NION - Recommended Diaries

Operation Enduring Fiefdom "Doomed"; We "Have Assumed The Place Of The Soviets"

blueness — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 07:25:20 GMT

French officials mortified by President Nikolas Sarkozy's suicidal embrace of Operation Enduring Fiefdom--George II's adventure in Afghanistan--have leaked to the uppity French weekly Le Canard Enchaine a classified cable relating that the British envoy to Afghanistan has concluded that "American strategy is doomed to fail."

Meanwhile, the former deputy chief of the CIA's counterterrorism center has admitted that a trio of Afghani "warlords," formerly supported and supplied by the Reagan administration in the 1980s proxy war against the Soviet Union, today--again--control much of Afghanistan, and that we here in the US "have assumed the place of the Soviets."
As set forth in this earlier NION diary, the French people are increasingly resisting Sarkozy's Napoleonic compulsion to spill French blood on Afghan soil.

As referenced in that piece, the French have a history of overturning obdurate governments in the streets. It is equally true that the French have a history of rocking governments with rowdy broadsides committed to print. Thus, the leak to a feisty French weekly that reflects:

[t]he pessimistic view in the cable [] common among French diplomats and military officers who are concerned by President Sarkozy's strong support for the NATO operation in Afghanistan and his recent reinforcement of the French contingent.

Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, a British Foreign Office potentate identified by the Times of London as a "heavyweight with a reputation for blunt speaking," unloaded his assessment of the seven-year Western commitment to Operation Enduring Fiefdom in a briefing with French Ambassador Franc Fitou.

Fitou subsequently cabled Paris--in a communique boldly printed in full by Le Canard Enchaine for the French populace--that Cowper-Coles had concluded:

"The foreign forces are ensuring the survival of a regime which would collapse without them . . . They are slowing down and complicating an eventual exit from the crisis, which will probably be dramatic . . . .
"[T]he current situation is bad; the security situation is getting worse; so is corruption and the Government has lost all trust . . . .
"In the short term we should dissuade the American presidential candidates from getting more bogged down in Afghanistan . . . The American strategy is doomed to fail."

Cowper-Coles was dispatched to Kabul last year "to beef up Britain's role in the campaign to secure the Government of President Karzai and combat the resurgent Taliban." Last year, he stated that Britain could expect to remain in Afghanistan for "decades." He apparently repeated this Charge-of-the-Light-Brigade madness to Fitou, opining that "Britain had no alternative to supporting the United States in Afghanistan, 'but we should tell them that we want to be part of a winning strategy, not a losing one.'"

Good luck with that. The last "winning strategy" effected in Afghanistan came courtesy Genghis Khan. And even he, lost far more often, than he won.

The Los Angeles Times reports that American intelligence officials have concluded that three mujahedin leaders supported and supplied by Wild Bill Casey's CIA under Ronald Reagan are today directing the increasingly successful Afghan resistance to Operation Enduring Fiefdom.

All three men are Pashtun. The Times piece neglects to note that the white man's colonial boundary between the countries "Pakistan" and "Afghanistan" bisects Pashtun tribal territory. That the Pashtun do not recognize this boundary, or any other would-be restriction that does not flow from fellow Pashtun. That it is the Pashtun who offered protection to, and for more than seven years have successfully concealed, Osama bin Laden. That there is no record of Pashtun ever succumbing in war to either Europeans or their American progeny.

The three warlords are Mullah Mohammed Omar, the former leader of the Taliban government in Afghanistan; Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Islamic hard-liner who briefly served as prime minister in the 1990s before ordering his forces to bomb the Taliban-run capital; and Jalaluddin Haqqani, a onetime Taliban Cabinet minister whose tribal group has accounted for some of the most brazen attacks this year . . . .
The three warlords' organizations are arrayed in an arc along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan. Haqqani and Hekmatyar have directed attacks in and around the Afghan capital, Kabul, and helped revitalize the insurgency in eastern Afghanistan, where U.S. forces are concentrated. Omar's influence is mainly in the Taliban heartland to the south, radiating outward from Kandahar.

The Times piece correctly notes that the three Pashtun have close and long-standing ties to ISI, the Pakistani intelligence service. It neglects to note that these ties were originally forged by Wild Bill Casey and his people during the US proxy jihad against the USSR; Afghanistan designated as charnel house.

Paul Pillar, formerly deputy chief of the CIA's counterterrorism center, is these days experiencing something of an uncomfortable deja vu.

To some who were involved in the CIA campaigns of the 1980s, the U.S. effort to beat back an insurgency led by Hekmatyar, Omar and Haqqani represents something of a role reversal.
"We're trying to fend off security challenges to the government of Afghanistan from a collection of loosely allied groups chiefly of the militant Islamist variety," Pillar said. In that sense, he said, "we have assumed the place of the Soviets."

A Colonel Takes on the Torturers: More on SERE Torture Details

Valtin — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:30:00 GMT

At the center of the bottom of the lowest circle of hell, one finds the souls abandoned to torture. They are placed so far from heaven and earth because they are totally forgotten. The witnessing of their torture is almost unnoticed, trivial, when matched against the "great" issues of the day.

And so it was that in a week of elections, economic meltdowns, and other shenanigans, a lonely U.S. Senator sat alone in the hearing room of his own committee and listened to an Air Force instructor and sometime historian, Col. Steven Kleinman, tell his fantastic tale of witnessing the migration of SERE-style torture to Iraq. Kleinman's testimony belies years of excuses from the government that claims Abu Ghraib's "excesses" were merely the work of a "few bad apples," or "behavioral drift" at worst.

Joby Warrick at the Washington Post told the story in his article, "Air Force Instructor Details Harsh Interrogations."

In dramatic testimony before a Senate panel yesterday... [Kleinman] gave a rare account of how the Pentagon adapted an Air Force training program to squeeze information from captured Iraqis.
What Kleinman witnessed in Baghdad in September 2003 prompted him to order a stop to three interrogations, and to warn his superiors that the military's interrogation practices were abusive and, in his opinion, illegal.
"I told the task force commander that the methods were unlawful and were in violation of the Geneva Conventions," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senator Carl Levin's Committee has already established that techniques from the Defense Department's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape (SERE) program had been reverse-engineered by military psychologists into an "exploitation" or torture program of purported interrogation techniques. These techniques -- stress position, sleep deprivation, forced nudity, beatings, and more -- were gathered secondary to a Cold War propaganda program regarding "brainwashing" by the Soviets and Chinese, which programmatic elements were debunked by the government's own researchers. But never mind, the torture inoculation program continued for decades.

In 2003, Col. Kleinman, a long-time intelligence officer, was working with the Air Force Combat Interrogation Course and was DOD Senior Intelligence Officer for Special Survival Training. As of 2006, he was Reserve Senior Intelligence Officer and Mobilization Augmentee to the Director, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, HQ Air Force Special Operations Command. He is also an independent contractor for the MITRE Corporation, which works on "scientific" ways to "educe information" from prisoners.

The Colonel Says No to Torture

According to an AP report:

The special forces task force asked Kleinman's team to teach them the interrogation methods used in the SERE course. Kleinman refused. He was overruled by the task force's lawyers.
They then demanded that Kleinman's team demonstrate the techniques on an Iraqi prisoner. Kleinman again refused and again was overruled, according to testimony from retired Air Force Col. John Moulton II, Kleinman's commander at the time as the head of the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency.
The interrogation went forward. Kleinman stopped it. He and his team subsequently were sent home by the task force, according to Moulton.

According to the Washington Post article, Kleinman "was shocked in 2003 to see the same harsh methods used haphazardly on Iraqis in a U.S. prison camp." The colonel said he witnessed detainees being slapped repeatedly, subjected to sleep deprivation, painful stress positions, and stripped naked.

Col. Kleinman's protests to his superiors went unheeded. They agreed the "techniques" violated Geneva, but by then the government already had in place cover-your-ass legal memos citing the abuse of detainees as "legal" because they were "unlawful enemy combatants."

