“Legalization Is the Best Approach”

It might be. Global drug prohibition is clearly a costly disaster. The United Nations has estimated the value of the global market in illicit drugs at $400 billion, or 6 percent of global trade. The extraordinary profits available to those willing to assume the risks enrich criminals, terrorists, violent political insurgents, and corrupt politicians and governments. Many cities, states, and even countries in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia are reminiscent of Chicago under Al Capone—times 50. By bringing the market for drugs out into the open, legalization would radically change all that for the better.

More importantly, legalization would strip addiction down to what it really is: a health issue. Most people who use drugs are like the responsible alcohol consumer, causing no harm to themselves or anyone else. They would no longer be the state’s business. But legalization would also benefit those who struggle with drugs by reducing the risks of overdose and disease associated with unregulated products, eliminating the need to obtain drugs from dangerous criminal markets, and allowing addiction problems to be treated as medical rather than criminal problems.

No one knows how much governments spend collectively on failing drug war policies, but it’s probably at least $100 billion a year, with federal, state, and local governments in the United States accounting for almost half the total. Add to that the tens of billions of dollars to be gained annually in tax revenues from the sale of legalized drugs. Now imagine if just a third of that total were committed to reducing drug-related disease and addiction. Virtually everyone, except those who profit or gain politically from the current system, would benefit.

Some say legalization is immoral. That’s nonsense, unless one believes there is some principled basis for discriminating against people based solely on what they put into their bodies, absent harm to others. Others say legalization would open the floodgates to huge increases in drug abuse. They forget that we already live in a world in which psychoactive drugs of all sorts are readily available—and in which people too poor to buy drugs resort to sniffing gasoline, glue, and other industrial products, which can be more harmful than any drug. No, the greatest downside to legalization may well be the fact that the legal markets would fall into the hands of the powerful alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical companies. Still, legalization is a far more pragmatic option than living with the corruption, violence, and organized crime of the current system.

Excerpt from editorial by Ethan Nadelmann published in the this month's Foreign Policy Journal. Full story available at: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3932

Wow...6% of global trade. That is staggering. I agree with the author, the war on drugs is a ridiculous farce. It is lost; it is a drain of resources that could be better spent elsewhere; it is counterproductive because it criminalizes abuses that should be treated as medical issues.

BeliefWatch: Reincarnate

By Matthew Philips

Newsweek

Aug. 20-27, 2007 issue - In one of history's more absurd acts of totalitarianism, China has banned Buddhist monks in Tibet from reincarnating without government permission. According to a statement issued by the State Administration for Religious Affairs, the law, which goes into effect next month and strictly stipulates the procedures by which one is to reincarnate, is "an important move to institutionalize management of reincarnation." But beyond the irony lies China's true motive: to cut off the influence of the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled spiritual and political leader, and to quell the region's Buddhist religious establishment more than 50 years after China invaded the small Himalayan country. By barring any Buddhist monk living outside China from seeking reincarnation, the law effectively gives Chinese authorities the power to choose the next Dalai Lama, whose soul, by tradition, is reborn as a new human to continue the work of relieving suffering.

At 72, the Dalai Lama, who has lived in India since 1959, is beginning to plan his succession, saying that he refuses to be reborn in Tibet so long as it's under Chinese control. Assuming he's able to master the feat of controlling his rebirth, as Dalai Lamas supposedly have for the last 600 years, the situation is shaping up in which there could be two Dalai Lamas: one picked by the Chinese government, the other by Buddhist monks. "It will be a very hot issue," says Paul Harrison, a Buddhism scholar at Stanford. "The Dalai Lama has been the prime symbol of unity and national identity in Tibet, and so it's quite likely the battle for his incarnation will be a lot more important than the others."

So where in the world will the next Dalai Lama be born? Harrison and other Buddhism scholars agree that it will likely be from within the 130,000 Tibetan exiles spread throughout India, Europe and North America. With an estimated 8,000 Tibetans living in the United States, could the next Dalai Lama be American-born? "You'll have to ask him," says Harrison. If so, he'll likely be welcomed into a culture that has increasingly embraced reincarnation over the years. According to a 2005 Gallup poll, 20 percent of all U.S. adults believe in reincarnation. Recent surveys by the Barna Group, a Christian research nonprofit, have found that a quarter of U.S. Christians, including 10 percent of all born-again Christians, embrace it as their favored end-of-life view. A non-Tibetan Dalai Lama, experts say, is probably out of the question.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20227400/site/newsweek/

I know this is actually an important political issue at its base, but...hehe, hehe, hehehe, HAHAHAHAHA!!!! You gotta admit, it's funny.

Rich 'can pay poor to cut carbon'

By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News

Rich nations should be absolved from the need to cut emissions if they pay developing countries to do it on their behalf, a senior UN official has said.

