAVEZ: Filthy Yankees, go to h*ll hundred times!

ANNCR: He said he would meet in his first year in office.

CHAVEZ: The United States which is behind every conspiracy against our country.

ANNCR: He said it was a disgrace that we haven't spoken with them.

CHAVEZ: If any aggression were to come against Venezuela, then there will be no oil for people or the government of the Unites States!

ANNCR: Do you believe we should talk with Chavez?

CHAVEZ: We, you filthy Yankees, know that we are resolute to be free, no matter what happens, and at any cost!

ANNCR: In November, you decide.

JOHN MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

ANNCR: Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008. Approved by John McCain.

Spanish Script For "Con Quin Quiere Hablar Obama? " (TV :60)

ANNCR: Ya viste con quien quiere hablar Obama?

CHAVEZ: Vayanse al ****** Yankees de ******

ANNCR: Barack Obama dice que se reuniria con Chavez sin condiciones

CHAVEZ: Yankees de ******* vayanse al ****** cien veces

ANNCR: Dijo que lo haria en el primer ano de su gobierno

CHAVEZ: Estados Unidos... que anda detras de todas las conspiraciones contra nuestros pueblos

ANNCR: Dijo que es una desgracia que no lo hemos hecho

CHAVEZ: Si viniera alguna agresion contra Venezuela, pues no habra petroleo para el pueblo ni para el gobierno de los Estados Unidos

ANNCR: Tu crees que debemos hablar con Chavez?

CHAVEZ: Nosotros, Yankees de ******, sepanlo estamos resueltos a ser libres, pase lo que pase y cuestenos lo que nos cueste.

ANNCR: En noviembre...tu decides

JOHN MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

ANNCR: Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008. Approved by John McCain.

AD FACTS: Script For "Obama-Chavez" (TV :30)

ANNCR: Did you see who Obama wants to talk with? CHAVEZ: Go to h*ll, you filthy Yankees! ANNCR: Barack Obama says that he would meet Chavez without conditions. CHAVEZ: Filthy Yankees, go to h*ll hundred times! ANNCR: He said he would meet in his first year in office.CHAVEZ: The United States which is behind every conspiracy against our country. ANNCR: He said it was a disgrace that we haven't spoken with them. CHAVEZ: If any aggression were to come against Venezuela, then there will be no oil for people or the government of the Unites States! ANNCR: Do you believe we should talk with Chavez? CHAVEZ: We, you filthy Yankees, know that we are resolute to be free, no matter what happens, and at any cost! ANN CR: In November, you decide. JOHN MCCAIN: Im John McCain and I approved this message. ANNCR: Paid for by McCainPalin 2008. Approved by John McCain.

· At A July 2007 Debate, Barack Obama Announced He Would Personally Meet With Rogue Leaders, Including Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, "Without Precondition." QUESTION: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"... OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

· Watch Barack Obama Say "I Would" Meet Unconditionally With Rogue Leaders, Including Chavez

· In October 2007, Barack Obama Told CBS' Harry Smith He Would Talk With Hugo Chavez Among Others "Without Preconditions." CBS' Harry Smith: "You said, 'I will talk to so and so and Hugo Chavez and etc., etc.'" Obama: "Exactly, and without preconditions." (CBS' "The Early Show," 10/15/07)

· In November 2007, Barack Obama Confirmed That He Would Meet With Rogue Leaders, Including Hugo Chavez, His First Year In Office. NBC's Tim Russert: "In July, you were asked if you were willing to meet separately without pre-condition during your first year with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il, Hugo Chavez. You said yes. You stand by that?" Obama: "I do." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 11/11/07)

Chavez is a populist demagogue, and while I agree with some of his socialist policies I think he is still a potential threat to the US and overall an ass. But that is exactly the reason to try to use diplomacy rather than just ignore him, or worse, threaten him. I still don't understand why the Right's response to leaders we disagree with is to ignore them. This isn't third grade; ignoring that really annoying kid won't make him go away or stop behaving badly. In fact, it gives him even more leverage. And when that kid controls about 10% of the oil we import we might want to pay a little attention, at last enough to have a civil conversation. If he says no or the exchange offers no positive results, then fuck it. But why not at least try. Negotiation, let alone discussion, doesn't require giving up anything....besides your ability to be an unrepentant ass.

Whose Tax Breaks Will Help You More?

Obama and McCain Tax Proposals

According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.

From The Washington Post Ok, the thing I can't get is how the American public is responding to Republican claims that "Democrats will increase your taxes." This has been the tenor for the past few days, and Palin's speech in Reno today was no exception. Republicans are lambasting Democrats and claiming they will tax Middle America to death. What the Hell people? People, seriously. Look at the chart above. Whose plan will help you? 60% of America makes less than $70,000 a year. Unless I am blind, it is Obama's plan that will benefit them most. And if we move to about $110,000 dollars per year (about 80% of the pop), you still do better under Obama. So how the fuck is it that the Democrats are killing Middle America with taxes? In all fairness, if we include capital gains increases then a bigger chuck will be affected by the Obama plan. But, most of the country that holds stock holds it in pension plans, which are except anyway. So it still doesn't affect them. Still, many people will be pay more, but they will have to subract the increase in capital gains tax from their decrease in income tax to see which benefits them more. So again, what the Hell? And lastly, most economists, inlcuding Greenspan, have said that whoever is the new President, they will have to raise taxes unless they plan to cut spending. Where is there to cut spending when the War is eating $400 million dollars per day? Ugh...why bother. How many people vote based on real numbers anyway? I am beginning to think that symbolic politics and celebrtiy matter more than anything else. Even people who would benefit from Obama's plan like to think that one day they will be in the top %15 so on principle and flawed expectation they want to keep taxes low on the upper class.