I commend Col. Kleinman for coming forward to testify, and for his actions protesting the torture of prisoners. However, I wish someone had asked him whether, as military trainer for JPRA, he or Moulton had knowledge of DoD's approach to JPRA/SERE in December 2001 about ways to utilize SERE's "exploitation" techniques in the interrogation of prisoners in Afghanistan. (I also wish someone had asked if contracting interrogators, such as those from CACI or Titan, had any contact with the SERE instructors.)

The timeline is of some importance, because it would prove criminal malfeasance by the administration in abusing prisoners prior to any determination (not made by them until February 2002) that such prisoners were "unlawful enemy combatants," and therefore a clear violation of international and domestic war crimes laws.

Kleinman's Revisionist History

While praising Col. Kleinman's stance in Iraq, I take exception to his description of the origins of SERE techniques. From the WP article:

Kleinman said the Air Force's training program was distorted into an offensive program. He noted that the harsh techniques were adapted from torture methods used by Chinese communists, and were never regarded as useful in eliciting intelligence. Instead, they break a prisoner psychologically and make him eager to say anything to stop the pain.

I have painstakingly documented elsewhere statements by U.S. researchers at the time (1950s) that Soviet and Chinese interrogation techniques were nothing unusual, and SERE techniques didn't necessarily derive from them. U.S. researcher Albert Biderman explained, in a 1957 essay entitled "Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions from Air Force Prisoners of War." Regarding the origin of communist interrogation methods, Biderman and his colleagues, working for the Air Force, concluded (emphases added):

It is that the finding of our studies which should be greeted as most new and spectacular is the finding that essentially there was nothing new or spectacular about the events we studied. We found, as did other studies such as those of Hinkle and Wolff, that human behavior could be manipulated within a certain range by controlled environments. We found that the Chinese Communists used methods of coercing behavior from our men in their hands which Communists of other countries had employed for decades and which police and inquisitors had employed for centuries....
It should be understood that only a few of the Air Force personnel who encountered efforts to elicit false confessions in Korea were subjected to really full dress, all-out attempts to make them behave in the manner I have sketched. The time between capture and repatriation for many was too short, and, presumably, the trained interrogators available to the Communists too few, to permit this.

While the origin of inhumane treatment may be a marginal issue for most, it is important to understand because discussion and utilization of modern torture techniques by the United States has, since its inception, been linked to disinformation by the government. In the case of the 1950s, the "brainwashing" scare, regarding POWs in the Korean War, was linked to a massive cover-up of the use of biological weapons by the United States in that conflict. See my article covering this aspect of the story, posted last July.

Kleinman's historical bias surfaced, as well, in an essay published in an essay on the CIA's KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Manual he wrote in 2006 for the Intelligence Science Board's report, "Educing Information." In it, he makes, for a historian, a remarkable statement:

The KUBARK manual offers unique and exceptional insights into the complex challenges of educing information from a resistant source through noncoercive means. While it addresses the use of coercive methods, it also describes how those methods may prove ultimately counterproductive. Although criticized for its discussion of coercion, the KUBARK manual does not portray coercive methods as a necessary - or even viable - means of effectively educing information. [p. 133]

Not necessary? The CIA manual expends twenty percent of its exposition upon coercive interrogation techniques. Not viable? Here's what the manual has to say about the "counterproductive" methods of torture:

Psychologists and others who write about physical or psychological duress frequently object that under sufficient pressure subjects usually yield but that their ability to recall and communicate information accurately is as impaired as the will to resist. This pragmatic objection has somewhat the same validity for a counterintelligence interrogation as for any other. But there is one significant difference. Confession is a necessary prelude to the CI interrogation of a hitherto unresponsive or concealing source.

Col. Kleinman stubbornly maintains that torture doesn't work, that torture, as he put it in an interesting interview, is poor at gaining operational information, and "largely counterproductive in that... [it] stiffen[s] the resolve of detainees under questioning and undermine[s] the stature of the U.S. on the world stage." Of course, Kleinman is correct, in so far as it goes.

But he seems to misunderstand the purpose of torture on a larger, political, military-operational scale. He misunderstands the use of torture to cow the populace, an important component of counterinsurgency work. He minimizes the opinion of many of his colleagues over the decades who in fact approved of coercive methodology. He would do well to study the techniques of Edward Lansdale, applied in the Philippines and Vietnam over a 20 year period, as described in John Prados's recent book, Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA. Like Kleinman, Lansdale was an Air Force officer. (He was also a CIA officer.)

I am in agreement with Col. Kleinman (it goes without saying) that torture is morally wrong, illegal, and should never be used. But I wonder how this military intelligence officer could work so long for special forces, intelligence agencies, and the military, and not understand the coercive nature of U.S. foreign and military policy in general. Perhaps Col. Kleinman could take on, as another project, a study of the use of torture by the U.S. in Vietnam, either directly, or in supervision of their Vietnamese allies. (He could title the paper, "Barriers to Success: Critical Challenges in Understanding the Current and Long-Standing Educing Information Paradigm.")

How SERE Took Over

For me, the picture is getting quite clear. When Bush initiated his "war on terror" in 2001, it consisted in sending in special operations forces into Afghanistan. This small scale kind of intervention on the ground was congruent with Rumsfeld's go-small kind of military. But special operations combat teams, while peppered with CIA personnel, like the ill-fated Johnny Spann, did not have the expertise in interrogating large groups of prisoners. There was a CIA program of psychological torture, exemplified by sensory deprivation, isolation, and the physical weakening or debility of the body (possibly through drugs), all meant to induce fear, psychological dependency and a weakened will in a prisoner. The program had been constructed by psychologists and psychiatrists as one outcome of the CIA's notorious MK-ULTRA program. It was codified in the CIA's KUBARK manual.

But the Special Ops teams in Afghanistan either didn't know KUBARK, or didn't have time to construct the proper environment for that kind of treatment. So they turned to the SERE program, who, as recent documents have made clear, aggressively courted the military for the assignment of reverse-engineering SERE and teaching it as coercive interrogation (i.e., torture). The Department of Defense and the White House, in a panic after 9/11, and staffed by incompetents and careerists with little sense of history or legal process, pushed the SERE-related torture, and then had their attorneys write memos to cover themselves legally after the fact.

The SERE-style techniques took off, though there was protest from interrogation professionals, like Kleinman, who well understood the counterproductive nature of that kind of treatment. Only later, as the CIA began to establish control over the "war on terror," and built a network of secret black prisons, did the SERE techniques recede somewhat into the background. A parallel process occurred at Guantanamo. The CIA utilized the worst of the SERE techniques, such as waterboarding, and propagated wide-scale knowledge of their use, mainly to instill fear of such treatment in prisoners, knowing full-well that induction of fear is a far more "effective" technique than physical brutality itself. At Guantanamo, a KUBARK-style prison routine was implemented, based upon isolation, psychological derangement, and the inculcation of dependency.

The Historical Meaning of Torture

Facts don't fall out of the sky. They are gathered based upon hypotheses, and if you are a historian or a social critic, with some narrative in mind. In a stepwise process of induction and deduction, one tries to determine what has actually occurred. The use of torture by the United States can only be understood as part of a decades long official program, involving well-funded covert study by the military and the academic establishment -- primarily physicians, psychiatrists, and psychologists -- in addition to the implementation of this program in a number of operational theaters, including Vietnam, Central and South America, Afghanistan, and the Middle East (among others).

The use of torture is closely tied to U.S. foreign policy goals. It is good to see the U.S. Senate try to take on the Pentagon and executive branch generally over this uncivil, criminal activity. Military critics, like Kleinman, or psychologist Michael Gelles, are to be commended for standing up against tremendous internal pressures within the organizations to which they belong. I also salute the courageous military attorneys working for little recompense and against tremendous odds to defend the charges made against the pariah-prisoners at Guantanamo, held without recourse to basic human rights.

I would hope all critics would agree that something as basic as stopping or banning torture involves both operational and political changes of a profound nature. One cannot happen without the other. And neither will happen, as the path of these investigations and hearings makes clear, without significant political, and perhaps, social struggle.

Also posted at Invictus

What Is The "Cancer On The Body Democratic"?