The controversial suggestion from Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), has angered environmental groups.

They say climate change will not be solved unless rich and poor nations both cut emissions together.

But Mr de Boer said the challenge was so great that action was needed now.

Carbon credits

The UN's binding global climate agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, currently requires industrialised nations to reduce the majority of emissions themselves.

But Mr de Boer said this was illogical, adding that the scale of the problem facing the world meant that countries should be allowed to invest in emission cuts wherever in the world it was cheapest.

"We have been reducing emissions and making energy use more efficient in industrialised countries for a long time," he told BBC News.

This proposal simply won't deliver the cuts we need in time Mike Childs, Friends of the Earth

"So it is quite expensive in these nations to reduce emissions any more.

"But in developing nations, less has been done to reduce emissions and less has been done to address energy efficiency," Mr de Boer observed.

"So it actually becomes economically quite attractive for a company, for example in the UK, that has a target to achieve this goal by reducing emissions in China."

He said rich nations should be able to buy their way out of 100% of their responsibilities - though he doubted that any country would want to do so.

Green groups said the proposal was against the spirit of the UN, which agreed that wealthy countries - who were responsible for climate change - should do most to cure it.

Mike Childs from Friends of the Earth said: "This proposal simply won't deliver the cuts we need in time. The scientists are telling us that we need to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) by 50-80% by 2050.

"Unless rich countries start to wean themselves off fossil fuels right away this won't happen."

Doug Parr of Greenpeace was equally critical of Mr de Boer's suggestion.

"The current trading system is not delivering emissions reductions as it is," he said. "Expanding it like this to give rich countries a completely free hand will simply not work."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6957328.stm


Alright, all in favor of the proposal say aye... Ok, all opposed say, "Are you a f**king idiot?" and, "Can we get someone who is not a completely brain dead jerk-off to be the head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change?"

The Failing Surge

The outcome of the war in Iraq may now rest in large part on the success or failure of the so-called surge. Beginning in February, the White House sent an additional 28,000 U.S. troops to Baghdad in an effort to quell the violence there. Securing the capital with overwhelming force is a key component of the anti-insurgency plan developed by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq and the military’s foremost expert on counterinsurgency tactics. It took until June for all the U.S. forces to be put in place, and the number of American troops in Iraq is now at its highest level since 2005. But is Petraeus’s plan working?

The index’s (Center for American Progress Terrorism Index) experts don’t think so. More than half say the surge is having a negative impact on U.S. national security, up 22 percentage points from just six months ago. This sentiment was shared across party lines, with 64 percent of conservative experts saying the surge is having either a negative impact or no impact at all. When the experts were asked to grade the government’s handling of the Iraq war, the news was even worse. They gave the overall effort in Iraq an average point score of just 2.9 on a 10-point scale. The government’s public diplomacy record was the only policy that scored lower.

These negative opinions may result in part from the experts’ apparent belief that, a decade from now, the world will still be reeling from the consequences of the war. Fifty-eight percent of the index’s experts say that in 10 years’ time, Sunni-Shiite tensions in the Middle East will have dramatically increased. Thirty-five percent believe that Arab dictators will have been discouraged from reforming. Just 5 percent, on the other hand, believe that al Qaeda will be weaker, whereas only 3 percent believe Iraq will be a beacon of democracy in the Middle East.

Source: Foreign Policy Journal

See the entire report at: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3924
(you might need to register)

I have a subscription to this journal and frequently use it in the class I teach in international politics. I like FP because it is more accessible than normal academic journals, but also because it usually presents an even, well-balanced, and well-researched analysis of issues by leading figures from academia, politics, and policy, often with rebuttals from an opposing side. I find it interesting, disheartening, but rather not surprising that one of their lead stories for this month would be on the general and growing consensus among policy experts that the surge is failing. It's sad. Most everyone now agrees that the US-led invasion has f***ed the entire region for years to come. Super. Remember this when you go vote. Find a candidate that doesn't think war is a good idea, maybe one that wants to establish a Department of Peace. Yeah, sounds a little cooky, right? How does it sound compared to a multi-trillion dollar war that has cost upwards of half a million lives and destabilized a whole region. A little less nutty? Yeah, I thought so.

Snow to leave White House early

White House spokesman Tony Snow has announced that he is resigning from the job early for financial reasons.

Mr Snow did not give the date he would leave but said he had taken a pay cut since he joined President George Bush's team from Fox News TV in April 2006.

He has also been undergoing chemotherapy for colon cancer.

His announcement comes just days after one of Mr Bush's closest advisers, Karl Rove, announced that he was leaving at the end of the month.

Mr Snow announced his intentions on the conservative radio program The Hugh Hewitt Show.