Obama Waflles

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1417423198/bctid1790977147

Political satire or racism?

Is it lying or stretching the truth?

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama's spokesman on Saturday accused Sen. John McCain of "cynically running the sleaziest and least honorable campaign in modern presidential campaign history."

Sen. Barack Obama blasts his rival, Sen. John McCain, at a rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, Saturday.

************************************************************************************

McCain's campaign said a new Spanish language ad set to air in battleground states blames Obama and Senate Democrats for the failure of attempts to overhaul the nation's immigration laws.

"Obama and his congressional allies say they are on the side of immigrants. But are they?" asks the announcer in the 30-second spot, "Which Side Are They On?"

"The press reports that their efforts were 'poison pills' that made immigration reform fail," he continues. "The result: No guest worker program. No path to citizenship. No secure borders. No reform. Is that being on our side? Obama and his congressional allies ready to block immigration reform, but not ready to lead." Watch the ad

But Obama and McCain cast identical votes in the major congressional showdowns on the issue last year.

Both men cast votes in favor of an unsuccessful early June effort to end a filibuster. Later that month, they voted again to end debate on the issue -- but again failed to shut down the filibuster effort, led for the most part by Republican senators.

The ad is set to air in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, all crucial states in November with significant Hispanic voting populations.

************************************************************************************

(CNN) – Sarah Palin did not visit troops in Iraq, a spokesperson for the Republican VP nominee confirmed Saturday, as new details emerged about the extent of the Alaska governor’s foreign travel.

In July of last year, Palin left North America for the first time to visit Alaskan troops stationed in Kuwait. Palin officials originally said her itinerary included U.S. military installations or outposts in Germany and Kuwait, and that she had visited Ireland. An Alaska spokeswoman for Palin had said Iraq was also one of the stops on that trip.

The Boston Globe reported Saturday that Palin visited the Iraqi side of a border crossing — but never journeyed past the checkpoint.

Earlier, campaign aides confirmed reports that Palin’s time in Ireland on that trip had actually been a re-fueling stop.

Ok, I accept that campaign ads are often misleading and that things said on the trail are stretched and distorted or accentuated or what have you. And certainly both sides have done and will continue to do it. But sometimes it seems these statements are out and out lies. Take the first story above. McCain is running an ad in Spanish is several states with large immigrants populations that attacks Obama for holding up immigration reform. Yet, the two senators repeatedly voted exactly the same fucking way on this issue. McCain might just as well have said "both Senator Obama and I held up immigration reform." That bothers the hell out of me. It is not a lie per se, but it is huge manipulation of the truth. Boo McCain. You should be better than that. The second issue is certainly less problematic. That Sarah Palin has said in interviews that she visited Ireland, Germany, Kuwait, and Iraq is not at all untrue. Clearly the statements were made with an eye toward making people think she has some experience traveling outside the US. And I am sure the gift shop at Shannon Airport in Ireland and the border post in Iraq were comparatively significant foreign experiences for someone who before then had only been to Canada. So that was not a lie, but it was a bit of serious truthiness manipulation.

The take home point here is that the McCain campaign has descended down a path where lying and blatant manipulations of the truth are a matter of course (in part thanks to adopting Bush's former strategic team). I really thought he was better than that, and that we would have a campaign season conducted with a bit more integrity than this. But oh well.

Ah, and I should say I am not giving the Obama camp a pass on this. If anyone can deliver examples of where Obama's campaign has lied or blatantly abused the truth I would like to here it.

Books and Politics

I heard about this on NPR and thought it was kind of neat.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/?docId=1000261611

The McCain Tax Increases

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Director of the Congressional Budget Office and current chief McCain economic advisor, is an honest man--which means he's something of a liability on the Straight Talk Express. A few months ago, he admitted to my colleague, Michael Scherer, that Barack Obama's economic plan would reduce taxes for most people. And now, in a forthcoming book by Fortune columnist Matt Miller, he makes it clear that the next President is going to have to raise taxes.

"If you do nothing on the spending side, you're going to have to raise taxes whether you're a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian," he tells Miller...and then he immediately makes it clear that the "spending side" part of the argument is nothing more than a political fig-leaf.

"It's arithmetic." Federal revenue today is 18.8 percent of GDP and federal spending is 20 percent. Holtz-Eakin observes that "the pressure are there" to lift spending [on entitlement programs, mostly] and taxes to 23 or 24 percent of GDP by around 2020, and to as much as 27 percent if health costs remain out of control.

Miller does the arithmetic: that's an annual tax hike of $550 to $700 billion, well beyond the range of any spending cuts that McCain has or might propose. (Those vaunted earmarks cost about $20 billion per year.)

It should be noted that Obama's proposed middle class tax cuts are nearly as foolish--and unlikely, in the long term--as McCain's, although Obama claims to pay for them by closing corporate loopholes and raising the top marginal tax rates to Clinton-era levels.

But it's John McCain who has opposed any and all tax increases, sort of--as I reported yesterday, McCain would tax employer-provided health care benefits. (He would also raise energy costs significantly with his cap-and-trade carbon emissions reduction program.)

Miller concludes:

So why does tax-cutting mania persist among Republicans, I asked Holtz-Eakin, the McCain adviser--given...that, as Holtz-Eakin himself explain to me, taxes soon have to go up substantially in any event?
"It's the brand," he said, "and you don't dilute the brand."