Mentarch — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:33:15 GMT

Considering that the McSame-Obama race remains statistically close, despite eight years of Bush-Cheney lies, abuse of power and incompetence and despite all the McSame-Palin lies, gaffes and outright goofyness, and considering that things are not much better nowadays in my country Canada, I thought that it would be quite à propos to dust off an old post of mine from last year - one which I reference all-too-often in my current posts - and therefore repost it here (along with updated/refreshed links) at NION:

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

A Cancer On The Body Democratic

(Updated below) (Update II)

Alternative title: The Root Of All Our Problems - In Real Life And In The Blogosphere.

Democracy is slowing rotting away. There is not only a cause for this wasting disease, but as well a potential cure - if we commit ourselves with courage, diligence and determination to apply such a cure.

Intellectual sloth is a human character flaw with numerous ramifications, and which constitutes the gravest threat to our democracies.

On the one hand, intellectual sloth pushes any person who is afflicted by it to wallow in ignorance, finding security in absolute ideologies, philosophies of thoughts, tenets of faith, various dogmas or views of the world, without seeking to understand them fully or even less to question them. In turn, ignorance festers fear which, as we know all-too-well, acts as a powerful motor in driving irrational thinking and actions. Furthermore, a person afflicted with intellectual sloth refuses to accept any fact of reality which confronts, rattles, or even invalidates, the comfort of one's "convictions". To this effect, such a person will be often deluded by intellectual vanity, being arrogant, if not contemptuous, towards anything and anyone that confronts his/her ignorance generated by intellectual sloth.

On the other hand, a person afflicted with intellectual sloth is continually in search of the quick-and-easy and of instant gratification - in fact, he/she craves such things. Incidentally, a person afflicted with intellectual sloth is egocentric, selfish, greedy and covetous, even paranoid, in his/her immature search for facility and instant gratification. Consequently, intellectual sloth-driven people invariably become slaves of expediency. That is also why such persons will all too often want (consciously or not) to be serviced an opinion, like being served fast food, rather than to make the effort of actually forging an informed one for themselves - they search for easy and absolute answers.

In short, intellectual sloth transforms a supposedly adult (and thus mature) person into an irresponsible, reactionary, judgement-impaired, and comfort-craving child or adolescent, who lives only in the "now" while remaining blind to "yesterday" and "tomorrow".

Therefore, intellectual sloth renders those afflicted by it incompetents - as thinking, reasoning human beings, as well as in dealing/composing with reality (or at least in trying to understand it).

One direct consequence of the prevalence of intellectual sloth is not only voter indifference and apathy, but as well the complacent acceptance of the "dumbing down" (and disinformation) of the news and of the political discourse - after all, journalists and politicians are from the same culture as the voters's ... thus our current tabloid journalism and politics (Assault on Reason, anyone?).

Hence, the "it's all about me", "not in my backyard", "who cares? ", "we're the best", "not my problem", "we're good, they're evil" and other such selfish, uncaring, absolutist and/or uninformed attitudes that have been prevailing among the citizenry since at least the 1980's.

Case in point - I give you these two poll questions (and results):

Gallup Poll. March 11-14, 2007. N=1,009 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"How closely have you been following the news about the recently completed trial of Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, the former vice presidential aide: very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all?"
Very Closely: 13%
Somewhat Closely: 30%
Not Too Closely: 26%
Not At All: 29%
Unsure: 1%
CBS News Poll. May 16-17, 2006. N=636 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.
"How much have you heard or read about the special investigation into the possible leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity to reporters in 2003? Would you say you have heard or read a lot, some, not much, or nothing at all?"
A lot: 18%
Some: 31%
Not Much: 23%
Nothing: 28%
Unsure: 0%

And there you have it. Essentially the same question was asked twice, almost a year apart each time, and in both instances we are faced with the sad reality that less than 50% of Americans paid significant attention to this grave scandal.

Not convinced that this applies to all (current) major scandals? Then try this for size:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 20-24, 2007. N=1,052 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
"How closely have you been following news about the recent firing of several U.S. attorneys by the Justice Department? Have you been following it very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all?"
Very Closely: 15%
Somewhat Closely: 35%
Not Too Closely: 36%
Not At All: 13%
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. April 18-22, 2007. N=1,508 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"How much, if anything, have you heard about the firing of eight federal prosecutors and questions about how Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the White House handled the firings? Have you heard a lot, a little, or nothing at all?"
A Lot: 33%
A Little: 44%
Nothing: 22%
Unsure: 1%

Should we be surprised then that the poll answers to the follow-up question (or similar questions), "Do you think Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign or otherwise lose his job over the issue of the firings, or not?", were less than 45% (on rough average) for the resignation/removal of Gonzales?

Should we likewise be surprised that only 39% of Americans favor impreachment for Bush and Cheney - despite everything that has been revealed/reported/analyzed/discussed so far? Or that only 14% of Americans "believe" in evolution without any Divine involvement?

Call it scandal fatigue. Blame the MSM and the politicians as well, if you will.

But I call this intellectual sloth-driven incompetence as citizens.

As I wrote before: "We prefer to wallow body and mind into reality-tv shows and the local version of American Idol (Canadian Idol in Canada and Star Académie in Québec). Thus, therein now lies our democratic passion, whereby we discuss, analyze and evaluate which participant to support and then vote for him/her".

But, to do such things in the exercise of our duty as citizens of democracies? Forget it. We act like ostriches in the face of it. It is too complicated. Too discouraging. Too unsettling.

And don't you dare blame the Media Corporations - since they have no qualms at yanking shows that have poor ratings, why do you think they keep serving tabloid infortainment, news, reality shows, game shows and other such tripe? Because. These. Have. High. Ratings.

The intellectual sloth-driven search, if not need, for instant gratification craves entertainment - on TV, in movies, in music, in videos and in games. This in turn is the root cause for tabloid news and politics - a society-wide dumbing down. That is why (and how) Bush was elected in 2000 and again in 2004. That is why most candidates (GOP and/or Democratic) are often timid, "dumb and dumber" or "uber triangulators". We face the same problems in Canada with regards of our main political parties.

They are only responding (or trying to respond) to. The. People.

Unfortunately, the same problem has crept up in the blogosphere - and yes, including the progressive one.

Take for example the blogging tip of "keep it short and straight to the point" (not my forte, obviously!). Or the idea that "Blogs can have a shopping mall effect: everyone goes there because everyone goes there (...)"

In other words: the blogosphere not only enables but also (knowingly or not) encourages instant gratification.

Case in point: remember the backlash against Democratic representatives posting diaries at DKos, demanding that they actually leave Dkos (one example here), after the war funding bill was passed? How many took their ball and went home (one example here)? Or those who rant and rave because there is no impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney "now"? Yes such things are very disappointing, if not maddening, but such destructive backlash constitutes (sorry to say this) intellectual sloth-driven immaturity. It is short-sighteness. It is incompetence.

Consequently, such is my diagnosis: we are faced with a highly metastizing cancer on the body democratic, and it is called intellectual sloth. Heck, this cancer has spread through the whole body society already.

And it is this cancer that must be fought/eradicated, at its very root.

The solution? I wrote about it before: "Education. Yes, it is through education that the character flaw which is intellectual sloth can be countered (...) the inculcation, beginning in childhood and throughout the educational process, of the need for questioning, for reasoning, for discerning, for gathering information, for contextualizing, for criticizing, for evaluating/re-evaluating, for thinking - in short, for the need of intellectual activity - constitutes the best vaccine against intellectual sloth".

It is a given that this solution requires time and much effort. But it is the only one which will effectively fight and eradicate this metastizing cancer that is intellectual sloth, and which is destroying not only our body democratic, but also our bodies politic, economic, and society.

As I am fond of saying: "Living in a democracy is a right and a responsibility. And yes, this responsibility requires effort. But which is better: having your back bent by the effort required to keep on living in a democratic society, or letting leave for complacency and find yourself one day with a back bent under a totalitarian regime (however benevolent it may be)?"

Or, if you prefer: Patience trumps expediency. Patience and determination are the hallmarks of competence as citizens.

This recent DKos diary (one example among an ever increasing number of such examples) illustrates what I mean by this: patience and determination in convincing people and representatives (a clear majority at least) of the need for investigations leading to impeachment.

The same can, should, and must be done to enact the means necessary to eradicate intellectual sloth.