"I've already made it clear I'm not going to be able to go the distance, but that's primarily for financial reasons," he said.

"I've told people when my money runs out, then I've got to go."

Colon cancer

Mr Snow had joined the White House in April 2006, at a time when Mr Bush was increasingly under fire for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Doctors discovered in March a recurrence of his colon cancer which forced Mr Snow to undergo chemotherapy.

Mr Bush has lost some of his closest advisors in recent months. The latest was his top strategist, Karl Rove, who said he would quit at the end of the month.

Other aides have left since the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007.

They include counsellor Dan Bartlett, chief White House attorney Harriet Miers, budget director Rob Portman, political director Sara Taylor, deputy national security adviser J.D. Crouch and Meghan O'Sullivan, another deputy national security adviser who worked on Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6952579.stm

Two things: One, he is leaving because he isn't being paid enough? I would totally understand if he were leaving for health reasons, but greed? Two, is everybody gonna jump off this sinking ship?

Analysis: New US-Israeli arms deal

By Jonathan Marcus
BBC diplomatic correspondent

This new agreement sets increased levels of US military aid for Israel over the coming decade.

In broad terms, Israel will receive a total of some $30bn (£14.8bn) in military aid, a significant increase over $24bn (£12bn) it received over the past 10 years.

This is welcome news for Israel.

Last summer's war between Israel and the Lebanon-based Hezbollah demonstrated a complacency and lack of training within the Israel Defence Force (IDF).

Putting this right will require additional spending.

But improving the combat capabilities of Israel's infantry and armoured formations must go hand-in-hand with trying to find improved technical solutions to the threat of missile attack against Israeli population centres.

Israeli military planners must also contend with what they see as the potential long-range threat from Iran. So, there is no shortage of things to spend money on.

Increasing instalments

Israel has not got everything its own way.

Indeed, the visit of the US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, was postponed earlier this month after it became clear that the US was not in a position to deliver the aid in quite the way the Israelis wanted.

US ARMS AID TO ISRAEL $30bn over 10 years 1st payment of $2.55bn in 2008 Annual payments rising to $3.1bn by 2011 26.3% can be spent in Israel Rest must be spent on US arms

The Israeli government would have preferred to get equal instalments each year over the 10-year period.

Instead, the aid will increase by some $150m (£76m) each year. In other words, Israel will get less of the money during the initial period of this deal than it had wanted.

The Israeli defence ministry will be able to spend a little over 25% of the military aid inside Israel itself - an important factor both in maintaining Israel's own industrial base and in maintaining its technical edge over any combination of adversaries.

Israel would probably like to have spent even more on domestically-produced weaponry but the Bush administration, mindful of pressure from America's own defence lobby, was unwilling to give more ground.

'Broader strategy'

Quite apart from the boost this gives to Israel's armed forces, it also sends a powerful signal of Washington's continued support for its principal ally in the region.

Israel is not the only recipient of US military largesse.

At the end of July, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice unveiled a series of multi-billion dollar arms deals, involving not just the Israel package, but more weaponry for Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other key Gulf allies.

This would, Ms Rice said, "bolster forces of moderation and support a broader strategy to counter the negative influences of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran".

She argued that more weaponry for Egypt and Saudi Arabia in particular would "bolster our partners' resolve in confronting the threat of radicalism and cement their respective roles as regional leaders".

'Not the solution'

Critics will argue that additional weapons sales to this troubled region will not serve the cause of peace.

Part of the reason for Israel's increased package, they say, is to maintain its edge in the face of sophisticated weapons deliveries to Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Indeed, in the wake of the somewhat compromised policy of spreading democracy in the region - an approach which threatened to sow a good deal of chaos in the short-term - these arms deals signal a return to a more traditional US approach; arming friends so better to bolster an alliance against common enemies.

Arms sales in themselves are not the solution to the region's problems. But it is probably wrong to see them simply as part of the problem.

The Bush administration's toppling of Saddam Hussein has caused a good deal of instability way beyond Iraq's borders. It has fundamentally altered the strategic map of the region.

And with Iran in the ascendancy, many of America's allies feel vulnerable.

Addressing their concerns is a necessary part of stabilising the region.

But arms sales have to be part of an integrated approach that brings together diplomatic peace efforts and a mix of carrots and sticks to try to win over potential or actual enemies.

Many of the Bush administration's critics argue that - despite its increased efforts to engage in the peace process - it still has not got this package quite right.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6949904.stm

My "Experiment" in Shopping

Before I begin, allow me to state that this is obviously not a scientific study. I am technically on the border of NC and SC, so I went to 2 Bi-Lo stores and they had the exact same prices in both NC and SC, therefore I am correctly or incorrectly assuming the prices should be relatively comparable. Please feel free to check my math on any of this.