Miller's book, The Tyranny of Dead Ideas, will be published by Holt in January 2009. I'm about halfway through reading an advance copy and, as is always the case with Miller, this is a smart, sane and extremely well-written account of our current economic mess.

Update: What Holtz-Eakin admitted to Scherer was that the Obama's plan represented a net tax reduction over ten years.

From: www.time-blog.com; posted by Joe Klein

Food for thought. I had intended to write a long diatribe, but why bother. If people are informed about the realities of politics and the likely outcomes of the two policies sets proposed by the candidates they should probably choose Obama (assuming they are unhappy with the current state of the economy). McCain has offered no viable policies to improve the US economy, just more twists on Reaganomics, and what's worse, they are same one used by the Bush admin. 4 more years; 4 more years!

Wait, I forgot when I posted this earlier, he does have one idea to solve economic problems: "Drill, baby. Drill!" Yeah. super.

Ron Paul urges third-party vote

Ron Paul gained a big internet following during the republican primari

Texas Congressman Ron Paul is to urge voters to reject Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain and vote for a third-party US candidate instead.

Mr Paul, who dropped his own bid for the Republican nomination earlier this year, has a big internet following.

He is backing independent Ralph Nader, Libertarian Bob Barr and Constitution Party and Green Party candidates.

"The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system," he will tell a Washington news conference.

"This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment, principled candidates."

Those invited to attend Mr Paul's news conference include Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney, a former Democratic congresswoman for Georgia, and Constitution Party contender Chuck Baldwin.

According to an advance copy of Mr Paul's remarks, he will say the mainstream parties have no major differences on important issues, such as balancing the budget and civil liberties.

'Realignment'

Mr Nader is quoted by the Associated Press as saying the gathering of third-party candidates would "raise the eyebrows" of commentators sceptical about their chances in November's presidential election.

"This is the beginning of the realignment of American politics," he told the AP.

Mr Nader won 0.3% of the vote in 2004, when he ran as an independent. In 2000, when he stood as a Green Party candidate, he was blamed by Democrats for taking votes from Al Gore that might have prevented George W Bush's narrow re-election.

Thousands of people attended a protest rally held by the libertarian-leaning Mr Paul - who opposes the Iraq war - near the Republican National Convention in Minnesota, last week.

He won no contests in his party's primary election season but raised large amounts of money and support online.

Go Ron Paul. Rock the vote baby!

An immediate update:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Ron Paul says he rejected John McCain's appeal for his endorsement.

At a news conference Wednesday, Paul said he received a surprise call from McCain's campaign on Tuesday asking for his endorsement. Paul turned them down.

Paul said: "The idea was that he would do less harm than the other candidate."

Paul won no primaries in the Republican nomination contest but developed a strong following on the Internet. He appeared at a news conference with third-party candidates, including Ralph Nader and former Georgia Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney. Paul suggested backing the non-major party candidates.

'Big Bang' experiment starts well

By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News

Scientists have hailed a successful switch-on for an enormous experiment which will recreate the conditions a few moments after the Big Bang.

They have fired a beam of particles called protons around the 27km-long tunnel which houses the the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

The £5bn machine on the Swiss-French border is designed to smash particles together with cataclysmic force.

Scientists hope it will shed light on fundamental questions in physics.

The beam completed its first circuit of the underground tunnel at just before 0930 BST.

"There it is," project leader Lyn Evans said when the beam completed its lap.

He added later: "We had a very good start-up."

The LHC is arguably the most complicated and ambitious experiment ever built; the project has been hit by cost overruns, equipment trouble and construction problems. The switch-on itself is two years late.

We will be looking at what the Universe was made of billionths of a second after the Big Bang Dr Tara Shears, University of Liverpool

The collider is operated by the European Organization for Nuclear Research - better known by its French acronym Cern.

The vast circular tunnel - the "ring" - which runs under the French-Swiss border contains more than 1,000 cylindrical magnets arranged end-to-end.

The magnets are there to steer the beam - made up of particles called protons - around this 27km-long ring.

Eventually, two proton beams will be steered in opposite directions around the LHC at close to the speed of light, completing about 11,000 laps each second.

At allotted points around the tunnel, the beams will cross paths, smashing together near four massive "detectors" that monitor the collisions for interesting events.

Scientists are hoping that new sub-atomic particles will emerge, revealing fundamental insights into the nature of the cosmos.

Major effort

"We will be able to see deeper into matter than ever before," said Dr Tara Shears, a particle physicist at the University of Liverpool.

"We will be looking at what the Universe was made of billionths of a second after the Big Bang. That is amazing, that really is fantastic."

The LHC should answer one very simple question: What is mass?

LHC DETECTORS ATLAS - one of two so-called general purpose detectors. Atlas will be used to look for signs of new physics, including the origins of mass and extra dimensions CMS - the second general purpose detector will, like ATLAS, hunt for the Higgs boson and look for clues to the nature of dark matter ALICE - will study a "liquid" form of matter called quark-gluon plasma that existed shortly after the Big Bang LHCb - Equal amounts of matter and anti-matter were created in the Big Bang. LHCb will try to investigate what happened to the "missing" anti-matter

"We know the answer will be found at the LHC," said Jim Virdee, a particle physicist at Imperial College London.

The currently favoured model involves a particle called the Higgs boson - dubbed the "God Particle". According to the theory, particles acquire their mass through interactions with an all-pervading field carried by the Higgs.

The latest astronomical observations suggest ordinary matter - such as the galaxies, gas, stars and planets - makes up just 4% of the Universe.