In the meantime, we must continue to expose, document and discuss incompetence - but we must also be willing to get off from our couches and convince those outside of the blogosphere to join in, or at least to make the effort to keep themselves critically informed. At the same time, we must keep organizing and pressuring to make the changes required to save the gravely ill patient that is society - and stop acting like intellectual sloth-driven immature adolescents while so doing.

It is a long and winding road indeed - but competence as citizens requires (nay: demands) this from all of us.

After all, our revolutionary participatory democracy is not just about ranting and raving, eh?

Update: 06/25/2007 - 41% ... the proportion of Americans who still believe there is a link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11. Q.E.D. ... once again.

Update II: 06/26/2007 - Remember this poll from 2005? By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans favored impeachment of President Bush should it be revealed that he lied about the war in Iraq. And what has happened since then? Nothing. Zip. Nada. The cancer has spread so much, looks like it is time to activate the democracy life-support machine folks ...

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

The preceding was posted originally on June 24, 2007. I think that it is safe to conclude that things have largely worsened. A few examples:

44% of Americans approve torture: the descent is nearly over;
A new, improved definition of liberty;
The real axis of evil of our times;
Losing ourselves beyond redemption;
About that whole "defining reality" thing;
The age of the President-Pontificate of the U.S.A.;
You see, it's all about intellectual sloth-driven search ror instant gratification;
Elections: a tale of two sides of the 49th parallel;
As polls come and go ...
While no one was paying attention ...
Dramatic drop in youth voting, institute warns.

Food for thought, eh?

Jefferson's Wall Of Separation

Alexa — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:58:07 GMT

An article in the Boston Globe documents how Bush has claimed the right to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.)

Accomplices in this assault on our democracy include the religious right which would intrude into our personal lives to determine our rights and freedoms.

What's Dominion? Why Should I Care?

do·min·ion (d-mnyn)

n.

1. Control or the exercise of control; sovereignty: "The devil . . . has their souls in his possession, and under his dominion" Jonathan Edwards.

A better explanation from Frederick Clarkson

The Christian Right has been as successful as it has been, because it has a vision for obtaining sufficient political power to advance its agenda. The principal way it has advanced it's vision has been via the Republican Party and electoral politics. Therefore it stands to reason that any rejoinder to the Christian Right must include a broadly based engagement of citizens in electoral life. If one accepts this, it then follows that everything else is subsidiary to this focus. Does that mean that everything written or thought about the religious right needs to be processed through a filter of electoral politics? Of course not. However, in developing a political strategy, in my view, there is no substitute.

And my humble explanation: You could turn off the TV, but why would you want to?

Intelligent Design.

"The plan is straightforward: use intelligent design as a wedge to undermine evolutionwith scientific-sounding arguments and thereby advance a conservative religious-political agenda."

Schools.

Called 2 Ban Books by Deborah Brown at Street Prophets.

Katrina.

Why Do Dominionists Hate NOLA?

Environment.

'Surveillance, Infiltration, and Harassment of Environmental Organizations'

Women.

This Holy Hand Grenade's A Dud.

Human Sexuality.

Town Cracks Down On Unwed Couples.

Biblical Law

House Injects Prayer Into Defense Bill

Gay Rights.

Sex As A Weapon.

I could go on . . . . these are but a few ways your individual rights and freedoms are being manipulated and disrespected by the neofascists.

Poem Against Land Theft, McCain, & Hate Crimes

winter rabbit — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:05:55 GMT

Esoteric spiritual madness has accompanied me as I have watched the continuing web of land theft spreading, still, from the Arctic to across the United States.

I know why, but I don't know why. I have watched Manifest Destiny pair with Climate Change on what is a repetition of land theft from the gun to the gavel. I have watched a leading Republican presidential candidate who is getting away with having enacted legislation that forcefully removed the Navajo. That's the last straw. The straw that breaks the camel's back is hate crimes that don't get noticed by the general public like other hate crimes would.

Two Indian men, ages 48 and 24, were on their way home when they were confronted by a group of men and women in "white pride" t-shirts. The men were attacked early Sunday morning.

Even though this web of land theft continues, that McCain is getting away with his Forced Relocation, and that these hate crimes won't receive attention in the main media or by the general public without a miracle - "I will not hate the White Man."

I will not hate the White Man,
Though he encroaches on the land.
He has not yet realized my people are his,
And his is mine this time again.

I will not hate the White Man,
Though he's made languages fade away.
His lands are lost from him,
He needs someone to pay.

I will not hate the White Man,
Though he glorifies genocide.
He cannot stop fighting his crusades and wars,
His heart from himself he hides.

I will not hate the White Man,
The One Direction won't let it be.
We both go through chaos and change,
Throughout eternity.

I will not hate the White Man,
But I will not be like him.
I forgive him for Christianizing my clan,
That I'll never see again.

I forgive the White Man,
And though my land is long lost.
I'll keep that medicine deep,
Deep within my heart.

I'll never be the White Man.

Consent decree signed in Maine hate crime case
AUGUSTA, Maine-Five people accused of threatening and assaulting a group of Native Americans in eastern Maine have been ordered to stay away from the victims as part of a consent decree.
- snip -
The defendants are accused of getting out of their car armed with two-by-fours, sticks and pipes, yelling racial epithets and assaulting some of the Indians.

Men attacked members of Passamaquoddy Tribe
"Come on, let's get the Indians," one of the men said, according to a complaint filed by the state. Other anti-Indian slurs were yelled during the attack.

The McCain Relocation
Now, onto John McCain when he entered politics in 1981 in Arizona in relation to the forced relocation. It was easy for him, for it all was set in place. The gun was loaded and all McCain had to do was keep pulling the trigger with S1973-1 and S.1003.
(underline & emphasis mine)

Source
ACSA has determined that the law in question (25 U.S.C. 640d-11) has been amended many times, since it's introduction by Congressman Wayne Owens, and signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1974. Among the key amendments introduced by Senator McCain were the organization of a Hopi-Navajo Resettlement Commission (a Commission actually charged with relocating the Dineh-Navaho) and modifying the Settlement allegedly agreed to by the Hopi-Navajo to remove any Dineh who sought sanctuary legally under their membership in the Hopi "parent culture" of all Indians in America. These and other amendments were introduced by Senator McCain as public law in 1996 through 1999, and some were submitted to the Senate and House in 2005 as PL S.1003,
subsequently incorporated into the language of the 2005 amendment of 25 U.S.C. 40d-11, all to rig the situation for the Senator's sponsors, Peabody Western Coal Company (Peabody Group today) and Bechtel, who operates the Mohave Generating Station, so they could more easily remove the coal from the Dineh-Navaho's rightful properties.
Within the legal maneuverings of Senator McCain, the non-existent tribal counsel, called: the "Hopi-Navajo Counsel", made up of Peabody Group proxies of local Kayenta, Arizona area origin, surfaced false claims of prior ownership and eminent domain, and then successfully testified before the Senate (the Dineh were not invited to testify about their own fate before the Senate by Senator McCain, leading to a hue and cry in 1999)
and demanded the removal of the rightful landowners, the Dineh-Navajo, claiming "encroachment on lands granted us by President Chester A. Arthur." They demand completion of the removal of the Dineh-Navaho from the Black Mesa and Big Mountain.

Sturgis students study Bear Butte controversy
The group's proposal addressed an ongoing controversy surrounding Bear Butte outside Sturgis that has pitted developers against members of several American Indian tribes that consider the landmark a sacred place of worship.

I will not hate the White Man,
Though he encroaches on the land.
He has not yet realized my people are his,
And his is mine this time again.

I will not hate the White Man,
Though he's made languages fade away.
His lands are lost from him,
He needs someone to pay.

I will not hate the White Man,
Though he glorifies genocide.
He cannot stop fighting his crusades and wars,
His heart from himself he hides.

I will not hate the White Man,
The One Direction won't let it be.
We both go through chaos and change,
Throughout eternity.

I will not hate the White Man,
But I will not be like him.
I forgive him for Christianizing my clan,
That I'll never see again.

I forgive the White Man,
And though my land is long lost.
I'll keep that medicine deep,
Deep within my heart.

I'll never be the White Man.