(lowest price in green, highest in red)
Bread (white) - 1.07 - W, 1.09 - B, 0.96- T, 2.29 (1.59) - H
Milk (2%) - 4.22 - W, 3.99 - B, 4.64 - T, 3.69 - H
Lunchmeat, Ham - 0.50 - W, 0.79 (0.60) - B, 0.52 - T, 0.79 - H
Lettuce (Iceberg) - 1.28 - W, 1.59 - B, 1.29 - T, 1.59 - H
Bean (Black Beans in a can) - 0.50 - W, 0.82 (0.70) - B, 0.54 - T, 0.64 - H
Soft Drink (2 liter Coke) - 1.33 - W, 1.59 (1.25) - B, 1.49 - T, 1.69 (1.59) - H
Laundry Detergent (125 oz liquid) - 2.27 - W, 2.50 - B, 3.34 - T, 3.49 (2.50) - H
Ketchup (24 oz Heinz) - 1.62 - W, 1.79 - B, 1.47 - T, 1.79 - H
Soap (3 bars of Irish Spring) - 1.78 - W, 2.19 - B, 1.79 - T, 2.39 (1.50) - H
Cereal (Corn Flakes) - 1.33 - W, 1.99 - B, 1.67 - T, 2.69 - H

Totals
Super Wal-Mart - $15.40
Bi-Lo - $18.34 ($17.81 - with Bonus Card)
Super Target - $17.71
Harris Teeter - $21.10 ($18.42 with VIC card)

More than Wal-Mart
Bi-Lo = 19% (16%)
Super Target = 15%
Harris Teeter = 37% (20%)

At $100 a week for a year, you pay _____ more at ______ than at Super Wal-Mart.
$988 ($832) Bi-Lo
$780 Super Target
$1924 ($1040)Harris Teeter

What I could have done to improve this "experiment"? I think next time, the thing to do would be to compare unit prices on the best bargains. Reason being, I passed up some really good deals at both Target and Bi-Lo because I had already chosen which products I was pricing. That being said, do I think that it would make one of them cheaper? No, of course not, but it could probably cut the price down to about 10% or so above the Super Wal-Mart price.

Even taking the above as gospel, I would still rather pay 15-20% more for groceries than do what I consider selling my soul. My ethics (or soul) are not worth even 2 grand a year. That is just the way I see it.

US retailers warn of tough times

Two US retailing giants, Wal-Mart and Home Depot, have warned about a poor year ahead after their latest results.

Wal-Mart's profits hit $3.1bn (£1.54bn) between May and July, from $2.08bn last year, but missed forecasts.

In contrast, Home Depot saw profits fall to $1.59bn from $1.86bn in the same period a year earlier, but beat expectations.

But both firms expect earnings to fall in the months ahead, amid fears that the US economy will continue to cool.

Rising costs

Following the results, Wal-Mart chief executive Lee Scott said earnings had been harmed by wider economic pressures.

"It is no secret that many customers are running out of money toward the end of the month," said Mr Scott.

In a bid to entice more customers, Wal-Mart has been reducing many items before the back-to-school period.

The combination of higher petrol prices and higher interest rates, that have pushed up mortgage payments, have both been factors squeezing customers, leaving them with less disposable income.

Higher costs have curbed people's appetite for home improvement, harming Home Depot and other such firms.

The company said sales from outlets open at least a year dropped by 5.2% for the quarter.

The results come as recent market turmoil has raised fears that a wider global contraction could be on the horizon.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/6946029.stm

Off our normal topic, but pretty awesome!

Hot gas in space mimics life

Scientists say it's an example of how difficult it is to define life

By Ker Than

Space.com

Updated: 1:19 p.m. ET Aug 14, 2007

Electrically charged specks of interstellar dust organize into DNA-like double helixes and display properties normally attributed to living systems, such as evolving and reproducing, new computer simulations show.

But scientists are hesitant to call the dancing dust particles "alive," and instead say they are just another example of how difficult it is to define life.

The computer model, detailed in the Aug. 14 issue of the New Journal of Physics, shows what happens to microscopic dust particles when they are injected into plasma.

Plasma is the fourth state of matter along with solids, liquids and gases. While unfamiliar to most people, plasma is the most common phase of matter in the universe. It's everywhere: Stars are luminous balls of plasma, and diffuse plasma pervades the space between stars. Plasma forms when gas becomes so hot that electrons are stripped from atomic nuclei, leaving behind a soup of charged particles.

Past studies on Earth have shown that if enough particles are injected into a low-temperature plasma, they will spontaneously organize into crystal-like structures.

The new computer simulations suggest that in the gravity-free environment of space, the plasma particles will bead together to form string-like filaments that then twist into corkscrew shapes. The helical strands resemble DNA and are themselves electrically charged and attracted to one another.