The rest is dark matter (23%) and dark energy (73%). Physicists think the LHC could provide clues about the nature of this mysterious "stuff".

But Professor Virdee told BBC News: "Nature can surprise us... we have to be ready to detect anything it throws at us."

Full beam ahead

Engineers injected the first low-intensity proton beams into the LHC in August. But they did not go all the way around the ring.

On Wednesday, they sent a proton beam around the full circumference of the LHC tunnel.

Technicians had to be on the lookout for potential problems.

Steve Myers, head of the accelerator and beam department, said: "There are on the order of 2,000 magnetic circuits in the machine. This means there are 2,000 power supplies which generate the current which flows in the coils of the magnets."

If there was a fault with any of these, he said, it would have stopped the beam. They were also wary of obstacles in the beam pipe which could prevent the protons from completing their first circuit.

Mr Myers has experience of the latter problem. While working on the LHC's predecessor, a machine called the Large-Electron Positron Collider, engineers found two beer bottles wedged into the beam pipe - a deliberate, one-off act of sabotage.

The culprits - who were drinking a particular brand that advertising once claimed would "refresh the parts other beers cannot reach" - were never found.

After the the beam makes one turn, engineers are due to "close the orbit", allowing the beam to circulate continuously around the LHC.

Engineers will then try to "capture" it. The beam which circles the LHC is not continuous; it is composed of several packets - each about a metre long - containing billions of protons.

The protons would disperse if left to their own devices, so engineers use electrical forces to "grab" them, keeping the particles tightly huddled in packets.

Once the beam has been captured, the same system of electrical forces is used to give the particles an energetic kick, accelerating them to greater and greater speeds.

After Wednesday's test, engineers will need to get two beams running in opposite directions around the LHC. They can then carry out collisions by smashing them together.

Long haul

The idea of the Large Hadron Collider emerged in the early 1980s. The project was eventually approved in 1996 at a cost of 2.6bn Swiss Francs, which amounts to about £1.3bn at present exchange rates.

However, Cern underestimated equipment and engineering costs when it set out its original budget, plunging the lab into a cash crisis.

Cern had to borrow hundreds of millions of euros in bank loans to get the LHC completed. The current price is nearly four times that originally envisaged.

During winter, the LHC will be shut down, allowing equipment to be fine-tuned for collisions at full energy.

"What's so exciting is that we haven't had a large new facility starting up for years," explained Dr Shears.

"Our experiments are so huge, so complex and so expensive that they don't come along very often. When they do, we get all the physics out of them that we can."

Steve Myers said engineers would break out the champagne if all went to plan. But a particular brand of beer will not be on the menu, he said.

Paul.Rincon-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7604293.stm

Please wait, your request is processed... Jon Stewart Hits Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, Dick Morris On Sarah Palin Hypocrisy

Wednesday night on "The Daily Show," Jon Stewart hit Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly with damning evidence of their hypocrisy regarding Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

While Rove recently praised Palin's experience as the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Stewart showed video of Rove trashing Virginia Governor — and former Richmond Mayor — Tim Kaine's executive experience, listing all the cities that are bigger than Richmond and calling such a pick "political."

Then, after recent video of O'Reilly describing Bristol Palin's pregnancy as a family issue, Stewart showed a clip of the Fox News host blaming Jamie Lynn Spears' parents for her teenage pregnancy.

Finally, after showing video of Dick Morris complaining about the rampant sexism in the media coverage of Sarah Palin, Stewart unveiled a clip of Morris saying that Hillary hides behind the sexism defense, and that anytime "the big boys" pick on Hillary, "she retreats behind the apron strings."

"In Dick Morris' defense," Stewart said, "he is a lying sack of sh*t."

Watch:

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/jon-stewart-hits-karl-rov_n_123852.html

I wonder if Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, and Dick Morris see any hypocrisy in their conflicting statements? I would bet not since all too often they act as thought the ends justify the means.

Secret killing program is key in Iraq, Woodward says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The dramatic drop in violence in Iraq is due in large part to a secret program the U.S. military has used to kill terrorists, according to a new book by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Bob Woodward.

Bob Woodward's book, "The War Within: Secret White House History 2006-2008," came out Monday.

The program -- which Woodward compares to the World War II era Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb -- must remain secret for now or it would "get people killed," Woodward said Monday on CNN's Larry King Live.

"It is a wonderful example of American ingenuity solving a problem in war, as we often have," Woodward said.

In "The War Within: Secret White House History 2006-2008," Woodward disclosed the existence of secret operational capabilities developed by the military to locate, target and kill leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgent leaders.

National security adviser Stephen Hadley, in a written statement reacting to Woodward's book, acknowledged the new strategy. Yet he disputed Woodward's conclusion that the "surge" of 30,000 U.S. troops into Iraq was not the primary reason for the decline in violent attacks.

"It was the surge that provided more resources and a security context to support newly developed techniques and operations," Hadley wrote.

Woodward, associate editor of the Washington Post, wrote that along with the surge and the new covert tactics, two other factors helped reduce the violence. Watch Bob Woodward explain the strategy »

One was the decision of militant cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to order a cease-fire by his Mehdi Army. The other was the "Anbar Awakening" movement that saw Sunni tribes aligning with U.S. troops to battle al Qaeda in Iraq.

Woodward told Larry King that while there is a debate over how much credit the new secret operations should get for the drop in violence, he concluded it "accounts for a good portion."