Sarah Palin; Formidable Force

Betsy L Angert — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:59:44 GMT

Palin, Biden on Roe versus Wade

Some have become decidedly lax as they reflect on the Presidential election. A few presumed to be excited by the polls. Barack Obama has pulled ahead, ever so slightly. Progressives play with the numbers and feel a sense of exuberance. Frequently, Democrats and Independents who lean "Left" fail to recall; complacency will not increase the vote count. Sarah Palin has come far in her career. Often, in the past, she has shown herself to be a competent challenger. Sarah Palin is a formidable force.
Yet, as the nation awaits the next debate, a battle of wits and wisdom with Vice Presidential candidates, Joseph Biden and Sara Palin on the stage, Democrats say there is nothing to fear, but fear itself. Some discount the dynamic demeanor of the Alaskan Governor. Progressives ponder, there is no need to worry. Governor Palin has lost much of her momentum. Yet, it might be wise to consider those who would vote for the wondrous woman are not as vociferous in the public forum. Nor are these persons as evident in election polls. Palin, and McCain devotees have the dominion of a cast ballot.

These voters are not as some presume them to be. Advocates of the Alaskan Governor are not necessarily women. Yet, supporters of Barack Obama feared they would be. Some Democrats believed with a woman on the ticket, John McCain would surely soar ahead in the polls. Hence, a mass mail was sent out. Liberal persons thought the message would move women. The thought was perchance, these facts might influence female voters.

1.) John McCain opposes equal pay legislation saying it wouldn't do "anything to help the rights of women."
2.) John McCain opposes requiring health care plans to cover prescription birth control
3.) John McCain opposes comprehensive, medically accurate sex education.
4.) John McCain opposes common sense funding to prevent unintended and teen pregnancies.
5.) John McCain opposes funding for public education about emergency contraception.
6.) John McCain opposes restoring family planning services for low-income women.
7.) John McCain opposes Roe v. Wade and says it should be overturned. His running mate Sarah Palin opposes abortion in nearly all cases, even in the case of rape or incest.
8.) John McCain wants to nominate Supreme Court justices who are "clones" of conservative Justices Alito and Roberts.
9.) When asked if contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV, John McCain said he was stumped.
10.) In his 25 years in Washington, DC, John McCain has voted against women's reproductive rights and privacy 125 times.

However, in truth for many of the fairer sex this list proved to be meaningless. Sarah Palin, the person, definitely had more power to persuade. The statistics and specifics did not dissuade the daughters of Eve. Countless were certain that the Democrats would say anything to deceive the electorate. After all, fact checks continually demonstrate that what a one candidate says in reference to a rival cannot be trusted. Truth is tentative, tweaked, and twisted. Veracity can be tailor-made and frequently is. Each Party engages in self-serving misrepresentations.

More importantly, numerous women inclusive of Sarah Palin are opposed to abortion. Some Conservative lasses who consider themselves pro-choice love the lady Palin.

Perhaps equal pay for equal work is less of a concern for Moms and misses who labor at home, or for those who think the structure as is, is fine. Individuals who have faith in G-d and abstinence do not wish for the distribution of contraception. These same persons would argue, sex should be taught at home, not in public schools. Countless, among those with ovaries, think women must plan for a family. It is a potential mother's place to create a brood or protect herself from the possibility. Whether low-income earners are provided with instruction, as it relates to reproduction, or not, is of little interest to the supposed softer-sex. Several thousand, millions who think themselves the better half are strong and strident in their support of life. These woman also endorse Sarah Palin.

Why do they like her so much?
The answers vary. Her conservative bona fides are important to Charity Chase, a young libertarian: "What she stands for and her record," Chase said at Republican headquarters. McCain has long had problems with conservatives, who see one of their own in Palin.
Other interviews reveal an admiration of Palin's remarkable unpretentiousness - working mother with a pregnant teenage daughter, high-end blue-collar hobbies such as moose hunting and snowmobiling. They can relate to her life easily.
"When you're a mother, you have better instincts and can solve problems," said Kayla Carter, who at 16 is working on her first campaign. She was calling voters from a Henderson office.
But Republicans also love that Palin's no average working mom - she's like an average working mom with extra-special life force that has fueled a rocket rise, taking on the allegedly corrupt Alaska Republican establishment and beating it in 2006.
"She's like the average person who does everything," said Ana Wood, a volunteer at the Henderson office.
The Palin fever is reminiscent of the aura of excitement that's surrounded Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama since his famous keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
National Review, the venerable conservative magazine, has Palin on its cover this week, with a slightly tongue-in-cheek headline: "The One!"

Might the Obama supporters study further than the polls that affirm what they wish to believe. Granted, those who have a telephone and are asked of the Palin effect might express disdain. However, the question is do those polled truly represent all of America. On October 1, 2008, a proud Ohio voter said no. The fifty-one percent who resent Sarah Palin do not speak for him.

On this initial day of the Presidential election in Ohio, where the law permits same-Day registration and voting, constituents were able to cast a Presidential ballot on the first Wednesday in October. Today, Freddie DeLaMonte voted for John McCain. In an interview with a National Public Radio reporter, the man happily voiced his reason. "To be truthful is, I like his running mate. Seems to me, she understands it better than these guys who have been around for a long time and they're big shots you know."

No, Freddie is not among the upper crust. He is not the typical refined Republican. His history might not lead researchers to believe that he would embrace the grand Old Party. Mister DeLaMonte is a homeless man, perhaps a transient. As he says, some without a permanent shelter are.

The jubilant may wish to recall that in late September and early October 2004, the election looked to be as this current challenge appears. Persons on the Left were increasingly confident. They had chosen a good candidate. He was intelligent, informed, and inspired the youth vote. John Kerry was a war hero. George W. Bush less likely to win.

Democrats thought, they need only look at the lack of support for the Iraq war. Whilst there was not a woman on either ticket, Moms, did not wish to lose a son in battle. Wives longed for husbands to be safe and secure at home. Daughters surely would not vote for a more battles. Many were convinced President Bush could not possibly survive another election. After the first debate, Progressives felt more positive.

On the issue of the economy, the poll showed all voters favoring Kerry 51 percent to Bush's 44 percent, almost exactly the opposite of what the September 24-26 poll indicated -- Bush with 51 percent and Kerry with 45 percent.
Holland said that was good news for Kerry going into the second and third debates, in which domestic issues will be highlighted.

It seemed the war and the economy ensured a guaranteed win. Yet, the extremely unpopular President was elected and inaugurated again. On January 20, 2005, George w. Bush crossed the threshold of the White House one more time. Indeed, women voters may have helped place President Bush back into the Oval Office.

Traditionally, conventional wisdom has led many to believe women are concerned with issues that favor Democrats. Healthcare, education, and Social Security are surely concerns for the gentler sex . However, no matter the gender, the war on terror, and the fear factor can shift what appears to be a solid calculation. Many women (and men) want McCain and Sarah Palin simply because they feel these two will keep the country safe. The McCain/Palin ticket also appeals to men. Charles W. Fairbanks speaks for many. Mister Fairbanks, who anxiously awaits the first and only Vice Presidential debate writes of his admiration for a robust women such as Sarah Palin.

It never fails. The more the driveby media struggles against Sarah Palin, the tighter her hold on the American imagination becomes. Palin Derangement Syndrome has reached a fever pitch, and it doesn't seem to phase the governor.

While it is true, the Palin effect may have diminished amongst those who are more visible and vocal, Americans cannot ignore the fact that not all of the electorate is dissuaded. Not all have heard the Alaskan Governor's supposed gaffes. Those who have may believe as Sarah Palin so aptly stated in her latest radio interview.

In a series of recent interviews, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has expressed her disdain for the way she has been treated by the press, stoking resentment toward the media among conservatives but also raising questions about how this strategy will help reach independent voters who remain decidedly non committal about Palin.
Her latest jab at the press came last evening in an interview with conservative talk radio show host Hugh Hewitt. . . .
"I have a degree in journalism also, so it surprises me that so much has changed since I received my education in journalistic ethics all those years ago," Palin said in response to a question from Hewitt about alleged gotcha questions being asked of her by ABC's Charlie Gibson and CBS's Katie Couric.
She added:
"I'm going to take those shots and those pop quizzes and just say that's okay, those are good testing grounds. And they can continue on in that mode. That's good. That makes somebody work even harder. It makes somebody be even clearer and more articulate in their positions. So really, I don't fight it. I invite it."