The computer-modeled plasma particles can also divide to form two copies of the original structure and even "evolve" into more stable structures that are better able to survive in the plasma.

"These complex, self-organized plasma structures exhibit all the necessary properties to qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter," said study team member V.N. Tsytovich of the Russian Academy of Science.

Is it alive?
Nevertheless, Tsytovich's colleague and study team member, Gregor Morfill of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany, is hesitant to call the plasma particles alive.

"Maybe it's a question of upbringing," Morfill said in a telephone interview. "I would hesitate to call it life. The reason why we published this paper is not because we wanted to suggest this could evolve into life, but because we wanted to start the discussion ... once more of what exactly do we mean by life."

Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California, also was cautious in calling the particles alive. "The facts are, we still don't have a good definition of what 'life' is," Shostak told SPACE.com.

Shostak points out that while most high-school biology textbooks include as requirements for life the ability to metabolize and reproduce, it's easy to think of things that break these rules. Fire, for example, reproduces and metabolizes, but most people would not say it is alive; and mules, which are clearly alive, can't reproduce.

"We still stumble on what it means to be alive, and that means that these complex molecules are in a never-never land between the living and the merely reacting," Shostak added.

If the particles were considered alive though, Shostak said, it would completely overturn another common assumption about life.

"We've always assumed that life was a planetary phenomenon. Only on planets would you have the liquids thought necessary for the chemistry of life," he said. "So if you could have life in the hot gases of a star, or in the hot, interstellar gas that suffuses the space between the stars, well, not only would that be 'life as we don't know it' but it might be the most common type of life."

© 2007 Space.com. All rights reserved. More from Space.com.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20264620/

Karl Rove is Leaving: Did Hell Just Freeze Over?

Top White House aide Karl Rove, seen by many as the brains behind George W Bush's presidency, has said he will resign at the end of August.

"I just think it's time," Mr Rove said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, adding that he was quitting for the sake of his family.

Mr Rove has worked with Mr Bush since 1993 when he ran for Texas governor.

As Mr Bush's chief strategist, he is seen as instrumental in delivering election victories in 2000 and 2004.

For this he is highly regarded by Republicans, but at the same time equally reviled by Democrats.

"Obviously, it's a big loss to us," White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino told the Associated Press news agency. "He's a great colleague, a good friend, and a brilliant mind. He will be greatly missed."

"He will continue to be one of the president's greatest friends," she added.

Delayed departure

Mr Rove has been accused of underhand tactics frequently since his teenage years.

As a student, he invited Chicago vagrants to turn up for free beer at a plush reception for a Democrat state candidate - an incident he later described as a "youthful prank" that he regretted.

He has continued to be dogged by controversy.

Last month, the US Senate issued a subpoena against him as part of an investigation into the sacking of eight federal prosecutors, but Mr Bush ordered him not to testify, citing executive privilege.

Mr Rove was also investigated in connection with the exposure of CIA agent Valerie Plame, though prosecutors decided he should not face any charges.

Mr Rove told the Wall Street Journal that he had first floated the idea of leaving last year, but had delayed his departure when the Democrats took control of Congress.

He said he took a final decision to leave after White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten told aides that if they stayed after the end of August they would be obliged to stay in the administration until Mr Bush's own departure in January 2009.

"There's always something that can keep you here, and as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family," he said.

He said he expected Mr Bush's current poor ratings to improve, and that conditions in Iraq would get better as the military surge continued.

A Republican had a good chance of winning the 2008 presidential election, he said, because Democrats would choose the "fatally flawed" Hillary Clinton as their candidate.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6943814.stm

Wow. This is something many, many people have been waiting a ling time to hear. In many ways this suggests that the administration is coming apart at the seems, and Bush's political career is over. Perhaps this is a move by Bush to improve his very weak ratings and raise his approval above the 32% he has been receiving lately (Rove is just about as popular as Cheney)...but I suspect something else. Rove is a strategic and calculating person, and I would put money on a plan to make congressional investigation and possible prosecution more difficult.

Contractors accused of firing on civilians, GIs

Huge private force operates in Iraq with little supervision or accountability

There are now nearly as many private contractors in Iraq as there are U.S. soldiers — and a large percentage of them are private security guards equipped with automatic weapons, body armor, helicopters and bullet-proof trucks.

They operate with little or no supervision, accountable only to the firms employing them. And as the country has plummeted toward anarchy and civil war, this private army has been accused of indiscriminately firing at American and Iraqi troops, and of shooting to death an unknown number of Iraqi citizens who got too close to their heavily armed convoys.

Not one has faced charges or prosecution.