"I would somewhat compare it to the Manhattan Project in World War II," he said "It's a ski slope right down in a matter of months, cutting the violence in half. This isn't going to happen with the bunch of joint security stations or the surge."

A few months back there was a online exclusive story in Newsweek that discussed a proposed US strategy called the "Salvador option" or something to that effect. This clear reference to the US-backed strategy adopted by the Rightist regime in El Salvador in the early 1980s would support the construction and training of local militias to find and destroy insurgents, assassinate extremists, abduct terrorist suspects, etc. I am not sure Woodward is talking about the same thing, but I find it interesting if not a little troubling. I mean, on the one hand it could be very effective, save the committement of US troops, and bring down overall levels of violence. However, in El Salvador it resulted in the regime killing upwards of 1000 suspected insurgents per month--most of whom were labor leaders, teachers, student activists, etc participating in non-violent organizing, not participating in violence. I hope this not the case here and that the if the use of local militias is indeed the strategy that the US is using that this time it uses much more discretion and better intelligence.

Maverick or McSame?

By Guest Pollster

John Coleman is a the Chair of the Department Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Joe Biden has supported President Bush 70% of the time. You may not have heard this mentioned at the Democratic National Convention or in Barack Obama's acceptance speech.

The Obama team--and Obama himself--has been working hard to link John McCain to George W. Bush by noting that he "votes with Bush 90% of the time." And if 90% isn't enough Bush for you, Democrats note, McCain supported the president 95% of the time in 2007. One Obama ad even lists this voting record as the first plank in McCain's economic program.

The figures being used by Democrats are presidential support scores computed by CQ Weekly, a leading weekly magazine monitoring events in Washington. The score is based entirely on recorded roll-call votes in Congress. CQ identifies those votes where the president has taken a clear stand and then records whether a senator or representative voted in the president's preferred direction. The votes need not be key on the president's agenda or be anything the president encouraged Congress to do--they are simply cases where CQ has determined a clear presidential position. In the Senate, the president's nominations, which are usually noncontroversial, are a sizable portion of the votes used by CQ to compile its support score. In 2007, nominations were 30% of the votes used by CQ to calculate presidential support in the Senate.

As the chart below shows, John McCain has indeed voted consistent with the preferences of President Bush about 90% of the time on these presidential support roll-calls. This has been roughly the same level of support as the average Republican senator.

McCain's presidential support level was 95% in 2007, but this is somewhat misleading. Because he was running for president, McCain was present for only 38 of the 97 roll calls CQ used to calculate the presidential support score. There were 442 roll-call votes in total in the Senate in 2007. Looking at only those votes for which both McCain and Obama were present that year--33 votes--McCain's support score was 94% while Obama's was 48%. CQ also noted in a recent post that McCain, Obama, and Biden voted on less than half the presidential support votes from January through August 2008.

Using the same figures the Obama campaign has used to tie John McCain to President Bush, Biden was a 77% supporter of President Bush's positions in 2002, 70% in 2004, and over a 50% supporter of Bush in 4 of the president's 7 full years in office. Up through the August 2008 congressional recess, Biden had supported Bush's positions 52% of the time since January 2001. Obama himself supported the president's positions just under 50% in 2006 and 40% since he joined the Senate in January 2005.

It is doubtful that many Americans hearing the Obama team's 90% charge against McCain realize that Obama and Biden themselves have supported the president anywhere from 33 to 77% of the time during his term.

In addition to linking McCain to Bush, another goal of the Obama campaign in using the 90% support figure is to blunt McCain's claim to be a maverick who shows independence from his party. Establishing McCain's independent credentials was a major theme at the Republican National Convention on Tuesday night.

Given that even Obama and Biden sometimes had relatively high levels of support for Bush, a better measure of independence than the presidential support score would be to look at the party support score, also calculated by CQ Weekly. Looking at "party votes"--those roll-call votes on which a majority of Republicans oppose a majority of Democrats--CQ calculates whether a senator voted with his party's majority or against it. The party support score is the percentage of times a senator voted with his party majority on party votes. There were 266 party votes in the Senate in 2007, or 60% of all Senate roll-call votes.

Looking at his party support scores during the Bush presidency, the chart below shows that McCain regularly was less supportive of his party than the average Republican senator. His voting in 2007, when McCain was frequently out of Washington and missing more roll-call votes than usual (he voted on 48% of the 266 party votes), is an exception.

McCain's professed independent streak is supported by these data. About 75 to 85% of the time, McCain voted with his party's majority. More frequently than the average Republican, however, McCain voted with the Democratic majority rather than the Republican majority on votes that put the two parties on opposite sides.

Obama and Biden, on the other hand, have both been more likely than the typical Democratic senator to vote with the Democratic party position. In each of his three full years, Obama voted over 95% of the time with the Democratic majority on party votes. McCain reached 90% only once, in 2007.Biden's party support level has hovered between about 90 to 95%. From these data, McCain can more credibly make the claim that he is willing to buck his party. He has voted against his party majority about 15 to 25% of the time across the Bush years, compared to about 3% for Obama and 5 to 10% for Biden.

I've plotted these data in a different format in the chart below. Here, zero on the left axis indicates the baseline party support level of the average senator for each party. I then plot the difference between the average Republican senator's party support and McCain's, and the average Democratic senator's support and Obama's and Biden's. During the Bush years, McCain was usually about 5 to 10 percentage points less likely to vote with his party than the average Republican senator. Obama's party support level was about 10 points higher than the average Democratic senator, while Biden was usually between about 5 to 12 points more likely to vote with the party majority than the average Democrat.