Indeed, she does. Governor Palin is a practiced politician. She is cheerful, personable, and a powerfully convincing person. She has captivated America ever since she came onto the Vice Presidential scene. No one will easily forget or dismiss the demure Sarah Palin. The debates may remind Progressives of this.

On the eve of the televised Palin performance, many Democrats would wish to believe Governor Palin or those who admire her are "dumb." (Please excuse the use of a word I find extremely offensive!) What may be "dumber" is the thought that those who see "the facts" as they pertain to McCain's record on women's issues will feel a need to vote for Barack Obama.

Peruse if you choose. However, please trust the specifics may or may not change a Conservative mind. "Facts" are fluid. Sarah Palin's stance is as persuasive as are these particulars. Points of view are as Alaskan Governor, formidable.

The Worst of John McCain
McCain has voted consistently against women's health, and he supports overturning the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade. These positions will make it difficult for him to win over moderate pro-choice voters in the general election. The Arizona State Senator said, "As someone who has consistently and strongly been pro-life, I fully believe that Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that should be overturned. Roe v. Wade is the most egregious example of judges who impose their own views by legislating from the bench rather than strictly rule what the Constitution says."
The Trail Blog. Washington Post. May 7, 2008

McCain opposed spending $100 million to prevent unintended and teen pregnancies. ?In 2005, McCain voted NO to allocate $100 million to expand access to preventive health care services that reduce the numbers of unintended and teen pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions.
Roll Call Vote. March 17, 2005
Statement of Purpose:
To expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care.

McCain opposed legislation requiring that abstinence-only programs be medically accurate and scientifically based.? McCain voted NO on legislation that would help reduce the number of teen pregnancies by providing funding for programs to teach comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education and other programs to prevent unintended teen pregnancies.
Lautenberg, Menendez Offer Comprehensive Approach To Reduce Teen Pregnancy and Abortions
Contact: Alex Formuzis (202) 224-7340?
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Washington, D.C. - Acting to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies and abortions in the United States, Senators Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) today offered an amendment on the Senate floor to fund programs to encourage abstinence as well as sex education. Currently the federal government doesn't support any sex education programs that include information about contraception or other forms of birth control.
The legislation was offered as an amendment during consideration of the Child Custody Protection Act (S.403).

McCain opposed Title X, the nation's family planning program.? In 1990, McCain voted NO on legislation to extend the Title X federal family planning program, which provides low-income and uninsured women and families with health care services ranging from breast and cervical cancer screening to birth control.
McCain opposed requiring insurance coverage of prescription birth control.? In 2003, McCain voted NO on legislation to improve the availability of contraceptives for women and to require insurance coverage of prescription birth control.
Amendment Number:
S.Amdt. 258 to S. 3
Statement of Purpose:
To improve the availability of contraceptives for women.

McCain opposes comprehensive sex education.? In an interview aboard the "Straight Talk Express," McCain struggled to answer questions about comprehensive sex education and HIV prevention. He also stated that he supported "the president's policy" on sex education.
McCain unsure where he stands on government funding for contraception. ?"Whether I support government funding for them or not, I don't know," McCain said about contraceptives.
Statement of Purpose:
To prohibit the expenditure of certain appropriated funds for the distribution or provision of, or the provision of a prescription for, postcoital emergency contraception.

McCain opposed repealing the "global gag rule. "?In 2005, McCain voted NO on legislation to overturn the "global gag rule," which bars foreign nongovernmental organizations from receiving U.S. family planning assistance if the organization (using its own, non-U.S. funds) provides abortion services or information or advocates for pro-choice laws and policies in its own country.
Amendment Number:
S.Amdt. 278 to S. 600
Statement of Purpose:
To prohibit the application of certain restrictive eligibility requirements to foreign nongovernmental organizations with respect to the provision of assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade. ?In February 2007, the AP quoted McCain stating, 'I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."
McCain says Roe v. Wade was a "bad decision." ?In May 2007, during an appearance on Meet the Press, Sen. McCain reiterated his support for overturning Roe v. Wade, saying, "I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support a woman - the, the rights of the unborn." He went on to say, "My position has been consistently in my voting record, pro-life, and I continue to maintain that position and voting record."
McCain would have signed 2006 South Dakota abortion ban ?In February 2006, the Hotline reported, "According to a spokesperson, McCain 'would have signed the legislation, but would also take the appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included.'" As the New York Times' Paul Krugman points out, "That attempt at qualification makes no sense: the South Dakota law has produced national shockwaves precisely because it prohibits abortions even for victims of rape or incest."
McCain touts "pro-life" credentials at conference of FRC Action, the political arm of the Family Research Council. ?At a speech at the FRC Action Voter Values Summit in October 2007, Sen. McCain said, "I have been pro-life my entire public career. I believe I am the only major candidate in either party who can make that claim."

Sources for Sarah Palin Effect . . .

Poll Finds Obama Gaining Support and McCain Weakened in Bailout Crisis, By Adam Nagourney and Megan Thee. The New York Times. October 1, 2008
VP debate is first big test for Palin, By Carla Marinucci. San Francisco Chronicle. October 1, 2008
Vice Presidential Debate Expectations: Obama Camp Calls Palin "Terrific Debater, By Nico Pitney. Huffington Post. September 27, 2008
Pro-choice GOP women praise pro-life Palin, By Ralph Z. Hallow. The Washington Times. Sunday, August 31, 2008
Obama: Palin Against Equal Pay. MSNBC News.
John McCain. The Washington Post.
Address to the values Voter Summit. By John McCain. ?October 19, 2007
McCain Is Not a Moderate,'The Right's Man. By Paul Krugman. The New York Times. Monday 13 March 2006
McCain Stumbles on H.I.V. Prevention, By Adam Nagourney. The New York Times. March 16, 2007, 4:14 PM
McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Presidential hopeful reaching out to GOP conservatives. Associated Press. MSNBC. February 18, 2007
Palin fever brings out campaign volunteers, By J. Patrick Coolican. Las Vegas Sun. September 20, 2008 (2 a.m.)
Palin Effect on Ratings Only Modest for CBS, By Bill Carter. The New York Times. October 1, 2008
Poll Finds McCain Edge on Security, By Dalia Sussman. The New York Times. September 26, 2008
Is 'Palin Effect' already wearing thin? By Carla Marinucci. San Francisco Chronicle. Saturday, September 20, 2008
Palin's War on the Press, By Chris Cillizza. The Washington Post. October 1, 2008
Why Women are Edging Towards Bush, By Linda Feldman. The Christian Science Monitor. September 23, 2004
Hugh Hewitt.
Sarah Palin--The Damage Done. The Atlantic. October 1, 2008

Afghanistan: Could It Be True? Peace On The Horizon?

Mentarch — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:03:06 GMT

It is high time that the ludicrous war, that FUBAR, in Afghanistan ended by putting aside incompetence and finally acting competently in the matter:

Sources: Taliban split with al Qaeda, seek peace
Taliban leaders are holding Saudi-brokered talks with the Afghan government to end the country's bloody conflict -- and are severing their ties with al Qaeda, sources close to the historic discussions have told CNN.
The militia, which has been intensifying its attacks on the U.S.-led coalition that toppled it from power in 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, has been involved four days of talks hosted by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, says the source.
The talks -- the first of their kind aimed at resolving the lengthy conflict in Afghanistan -- mark a significant move by the Saudi leadership to take a direct role in Afghanistan, hosting delegates who have until recently been their enemies.
They also mark a sidestepping of key "war on terror" ally Pakistan, frequently accused of not doing enough to tackle militants sheltering on its territory, which has previously been a conduit for talks between the Saudis and Afghanistan.
(...) Details of the Taliban leader's split with al Qaeda have never been made public before, but the new claims confirm what another source with an intimate knowledge of the militia and Mullah Omar has told CNN in the past.
The current round of talks, said to have been taken two years of intense behind-the-scenes negotiations to come to fruition, is anticipated to be the first step in a long process to secure a negotiated end to the conflict.
(...) A Saudi source familiar with the talks confirmed that they happened and said the Saudis take seriously their role in facilitating discussions between parties to the conflict.
A second round of talks is scheduled to take place in two months, the Saudi source said.
The Afghan government believes the Taliban cannot be defeated militarily, and the Taliban believe that they can't win a war against the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, the Saudi source said.
(...) The talks in Mecca took place between September 24 and 27 and involved 11 Taliban delegates, two Afghan government officials, a representative of former mujahadeen commander and U.S. foe Gulbadin Hekmatyar, and three others.
(...) During the talks, described as an ice breaker, all parties agreed that the only solution to Afghanistan's conflict is through dialogue, not fighting.