There is great confusion among legal experts and military officials about what laws — if any — apply to Americans in this force of at least 48,000.

Largely exempt from prosecution
They operate in a decidedly gray legal area. Unlike soldiers, they are not bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Under a special provision secured by American-occupying forces, they are exempt from prosecution by Iraqis for crimes committed there.

The security firms insist their employees are governed by internal conduct rules and by use-of-force protocols established by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. occupation government that ruled Iraq for 14 months following the invasion.

But many soldiers on the ground — who earn in a year what private guards can earn in just one month — say their private counterparts should answer to a higher authority, just as they do. More than 60 U.S. soldiers in Iraq have been court-martialed on murder-related charges involving Iraqi citizens.

No one has been prosecuted
Some military analysts and government officials say the contractors could be tried under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which covers crimes committed abroad. But so far, that law has not been applied to them.

Security firms earn more than $4 billion in government contracts, but the government doesn’t know how many private soldiers it has hired, or where all of them are, according to the Government Accountability Office. And the companies are not required to report violent incidents involving their employees.

Security guards now constitute nearly 50 percent of all private contractors in Iraq — a number that has skyrocketed since the 2003 invasion, when then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said rebuilding Iraq was the top priority. But an unforeseen insurgency, and hundreds of terrorist attacks have pushed the country into chaos. Security is now Iraq’s greatest need.

Efforts to boost accountability
The wartime numbers of private guards are unprecedented — as are their duties, many of which have traditionally been done by soldiers. They protect U.S. military operations and have guarded high-ranking officials including Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Baghdad. They also protect visiting foreign officials and thousands of construction projects.

At times, they are better equipped than military units.

Their presence has also pushed the war’s direction. The 2004 battle of Fallujah — an unsuccessful military assault in which an estimated 27 U.S. Marines were killed, along with an unknown number of civilians — was retaliation for the killing, maiming and burning of four Blackwater guards in that city by a mob of insurgents.

“I understand this is war,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., whose efforts for greater contractor accountability led to an amendment in next year’s Pentagon spending bill. “But that’s absolutely no excuse for letting this very large force of armed private employees, dare I say mercenaries, run around without any accountability to anyone.”

(Story originally on MSNBC, click here for page)

I totally agree with Rep. Schakowsky. I am sure the fact that we have these "private military companies" running around doing as they please in Iraq geometrically multiplies the bad blood the Iraqi people feel towards us. I highly recommend anyone and everyone to watch the 2005 Frontline program entitled Private Warriors (you can actually watch the whole thing online by clicking here).

Myspace versus Facebook: Class War

A flurry of recent articles have observed that young people are leaving MySpace for Facebook in droves, setting off speculation that MySpace is becoming the latest victim of fickle teens following the hot new thing.

Not so, says University of California, Berkeley, researcher Danah Boyd. Not all teens are leaving MySpace, she wrote in a recent essay--instead, they're splitting up along class lines.

Boyd confirms what teens in any high school across the country already know: Affluent kids from educated, well-to-do families have been fleeing MySpace for Facebook since it opened registration to the general public in September, while working-class kids still flock to MySpace.

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

Facebook launched in 2004 as a site for Harvard students. Gradually, it opened up to other college students, then to high school kids if a college student invited them. "Facebook is what the college kids did. Not surprisingly, college-bound high schoolers desperately wanted in," Boyd writes.

MySpace, meanwhile, is the "cool working-class thing" for high school students getting a job after graduation rather than heading to the Ivy League, Boyd writes. Constant local news stories on predators targeting kids on MySpace further alienated the "good kids," she says. Both companies declined to comment on Boyd's essay.

From: www.msn.com (who else?)

My space is the cool, working class online social community. Not much to comment on this, just though it was interesting. Workers of the web unite! Visit my myspace page for more virtual propaganda.

Would you sell your vote to co-star with Branjelina?

These are the results from a study commissioned by a freelance writer in Anchorage named ALEX SHESHUNOFF. I am not sure if this was nationwide or just conducted in Alaska (remember, it's the state that elected Mike Gravel so take them with a grain of salt--but seriously Mike, you rock.) Anyway, all I can say is wow! Wow, do we have a low quality democracy. Wow, the Olive Garden? I would have held out for Macaroni Grill at least.

"For a few hundred dollars, the Opinion Research Corporation will bug 1,006 folks during dinner for you. The whole survey isn't yours -- your questions probably follow some about shampoo preferences -- but they collect all sorts of demographic information and send you a detailed, statistically valid report.

Here's what I found out:

• Roughly one in five Americans would permanently give up their right to vote for $25,000, a bit less than the going rate established by Anderson.

• A majority had a much higher price. Sixty-four percent wouldn't permanently give up their right to vote even for a vaccine for cancer.