These numbers burnish McCain's independent credentials, at least compared to his two senatorial rivals. But they also point to one of the key dilemmas of the McCain candidacy. To weaken McCain's maverick image, Democrats can tie McCain to Bush by emphasizing McCain's presidential support percentage, while not mentioning the sometimes high Bush support level of his Democratic opponents themselves. McCain can respond by noting that, compared to his rivals, his party support percentage shows he is less likely to vote along party lines and has more of an independent streak. Emphasizing that streak may endear him to independents and some Democrats, but it is of course one of the chief aspects of McCain's legislative life that has historically created problems for him within his own party and among party activists. It is one of the tasks of the Republican convention to convince Republicans of the virtue of that independent streak as a matter of character, even if they disagree with McCain on policy particulars.

Interesting critique. McCain: Maverick and supports Bush most of the time. What this says to me is that Bush is apparently also a Maverick. But it does show that McCain is more likely to buck his party than is Obama. Obama votes with the Democrats more than the average democratic senator. Still, I have to love that Obama has voted against Bush so much (although only about as much as the average Democrat).

Oh Rudy....

Ok, this was funny as crap. Rudy Giuliani is a douche. In all honesty, this was one of the things that really pissed me off about several speeches at the RNC. Why mock the fact that Obama was a community organizer? Do Republican not value community service and grassroots organizing? I understand that it is not executive experience, but it is certainly relevant political exeprience. I would also argue that being mayor of a town of 6000 is barely exectuve experience. That would be like saying Andy Griffith is qualified to run the war in Iraq because he has security experience. But I digress. At core I really just find Rudy's jab at community organizing insulting, and it shows a fundamental lack of respect for exactly the kind of political participation (regardless of ideology or issue) that should underlie US democracy.

Angolan MPLA set for big poll win

Angola's ruling MPLA party is heading for a landslide victory in the country's first parliamentary elections in 16 years, preliminary results show.

With around half of the votes counted, the MPLA had received 81% of the vote, the electoral commission said.

It said the main opposition party, Unita, had polled 10%.

Unita is demanding a re-run in Luanda, saying the voting in the capital was chaotic. An African observer mission said the elections had been credible.

This poll is seen as a vital step in the oil-rich country's recovery from decades of civil war.

Fourteen parties took part in the elections. Full results are not expected for up to 10 days.

'Bad losers'

Polling was extended after chaos on Friday prevented many people in Luanda province from casting their vote.

Some polling stations opened late and others quickly ran out of ballot papers.

Unita (the Union for the Total Independence of Angola) is now challenging the legality of the poll in the constitutional court.

The party's leader, Isaias Samakuva, said the system in Luanda had collapsed.

The Sadc mission congratulates the people of Angola on peaceful, free, transparent and credible elections which reflect the will of the people John Kunene, Sadc observer mission Angola polls promise change From war amputees to first voters Party mood for peace poll

Ngola Kabangu, who heads the opposition FNLA party, said the election was extremely flawed.

The MPLA (the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola) has branded Unita "bad losers" and is already claiming victory, the BBC's Louise Redvers in Luanda says.

Population shifts in some provinces due to the long-running civil war have added to Unita's woes, with the MPLA winning majorities in traditionally strong opposition areas, our correspondent says.

Observers from the regional grouping, Southern African Development Community (Sadc), said the vote had been "transparent and credible".

"The Sadc mission congratulates the people of Angola on peaceful, free, transparent and credible elections which reflect the will of the people," John Kunene of the observer mission told the AFP news agency.

Luisa Morgantini, head of the EU observer mission in Angola, blamed "woeful organisation" for the problems and said that a failure to provide voter registration lists at polling stations was a violation of the country's electoral laws.

She added that some election officials had failed to show up at some polling stations, and that there was a shortage of the ink used to mark voters' fingers and prevent multiple voting.

In the lead up to the election, Unita accused the MPLA of intimidating its supporters and dominating state media.

Some eight million voters are registered in the country - more than a quarter of whom live in the capital's overcrowded conditions.

The MPLA has ruled Angola since the country gained independence from Portugal in 1975.

At least once in a while there is a little good news. After a 2 decade civil war (complete with interventions from the US and South Africa on one side and the USSR and Cuba on the other) and 3 separate UN peacekeeping missions, Angola has successfully (for the most part) held democratic elections.

An update:

An EU observer has told the BBC there was vote-rigging in Angola, where the ruling MPLA is expected to win a landslide election victory.

Richard Howitt said the governing party had offered bribes in one province, while soldiers and MPLA officials appeared to have intimidated voters.

Other election observers have said the vote was transparent.

With more than two-thirds of the votes counted, the MPLA had 82% and the opposition Unita party 10.5%.

Iraq eyes Lockheed F-16 fighter aircraft purchase

The Iraqi government has asked for information about buying 36 F-16 fighter aircraft built by Lockheed Martin Corp, the U.S. Defense Department said on Friday.

The request, received August 27, is being reviewed "in the normal course of business" as part of the U.S. government-to-government arms sale process, said Air Force Lt. Col. Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman.

Updated F-16s are among the world's most advanced multirole fighters and a powerful symbol of military ties to the United States.

Iraq's interest in the fighter jet, reported first by The Wall Street Journal, could spark concerns among neighbors worried about advanced arms in the hands of a country still facing major internal challenges.

U.S. reviews of possible arms sale can take a year or more. They involve the departments of State and Defense as well as Congress and weigh power balances, technology security and other thorny issues. If a contract were ultimately signed, deliveries could take another year or more, depending on the model in question.

The Pentagon did not specify which F-16 version Iraq was eyeing, nor whether it was new or refurbished. A Lockheed spokesman referred questions to the Pentagon.

F-16C/D Block 50/52 models are now being produced for Poland, Israel, Greece and Pakistan. The United Arab Emirates was the maiden customer for the Block 60 version, the most sophisticated F-16 produced to date.

More than 4,400 F-16s have been delivered worldwide, according to Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin. Morocco this year became the 25th and latest overseas buyer with a deal for 24 new Block 50/52 models and related gear said by the Pentagon to be worth as much as $2.4 billion.

Iraq's request for pricing and availability data might not necessarily lead to a sale. Sometimes governments seek such information for planning purposes only, the Pentagon's Ryder said.

Flush with billions of dollars from oil sales, Iraq is emerging as the biggest client for a wide range of U.S. weapons -- a shot in the arm for defense contractors such as Lockheed, Boeing Co, Northrop Grumman Corp, General Dynamics Corp and Raytheon Co.

Among other systems, Iraq is seeking more than 400 armored vehicles plus six C-130 transport planes built by Lockheed, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier.

On July 30, the Pentagon notified Congress that Iraq also was seeking to buy 24 Textron Inc Bell Armed 407 or 24 Boeing AH-6 helicopters along with 565 120mm mortars, 665 81mm mortars, 200 AGM-114M Hellfire missiles and other arms that could be worth $2.4 billion.

Baghdad and Washington are working on a long-term security pact that calls for U.S. military forces to quit Iraq's cities by next summer as a step toward a broader withdrawal from the country that U.S.-led forces invaded in 2003 to topple President Saddam Hussein.

F-16s would let Iraqi forces conduct airstrikes of their own on insurgent positions rather than relying on U.S. forces to do so, as is now the case.

Overseas sales have kept Lockheed's F-16 production line open after the U.S. military shifted to more advanced fighters, including the radar-evading F-22 also built by Lockheed.

"The program is healthy and full of activity, with firm production through 2012 and a strong likelihood of new orders that will extend the line for several more years," John Larson, vice president for Lockheed's F-16 programs, told reporters in July at the Farnborough Air Show outside London.

(Editing by Lisa Von Ahn, John Wallace, Phil Berlowitz)

I thought I should post this, as I think it marks an interesting milestone in the Iraqi government's efforts to rebuild its national military, and move toward self sufficiency. It's also a useful indicator for noting the state of the government's stability, and sense of self confidence.

Maintaining a squadron of fighter aircraft is no small affair. Doing so requires a level of technical expertise and maintainance far above and beyond squads of gunman in the back of toyota pickup trucks. You need experts that know how to maintain the engines, avionics, and other misc. systems, and an infrustructure for training and deploying them. As a general rule, fighter pilots in even the most backwater of countries are well educated, highly trained, and well supported compared to most other branches of the military.

Active fighter squadrons would also allow for a level of military autonomy that will make the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces a real possibility. Air power and the ability to deliver support at a moment's notice is one of the most critical force multiplyers that makes the U.S. military as effective as is, and right now the Iraqi military, patterning itself after our own military doctrines, is still reliant on U.S. air power to support its operations against insurgents. If the Iraqi military is strong enough to support itself, that leaves us more options on the table for drawing down our involvement in their everyday affairs. And once Iraq can use its military power to self sufficiently provide its own security, it can turn around and start pouring this oil wealth into its social infrastructure: schools, roads, hospitals, universities, etc.

Caveats? Well, the most obvious is probably the fact that we don't want an unstable Iraqi government to one day fall with a buttload of advanced American fighter technology sitting in its hangers. That would, yes, suck.

But more importantly, we also want to avoid a situation where this new air power is used not to defend the country's law abiding citizens, but to oppress them. That, in my mind, would be an absolute calamity. It would undermine any good that might have come from all the misery and bloodshed so far, and would be no better than having Saddam in power.

Who tells the truth and whose pants are on fire

Cool website. Always check what politicians say.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

Palin comes out throwing punches

ST. PAUL, Minnesota (CNN) -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin introduced herself to the world Wednesday by calling herself a "hockey mom" and then asking what the difference was between a hockey mom and a pit bull.

"Lipstick," the Republican vice-presidential nominee said.

She promptly went on to prove the point, tearing into Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama as two-faced, inexperienced and intoxicated by the sound of his own voice.

"This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word 'victory' except when he's talking about his own campaign," she said.

She slammed Obama for "saying one thing in Scranton and another in San Francisco," argued that he had written two memoirs but never authored a major piece of legislation and asked what he would do "when those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot," a reference to the stage where Obama gave his acceptance speech last week. Watch Palin attack Obama »

Thousands of delegates at the party conference roared their approval at Palin's speech, bursting into chants of "Sarah! Sarah!" and "Zero! Zero," the amount of executive experience Republicans say Obama has accumulated.

"I think Sarah Palin can do a one-two punch better than Muhammad Ali," Kansas state senator Karin Brownlee said after the speech. "And I think she delivered it just square on the opponents' face. I think she has energized the Republican Party like we haven't seen in a long time." Report card: Rate Palin's speech »

Jose Rodriquez-Suarez, a delegate from Puerto Rico, said simply, "It's about the best speech I have heard at any convention." See photos of Palin take the stage »

Conventioneers waved banners reading "Palin Power" and "Hockey moms for Palin." Delegates from her home state of Alaska were spotted wearing buttons calling her "the hottest VP from the coolest state."

"I love those hockey moms," she said.