Nice to know I was not that far off the grid on that potential solution, eh?

Yes, this means that the Afghanistan war was all for nothing. But this is all too fitting, considering that it was based on lies in order to cover-up what was essentially nothing more than a politically convenient and expedient vengeance operation for 9/11 to begin with.

However, I'll believe all of these talks when they produce peace once and for all.

And our servicemen and women come home at last.

Nevertheless: there is at last some dim light at the end of this dark tunnel ...

(Cross-posted from APOV)

Listen To You, Listen To Her

Alexa — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 09:51:11 GMT

This is a follow-up to Nezua's 'Born Under A Blood Red Moon,' and the second installment in a series about violence against women. -- a.

So you think you're a good listener? Maybe you are. But I'll ask you this: Do you listen to yourself? This, I know, isn't always the easiest thing to do. All your waking hours are filled with a cacophony of sound, as well as your own thoughts, the internal dialogue we all engage in (nope, it doesn't mean you're schizophrenic; conversely, these inner voices are only thoughts we don't express verbally, and often can't or shouldn't, but they are no less valid than anything else we feel). Very often, we actively seek to minimize the distractions.

I'm often distracted by my querido sobrino, almost 2 years now, whose growing vocabulary and developing verbalizations enchant me. Watching my Jamie point to a person or object and say "dat, nena?" is like candy to my soul. I'll drop whatever I'm doing, if possible, to introduce him to "dat" person or tell him what "dat" is and why little fingers don't go in dat cable outlet or si, dat smells nice or dat tastes good. Distraction is a fact of life. I'm blessed to have my peanut butter pal hablar at me all day, but it may be work, or it may be school, or it may be something different. Our busy lifestyles don't allow for a lot of introspection.

Even if you don't have a little chatterbox in the house, making time to listen to yourself is a survival skill. Yep. I said survival skill. Your own instincts might well save your life one day. Think about it, mi'ja. They've served you well so far, no? Ever had a weird, uncomfortable feeling and changed your plans to avoid it? Maybe you felt uneasy about a person, and you got yourself away.

What's the worst thing that can happen from listening to your instincts? You feel a little foolish afterward? I know. But what's the worst thing that can happen when you ignore your own intuition?

This, you don't want to know. I pray you never find out.

To listen to others well requires that you listen to yourself.
Trust your instincts.
Listen to them. Follow them. It's easier to follow them and apologize later, than risk putting yourself in harm's way now.

Have you ever had the gut feeling that you should take a different way home from work, only to learn later that there was a tragic accident that occurred on your usual route home?

Listen to your instincts. If you feel like all the hairs on your head are standing on end, there's a reason for it. Pay attention.

This applies to your instincts about other people as well. You don't have to feel paranoid. You don't have to listen to jokes about tinfoil, even the ones in your own head, chica. Makes no nevermind if you're wrong, but when that spiny thing with its fingers is pinching your nerve endings and telling you "nuh-UH! He seems nice, but maybe too nice," very likely the old adage is true. If someone seems too good to be for real, it's because he is.

Mira, I don't want you to be paranoid. I want you to be safe. If you absolutely must ignore your instincts and see a man who gives you the creeps, I can't do a thing to stop you. I hope you'll see him in a well-lighted, well-populated public place (if you really insist). Like where? Well, he doesn't want to go there. Chica, I'm not laughing. There are people so skilled in deception and manipulation of women that the light of day and crowds scare the bejesus out of them. Listen to yourself and tia Lexa and tell the guy you think you can't live without that at whatever time, you'll be at the mall, at Starbucks, at the gallery, at the beach.

Nobody needs to pick you up. You're a strong, capable woman and you aren't giving him your address, right? If he won't meet you in public, that's a warning sign. Please take it seriously. Oh, and girlfriends? You don't give him "a reason" for wanting to meet in public. You don't have to explain that. Why anyone would ask is a question you might want to consider, and this ties in to a simple, impolite fact.

You don't have to be polite.
You don't have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. It's okay to be rude. Indeed, there are times in life where being rude could save your life.

When you're too polite, too trusting, particularly in situations that don't warrant this behavior, you open yourself up to being the potential victim of a crime. Predators have instincts, too. When someone's afraid to be impolite or rude, that says "vulnerable, safe, cooperative" to him.

As young children, we are raised to be polite. There's nothing wrong with that, but we need to be a bit selective with it. If someone creeps you out, err on the side of caution and do not encourage it. A predator takes your silence as assent, ladies. A really bad guy needs no more encouragement than your lack of response to his verbal palaver.

Mira, I ain't saying every guy is bad, or every man is a predator. Far from it. A few, sadly, have poisoned the well for the great majority of decent, nice, considerate men, the kind you're perfectly safe with because thoughts of hitting you or hurting you don't excite them. Let me reiterate: You may never meet a bad guy. But if you do, or think you have, don't encourage the mofo. He's going to give you a hard sell on how great he is, anyway. You don't have to listen.

If I had a dollar for every time I've been called an uppity bitch, snobby Cuban American princess or variation thereof, we could almost bail out Wall Street. Hearing those words reinforces my first thought of "pendejo, please - just get lost." By that point, coja apagado, no me incomodan. He knows I don't like what I see, and in no uncertain terms. And then, nearly every time, he thoughtfully grants my wish and disappears.

No Excuses.
Don't make excuses for why things should make sense but don't. Accept that they may not, and listen to what your instincts are telling you. Your survival may depend on it.

It's hard to overstate this point. The vast majority of people I know have good intentions. But you must understand that our culture is one in which violence and hatred toward women is excused, acquitted, swept under the rug and too often, not even acknowledged.

We can talk about why after you've broken eye contact, turned your back, walked away and locked the door to your safe haven after you.

Worry and true fear are different.
We worry about things in our memory or what we imagine could happen. When you hear news reports about airplane crashes, car accidents, rapes, you might be worried that this could happen to you. It could. But this is different than sensing true fear.

True fear will strike a different chord in your soul. It doesn't happen often, but when it strikes, listen and react.

For example, let's pretend you're alone in your car, stopped at a stoplight and you're the only car. A car pulls up beside you. This probably happens to you hundreds of times a week.

One day it may happen and your hair may stand on end. Listen to it, react and respond. Move, get out of the way, drive toward a well-lighted, well-populated area. The nearest fire station or hospital or police station will be just fine. Whatever it is, do what your instincts tell you to do. You can second-guess all you want later, but please, do yourself and everyone who cares for you un favor first and get away fast to a place where you feel safe.

The Language of Saying No.
Saying the word "no" isn't enough sometimes. We'll talk about the nonverbal behaviors that can be emphasized to back up the "no" that someone may be selectively not hearing from you. This is a science that can't be explained briefly, but it's worth discussion. More to come. As always, thank you for reading.

The McCain Relocation

winter rabbit — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 05:22:37 GMT

John McCain was out of the torturous grip of the North Vietnamese for approximately one year when Congress passed Public Law 93-531 in 1974. Public Law 93-531 was called the Relocation Act, and was falsely justified by what "Peabody Coal Company's public relations and lobbying firms" falsely constructed as the "Hopi-Navajo land dispute." This "range war" was not true. What was true, was lawyer John Boyden with the assimilated Hopi Tribal Council.

Source
Boyden formed a Hopi Tribal Council that consisted of several First Mesa Hopi who had been converted to Mormonism, based on an election in which about 10 percent of the Hopis on the reservation voted. The newly elected Tribal Council then hired Boyden as their lawyer.