• Some sold for a much, much lower price. Twelve percent of America would disenfranchise itself for a $50 gift certificate from the Olive Garden."

If you want to read the rest you can get it here:
http://www.adn.com/opinion/comment/story/9205390p-9121649c.html

AFL-CIO Presidential Forum

Who made the strongest showing here? And why?

First off, let me say for full disclosure, I am pro-union from a union household and I think that the working men and women of the United States have been abused beyond what is tolerable. We have seen pensions evaporate, we have seen CEOs purposefully sabotage the running of corporations to line their pockets. So on... I'll stop there because I assume you get my point about where I am coming from.

Clinton - She made on decent showing, but I am still expecting more from her. She didn't seem like she was very "present" in the forum. She answered the questions adequately, but still managed to say little (see my statement below on being evasive). She was better in this debate than before, but I am still unconvinced by her... she has continued to come off as stubborn and "old politics" to me. I give her a B+.

Obama - Evasive... I know it's the nature of politics to say so very little, but I think that shows cowardice. I am continually unimpressed by Barrack. He is a fantastic speaker, but I still see no substance in what he is saying (except maybe on the Pakistan issue). I give him a B-.

Dodd - He was on the offensive. He seemed more engaging in this forum than in any other debate. He is not a great orator in my opinion. He had some good ideas and interesting statements, but he is still a bit boring to me, he did not convince me his heart was in it (which is too bad, because I know it is). I give him a C.

Kucinich - The first thing Pat Buchanan said is how impressed he was with Dennis Kucinich (although he did say Hilary "won" the debate), wow, I totally agree with Pat Buchanan. He was lively, he was energized, he is frackin dead-on right about EVERYTHING! I am an unashamed supporter of this fantastic candidate. I give him an A.

Edwards - I thought he like Clinton had a decent showing this debate, but THIS was his forum to "lose" and I think he could have done a better. I agree with most of what he said and the vigor with which he said it. He just could have stolen the show, but he seemed a bit reserved. I give him a B+.

Biden - He was so rude to the lady who lost her husband in the mining accident last year that from that alone he lost all my support (he even got booed from the crowd). He should have had the respect to spend 60 freaking seconds answering a woman who asked him a legitimate question. This was such a slap in the face... Biden has some decent ideas, but no way in hell is he getting my vote. He gets a D.

Richardson - Richardson was in the debate? Just kidding. He was alright in the forum but he didn't come off as all that convincing. I like a lot of his policies, and he is a great foreign policy guy, but he is still not making a mark in these debates. C is the grade he gets.


So, through my obviously biased glasses, I think that DK stole the show. Of the big three, Hilary probably came off the best, followed by Edwards (who should have ran away with it) and then Obama. It was a good forum. I would like to see a Kucinich/Edwards ticket. Go labor!

Iraq power system 'near collapse'

Iraq's national power grid is on the brink of collapse, the country's electricity ministry has warned.

Water supplies to Baghdad have also been cut off for days at a time, with summertime pressures on key systems said to be more intense than ever.

The ministry blamed poor maintenance, fuel shortages, sabotage by insurgents and rising demand for the problems, and said some provinces hold onto supplies.

The US Army told the BBC that Iraq must now take charge of fixing the problems.

The general in charge of helping Iraq rebuild its infrastructure, Michael Walsh, said that although Iraqi authorities only have one-quarter of the money needed for reconstruction, solving the problem was now up to them.

Gen Walsh told the BBC that the US had jump-started reconstruction but that, working with donor nations, the Iraqi government needed to do the rest.

Blackouts

The Iraqi warning came a week after the charity, Oxfam, and a coalition of Iraqi NGOs reported that nearly one-third of Iraq's population was in need of immediate emergency aid.

Their report suggested 70% of Iraqis did not have adequate water supplies and that only 20% had access to effective sanitation.

A spokesman for the electricity ministry said Iraq's electricity system was only meeting half of the demand and that there had been four nationwide blackouts last week.

Aziz al-Shimari said the shortages were the worst since the summer of 2003, shortly after the US-led invasion overthrew Saddam Hussein.

Baghdad residents are complaining that the situation this summer is even worse than four years ago, correspondents say.

Poor maintenance and a lack of diesel fuel have left even newly-refurbished power stations working below capacity.

The continuing threat of damage by insurgents has also been a challenge, with 15 of the 17 high voltage lines running into Baghdad have been sabotaged.

"When we fix a line, the insurgents attack it the next day," Mr Shimari told the Associated Press.

'No control'

The problems have been compounded by provinces holding onto supplies for themselves rather than powering Baghdad.

"Many southern provinces such as Basra, Diwaniya, Nasiriya and Babil have disconnected their power plants from the national grid. Northern provinces, including Kurdistan, are doing the same," Mr Shimari said.