Palin began with a lengthy, minutes-long standing ovation as she accepted the Republican Party's nomination for vice president. It marked the first time in history that a woman has taken the stage as the GOP vice president pick.

"I accept the challenge of a tough fight," said the woman nicknamed "Sarah Barracuda."

The Obama campaign dismissed Palin's speech as "well-delivered" but said it was "written by George Bush's speechwriter and sounds exactly like the same divisive, partisan attacks we've heard from George Bush for the last eight years." iReport.com: Share your reaction to the convention speeches

Bush aide Matthew Scully was largely responsible for the speech.

Palin, whose son is to deploy to Iraq soon, praised her running mate John McCain as a man who has met grave challenges and "knows how tough fights are won." She criticized Obama's stance on Iraq, saying he "wants to forfeit" while victory is "finally in sight." Watch Palin say McCain has fought for change his entire life »

"It's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform, not even in the state Senate," she said.

She praised McCain, a decorated war hero, as a "true profile in courage."

"In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change," she said.

Throughout the speech, it was clear the first-term governor of Alaska had won over the hearts of the crowd.

"What exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make the government bigger and take more of your money."

Palin, the former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, contrasted her résumé as a former mayor of a small town with that of Obama. "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

Palin presented herself as both a mother and as an outside-the-Beltway reformer in the McCain mold, saying she "took on the old politics as usual in Juneau" and "stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good ol' boys network."

She tied oil, a major industry in her home state of Alaska, to foreign policy and national security on a night when convention delegates repeatedly burst into chants of "Drill now, baby, drill now!"

She insisted that the United States seek "energy independence," including through more drilling, in the face of threats as diverse as hurricanes in the Gulf and Russian military power in the Caucasus.

And Palin dismissed criticism about her that have appeared in the press. "Here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country." CNN's political team analyzes Palin's speech »

Palin, whose youngest child has Down syndrome, also promised that families of special needs children will have "a friend and advocate in the White House."

At the end of the speech, McCain came on stage amid raucous cheers and said, "Don't you think we made the right choice for the next vice president of the United States?" Watch McCain take stage, get crowd fired up »

Just before Palin took center stage, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani warmed up the crowd by continuing the barrage on Obama, calling him a "celebrity senator" with no leadership experience.

"He's never had to lead people in crisis," Giuliani said. "This is not a personal attack; it's a statement of fact. Barack Obama has never led anything. Nothing. Nada."

"The choice in this election comes down to substance over style. John McCain has been tested. Barack Obama has not. Tough times require strong leadership, and this is no time for on-the-job training."

His speech was the third of the evening by former GOP presidential candidates who pumped up the Republican faithful ahead of Palin.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee got the crowd cheering when he ripped Obama for looking to Europe for ways to change America.

"Barack Obama's excellent adventure to Europe took his campaign for change to hundreds of thousands of people who don't even vote or pay taxes here," he said.

"The fact is, most Americans don't want more government; they want a lot less."

Huckabee said McCain represents small government and has ideas for change that will make the nation's economy better. He added that McCain is "a man with the character and stubborn kind of integrity that I want in a president."

Huckabee took a jab at the "elite media" for "unifying the Republican Party and all of America" in support of McCain and Palin, a first-term governor of Alaska.

"The reporting of the past few days has proven tackier than a costume change at a Madonna concert," Huckabee said.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney blasted "liberal Washington," saying McCain is a "prescription for every American who wants change in Washington."

He added that it's time to take a "Weedwacker" to excessive regulation and to impose lower taxes and to stop big-government spending.

"Throw out the big-government liberals and elect John McCain," Romney said. "We need change, all right: change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington."

He also threw his support behind Palin, saying the McCain-Palin ticket "will keep America as it has always been: the hope of the world."

"We will never allow America to retreat in the face of evil extremism," Romney said.

The Republican Party officially nominated McCain for president at the convention Wednesday. McCain will give a speech accepting the nomination on Thursday night.

Police said two protesters were removed during Palin's speech. They said they were members of the anti-war group Code Pink. A spokesperson for the Joint Information Center said the two women were escorted by law enforcement officers from the Xcel Center for heckling.

They stood and yelled off to the side of the podium during Palin's speech. They were not charged and have been "sent on their way," this spokesperson said.

From CNN.com.

With the selection of Sarah Palin McCain's campaign has fully adopted the Karl Rove play book. If you listen to her rhetoric it is straight out of the speeches of Bush. If you examine the McCain campaign's image shift over the last 4 to 6 months it moves from the maverick, conservative- independent, reformer to showcasing social conservative, religious evangelical, fear mongering.

I was supportive of Obama, of course, but was considering a third party (as usual) since I believe the Dems and Reps are more often than not opposite sides of the same coin. But Palin makes me think that I might volunteer for the Obama campaign. I might even spend a week campaigning in VA since it is one state that Obama might win. I just can in no way tolerate the idea of another radical conservative sitting in office, even as VP (and her selection certainly shows McCain's willingness to bend to the radical right). She supports prayer in school and creationism as a topic for discussion in science class; she attempted to ban books from a public library because the were "morally offensive"; she wants to remove polar bears from the endangered species list so that it is easier for oil companies to drill in certain areas of Alaska, and she does not believe that climate change is related to human actions (the jury is still out?).

This is good strategy for McCain because he can only win if he rallies the base. But he has given up all of his maverick status by lying down with the religious radical in the GOP. Maverick my ass. I liked him better when he referred to the religious radicals as agents of intolerance rather than getting in bed with them.