John Boyden with his assimilated Hopi Tribal Council wanted Peabody Coal to strip mine Black Mesa after the natural resources had been discovered. More than 10,000 Navajo and 100 Hopi did not want Black Mesa stripped.
Crossposted at Native American Netroots

Boyden's efforts culminated with the passage of Public Law 93-531, which authorized division of the joint-use area and the relocation of 10,000 Navajos. With the exception of a handful of congressmen and senators who knew of the relationship between Boyden and the Interior, those who voted for P.L. 93-531 were completely ignorant about the Indian situation and trusted the land-dispute story of their colleagues, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater and Congressman Morris Udall. Their story also convinced President Ford, who signed the bill into law in 1974.

Tying this all together is the fact that the corrupt lawyer, John Boyden, had Peabody Coal as a client; hence, "Peabody Coal Company's public relations and lobbying firms" falsely constructing the so called "Hopi-Navajo land dispute."

The coal strip-mining on the Hopi reservation is primarily the work of Boyden client Peabody Coal,

(Please remember the difference between a Christian and a fundamentalist with the use of the phrase "assimilated into Christianity")

Indigenous People have been assimilated into Christianity and it is no easy subject, for it requires considering a judgment be made that is uncomfortable. A general clarification as well as an example will be given with my opinion before proceeding to McCain's part in this forced relocation, because the "several First Mesa Hopi who had been converted to Mormonism" needs at least some general clarification before proceeding. Indigenous People in cases like this who have been assimilated into Christianity have also adapted the behaviors of their assimilators. For example, I heard an elder speak of how once they entered Boarding School as an adolescent, the ones who had been assimilated mocked them for speaking the language. How many people's history has been lost because similar things happened in their own families and now it's too late to retrieve? Indigenous People who have been assimilated into Christianity have every right to believe as they wish. However, abandoning the fact that in their ancestral lands lie the flesh of their ancestors which is the Earth Mother, they may see no problem fighting their relatives who hold that land sacred. So my uncomfortable judgment is, their replaced beliefs give them no right to act as predators and presumably unknowingly, this is what they assimilate into in cases like this.

Source
When Christopher Columbus first set foot on the white sands of Guanahani island, he performed a ceremony to "take possession" of the land for the king and queen of Spain, acting under the international laws of Western Christendom. Although the story of Columbus' "discovery" has taken on mythological proprtions in most of the Western world, few people are aware that his act of "possession" was based on a religious doctrine now known as the Doctrine of Discovery. Even fewer people realize that today --five centuries later-- the United States government stil uses this archaic Judeo-Christian doctrine to deny the rights of Native American Indians.

Now, onto John McCain when he entered politics in 1981 in Arizona in relation to the forced relocation. It was easy for him, for it all was set in place. The gun was loaded and all McCain had to do was keep pulling the trigger with S1973-1 and S.1003.

(underline & emphasis mine)

Source
ACSA has determined that the law in question (25 U.S.C. 640d-11) has been amended many times, since it's introduction by Congressman Wayne Owens, and signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1974. Among the key amendments introduced by Senator McCain were the organization of a Hopi-Navajo Resettlement Commission (a Commission actually charged with relocating the Dineh-Navaho) and modifying the Settlement allegedly agreed to by the Hopi-Navajo to remove any Dineh who sought sanctuary legally under their membership in the Hopi "parent culture" of all Indians in America. These and other amendments were introduced by Senator McCain as public law in 1996 through 1999, and some were submitted to the Senate and House in 2005 as PL S.1003,
subsequently incorporated into the language of the 2005 amendment of 25 U.S.C. 40d-11, all to rig the situation for the Senator's sponsors, Peabody Western Coal Company (Peabody Group today) and Bechtel, who operates the Mohave Generating Station, so they could more easily remove the coal from the Dineh-Navaho's rightful properties.
Within the legal maneuverings of Senator McCain, the non-existent tribal counsel, called: the "Hopi-Navajo Counsel", made up of Peabody Group proxies of local Kayenta, Arizona area origin, surfaced false claims of prior ownership and eminent domain, and then successfully testified before the Senate (the Dineh were not invited to testify about their own fate before the Senate by Senator McCain, leading to a hue and cry in 1999)
and demanded the removal of the rightful landowners, the Dineh-Navajo, claiming "encroachment on lands granted us by President Chester A. Arthur." They demand completion of the removal of the Dineh-Navaho from the Black Mesa and Big Mountain.

Consequently, this rape of the land has enormous implications today.

Source
A delegation of Navajo, Hopi and Lakota warned Lehman Brothers stockholders of the dire consequences of their actions in 2001. In a rare move, censored by most media, the Navajo, Hopi and Lakota delegation warned Lehman Brothers, after it acquired the financial interests of Peabody Coal, of the spiritual consequences of mining coal on sacred Black Mesa and the aftermath of Peabody Coal's machinations that led to the so-called Navajo Hopi Land Dispute. Lehman Brothers is now in the midst of financial collapse, with its bankruptcy producing a rippling effect throughout the world's economy.

To conclude, why is this not spoken of in the "main" media or in this election? Here's why I think so, besides the more obvious reasons.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/...
p. 27.
In listening to the government, it's clear that the government has not come to terms with the basic principle established in Mitchell II. That where congress gives the Federal Government control of Indian property, that control necessarily implicates trust duties. And violations of trust duties, where the government is exercising responsibilities, within the contours of those statutes and regulations, give rise to a claim for money damages in the Court of Federal Claims. That's what's missing.

I'll let this be the next to last word.

One thing is for certain in my mind; McCain and Palin will not help to build a "bridge to sovereignty" or a "bridge to prosperity" in Indian Country. However, they could likely build a time portal that takes American Indian policy back to the 19th Century.

Here's the last word from Stuart Heady from comments here.

Email version that is short, for forwarding

The McCain Relocation
"...the largest forced relocation of U.S. citizens since the relocation of Japanese-Americans during World War II. I feel that in relocating these elderly people, we are as bad as the Nazis that ran the concentration camps in World War II."
-Roger Lewis, federally appointed Relocation Commissioner upon resignation.
Many people do not know that a political walnut shuffle game went on for years to confuse people and make it difficult to tell what was really going on, and what was causing a huge amount of grief and hardship for Navajo and Hopi people in Arizona - not in the nineteenth century, but recently.
A key player behind it was John McCain, working to take land from Native Americans for large scale corporate entities that have supported the Arizona politician, all the while portraying himself as a friend to the tribes.
Among groups looking into this, the American Computer Science Association www.acsa2000.net conducted a study revealing "(Public Law 93-531 as amended in 1996 (Partition), 1999 (Settlement), 2001 (Enforcement of Resettlement) and 2005 (Expansion of Resettlement) - bills introduced by Senator McCain - led to the United Nations Special Rapporteur, Hon Abdeltalif Amor's condemnation of human rights violations inside the US, over the stripping of rights and forced resettlement of these gentle and deeply spiritual band of Dineh-Navajo Indians from Arizona, swept off of lands they'd owned since 1500 A.D. so that Peabody Western Coal could mine the Coal from beneath their farmlands and tap their wells to slurry pipe it to a power station in Nevada)... Common Cause has suggested McCain was indirectly compensated by cash contributions to his Federal Election Fund during three Presidential runs, and through family business with Las Vegas Casinos who benefited from the coal driven power he supplied."
John McCain claimed legislation was justified by a non-existent range war between the Dine' and the Hopi. The Bennet Freeze (P.L.93-531) is well remembered because people living on what is now Hopi Partitioned Land could not legally upgrade their housing (i.e. repair a hole in their roof during the winter) without facing the threat of arrest because they no longer legally own the property their families have lived on for centuries. This type of regular harassment has been described as "low intensity psychological warfare" and it has become commonplace against families resisting relocation at Big Mountain.
Their land was turned over to the coal companies without making any provisions to protect the burial or sacred sites that would be destroyed by the mines. People whose lives were based in their deep spiritual and life-giving relationship with the land were relocated into cities, often without compensation, forbidden to return to the land that their families had occupied for generations. People became homeless with significant increases in alcoholism, suicide, family break up, emotional abuse and death.
John McCain "knows what's best for America", and that's "Straight Talk, my friends"....unless of course you're a Native American.