"We have absolutely no control over some areas in the south."

Mr Shimari warned that the national grid would collapse if the provinces did not "abide by the rules".

"Everybody will lose and there will be no electricity winner," he said.

Baghdad's water supply has also been severely affected by failing power supplies.

New water treatment plants are working, but a lack of power and broken pipes mean that the water is easily contaminated and hardly flows at all in many places.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6934973.stm

UN resolution on bigger Iraq role

By Matthew Wells
BBC News, New York
The US and the UK have circulated a new draft resolution to United Nations Security Council members giving the UN a more heavyweight role in Iraq.

If adopted, the UN would take a larger role in its political process.

The existing UN mission in Iraq has had a low-key presence ever since a truck bomb devastated its headquarters in Baghdad in August 2003.

Diplomats say a vote on any resolution by 10 August, when the existing mandate for the UN's mission in Iraq expires.

American and British diplomats are keen to find a way to involve the UN more in Iraq's political future.

This draft resolution would extend and widen the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, giving it a much more powerful advisory role.

It calls for a beefed-up mission that would work directly with the Iraqi government to promote reconciliation and help improve sectarian relations within the Iraqi parliament.

The draft resolution calls for more UN involvement in helping refugees to return and managing humanitarian aid and helping the entire national reconstruction effort.

It also points out the importance of armed protection by mainly US forces for any enhanced UN team on the ground.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6927106.stm


Before I say, "Thank God!", I would like to see exactly what this resolution says.

U.N. triples Darfur peacekeepers

(for original site of article click here)
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The U.N. Security Council has more than tripled an existing African Union-led force for the Sudanese province of Darfur by authorizing a 26,000-member peacekeeping mission.

The council's unanimous vote on Tuesday establishes a "hybrid" force of U.N. and AU troops and police, under AU command. Some countries have offered to contribute troops to the mission, said the U.N.'s peacekeeping agency, but it offered no specifics.

The current AU force of about 7,000 has been unable to stop the violence, and Sudan only agreed to allow a bigger peacekeeping force after massive international pressure.

Fighting between government-backed militias and rebel groups in Darfur has killed more than 200,000 people and driven about 2 million from their homes in the last four years. Fighting has continued unabated despite the signing of an AU-brokered peace agreement in May 2006.

Under the U.N. Security Council resolution, commanders will be allowed to use force to defend their troops and protect civilians and aid workers.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon praised the vote and urged member states to contribute troops and police to the effort.

"We must dedicate ourselves fully to deploying a mission which will make a clear and positive difference in the lives of the people of Darfur," Ban said. "They have a right to expect nothing less."

He also called on the Sudanese government and rebel leaders to offer their "unequivocal and continuous support" for the mission, which U.N. peacekeeping officials hope to have up and running within 60 days.

Aid agencies accuse the Sudanese government of impeding humanitarian aid to the people of Darfur, with the government-allied janjaweed militia attacking aid workers, looting food convoys and stealing vehicles.

The Bush administration has called the conflict "genocide," and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called the conflict "the greatest humanitarian disaster the world faces today."

Obama warns over Pakistan strike

US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would order military action against al-Qaeda in Pakistan without the consent of Pakistan's government.

Mr Obama made the comments in a speech outlining his foreign policy positions.

Pakistan's foreign ministry said any threat to act against al-Qaeda from within its territory should not be used for political point scoring.

Earlier this month, Mr Obama's chief rival, Hillary Clinton, described him as "naive" on foreign policy.

The attack from Mrs Clinton came after a televised debate between Democrat presidential hopefuls.

During the debate Mr Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of states such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions.

'Terrible mistake'

In his speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington, Mr Obama said General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, must do more to end terrorist operations in his country.

If not, Pakistan would risk a troop invasion and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of US aid during an Obama presidency, the candidate said.

"It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005," he said, referring to reports that the US had decided not to launch a strike for fear of harming ties with Pakistan.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Mr Obama said.

A spokeswoman for Pakistan's foreign ministry, Tasnim Aslam, told the AFP news agency that talk of military action was a serious matter and political candidates and commentators should "show responsibility".

White House spokesman Tony Snow defended Pakistan's leadership, saying it was working hard to fight al-Qaeda and Taleban fighters within its borders.

Gen Musharraf has been a key US ally in its so-called "war on terror" since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks.

But US officials have publicly said recently that they believe Pakistan has let al-Qaeda and Taleban militants reorganise themselves in tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

Mr Obama also used his foreign policy speech to criticise the Bush administration's focus on al-Qaeda in Iraq, saying US President George W Bush was "confusing" the mission.

He said Americans were more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than before the 9/11 attacks because of a war in Iraq "that should never have been authorised and should never have been waged".

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm