Author: spiderleaf

Dear Democratic Elected Officials of the United States (with damn few exceptions),

I am writing this open letter to call your attention to the remarks made day before yesterday, May 17, 2005, to the United States Senate, by British MP George Galloway of the independent Respect Party. I do this because he serves as an example of why your party should be abandoned by the U.S. working class, by U.S. women, by oppressed nationalities in the United States, and by anyone who professes to be a progressive or a leftist.

George Galloway did that for which you have proven incapable; he spoke as an opposition. Since there seems to be a great dark space in the middle of your heads where the notion of opposition should be ­ a void filled by parliamentary molasses and the pusillanimous inabilty to tell simple truths, I suggest you all review the recordings of Galloway’s confrontation with Republican Senator Norm “Twit” Coleman to see exactly how effortless it is to stand up to these cheap political bullies (watch the video). While you are at it, you can watch your colleague Carl Levin demonstrate exactly what I mean about most of you and your party, as he alternately hurls petulant cream-puff insults at Galloway and kisses Coleman’s stunned, clueless ass to give that toothy dipshit some comfort in the wake of Galloway’s verbal drubbing.

Galloway didn’t have to walk up to the docket and slap the cowboy shit out of Coleman ­ though I admit I still struggle with my own secret urges to do just that with most of the air-brushed, combed-over, Stepford meat-puppets who now people the United States Congress. No, all Galloway had to do was tell the unvarnished truth, and it had exactly the same effect. If Democrats had half the spine that Galloway does if you would stop chasing your creepy little careers through the caviar and chicken-salad circuits of duck-and-cover American political double-speak, then not only would people like me not be calling for all to abandon the Democratic Party and take their fight to the streets like good Bolivians not only that, but you’d have won the last election.

The reason Galloway was able to break from your mirror party in UK ­ Blair’s sell-out Labor Party ­ and still get elected, is that Galloway fights for his convictions and the real needs of his constituents, and doesn’t run for cover every time the bully-boys of the capitalist extablishment attempt to take him down.

Here’s a hint.

People follow those who speak plainly and fight. Aside from Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, and Cynthia McKinney (not surprisingly Black women who know where it goes if you let rich white men get away with giving you a bunch of shit) and a precious few others, the Democratic Party is not only just another party controlled by big capitalists; it is not even a good capitalist opposition party (much less a real opposition).

Because Galloway didn’t, as some are saying, expose the Republicans.

Someone with a full frontal lobotomy could expose a Republican politician.

He exposed the spinelessness of the Democrats.

Yours very truly,

Stan Goff

Q Scott, the Senate has managed to function — or not function, as the case may be — for more than 200 years without a ban on judicial filibusters. Is the President concerned about the historic nature of what’s being talked about up on the Hill?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, John, the Senate is working to move forward on their constitutional responsibility, which is to give nominees and up or down vote. One of the priorities for this President is to put people on the bench that are highly qualified and that have a conservative judicial philosophy — people that show judicial restraint when it comes to the bench. And there are a number of vacancies that the Senate has not moved forward on.

You’ve had a minority of Senate Democrats blocking up or down votes for these nominees. All we’re asking for is for these nominees to receive a simple up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate. Unfortunately, there are some Senate Democrats that have played politics in taking this to an unprecedented level. We have not seen anything like this in our 214-year history in the Senate. So I would turn that around on you and look at it from the other perspective.

Q Well, let me ask two questions about what you just said. Where in the Constitution are judicial nominees guaranteed an up or down vote? And what about the impact of this whole so-called “nuclear option” on this idea of equal representation in the Senate?

MR. McCLELLAN: There are some judicial emergencies that we’re talking about here, where people need to be put into these positions. There are vacancies now. And Senate Democrats have been blocking those nominees from receiving an up or down vote.

In terms of the Constitution, the role of the President is to appoint qualified individuals to the bench. The role of the Senate is to provide their advice and consent. It’s not to provide advice and block. And what we have seen is that Senate Democrats are taking this to an unprecedented level, something we have not seen in those 214 years that you reference.

And so we would hope that they would move forward in giving all of these nominees an up or down vote, because all of them are well-qualified and would do an outstanding job.

Q What about this equal representation idea?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?

Q What about the impact of this nuclear option on the equal representation idea?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I mean, the President — the President has made it clear that when it comes to the White House, our view is that those are matters for the Senate to decide when it comes to Senate procedures. And so the Senate is discussing those issues. We simply want to see all our nominees get an up or down vote, and to see politics put aside by Senate Democrats so that these nominees can receive that up or down vote. But I think if you look at these nominees, they have the majority support of the United States Senate.

Q Let me just go back to the constitutional idea here. You said it again today, and you’ve said it many times in the past, that the Senate has a constitutional obligation to give these nominees an up or down vote. Can we agree that the constitutional requirement of the Senate is for advice and consent, but nowhere in the Constitution does it —

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the Constitution —

Q — but nowhere in the Constitution does it say that nominees are guaranteed an up or down vote.

MR. McCLELLAN: The Constitution said “advise and consent,” and that’s the role of the United States Senate, not “advise and block.”

[snip]

Q Can I go back to judicial nominees just for a second?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure.

Q Harry Reid says the goal of this practice is to pave the way for a Supreme Court nominee that would only need 50 votes to pass the Senate. I know you don’t have any openings on the Supreme Court, but would you foresee using this practice in the future?

MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn’t speculate on a Supreme Court vacancy because there is not one at this point. And in terms of this matter, this is being discussed by the United States Senate now. They’ve been working to resolve this matter. Our view is that all nominees should have an up or down vote, and that’s what we continue to emphasize.

Q To follow up on Terry’s —

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me go to David, and then I’ll come back to you.

Q On judicial nominees, two of the more controversial selections were at the White House today, I assume getting a kind of pick-me-up from the President, as well as Harriet Miers —

MR. McCLELLAN: They’re here now.

Q And they’re here now.

MR. McCLELLAN: The President strongly supports those nominees, absolutely.

Q Right, and he’s made that clear. You made clear just a moment ago that he opposes judicial activists. And, yet, if you take a look, as I’m sure you have, at the records of Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, both records reveal, according to conservatives — not me, but according to some conservatives — judicial activism, number one; and, number two, a judicial temperament which is, at times, very sharp, very acerbic in their opinions, and not consistent with what some people consider the kind of judicial temperament that would be appropriate for the kind of circuit court positions that they’re being nominated to. Is there — is the President sort of violating, in these nominees, his own principle for what he wants to see —

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me point out a couple of things about these two nominees you bring up. Both these nominees are individuals that are highly respected and have enjoyed strong support in their respective states. Judge Priscilla Owen has served on the bench of the Texas Supreme Court for some time now and has enjoyed strong support from the people of the state of Texas. Judge Brown is someone who was recently retained with 76 percent of the vote in California. They are —

Q This isn’t a popularity contest, these are —

MR. McCLELLAN: They are both individuals who — I’m pointing out the people who know them best and have seen their work. Both these judges are committed to judicial restraint. Both have a conservative judicial philosophy. They are exactly the kind of people that the President is looking to appoint to the bench, and that’s why he nominated these two individuals.

And it’s interesting that you and I are sitting here having this discussion today. All we’re asking for is for the opportunity to debate these nominations on the floor of the United States Senate so that they can receive an up or down vote on their nomination.

Q Fair enough, but anyone who suggests that Janice Rogers Brown is a judicial activist, in your mind, is dead wrong?

MR. McCLELLAN: No. I think, David, when the President refers to activist judges, he is referring to judges that make law from the bench. And I think both these judges are committed to judicial restraint and to interpreting the law, not trying to make law from the bench.

[snip]

Q On judges, Scott, you said that it’s up to the legislature to make their own determination. But the Vice President has said that he’s prepared to cast the deciding vote in favor of a 51-vote threshold, if necessary. Is the administration concerned that, ultimately, should that come to pass, they’re going to be held responsible for a change in the precedent, because the Vice President cast that vote?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the Vice President made clear that it would be up to the Senate leadership to determine how to proceed. And as you are aware, the Vice President has a constitutional role as the President of the United States Senate. And he stated that he would be prepared to support that if the Senate leadership determined to proceed down that path.

And I think that the American people want to see the Senate give these nominees an up or down vote. That’s the role of the United States Senate — not to block nominees from receiving an up or down vote, but to move forward on giving them an up or down vote. And that’s all we’re asking, a simple up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate. These senators — I mean, these judges, these judicial nominees enjoy, I believe, a majority of support from the United States Senate.

Unfortunately, while there are judicial emergencies that are vacated, you have Senate Democrats playing politics with the bench. And they’ve taken it to an unprecedented level, one like we’ve never seen before. And that’s the real issue here, is simply getting an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate.

[snip]

Q Judicial filibusters, Scott. The President has said repeatedly he needs bipartisan cooperation on Social Security, other second term priorities, energy. Does he not worry that by bringing the filibuster issue to a head, he may well sacrifice key elements of his second term?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don’t think that’s the way to look at it, Mark. I think the concern here — the concern here is that you have leaders on the democratic side in the Senate who are intent on simply blocking important priorities, blocking judicial nominees, blocking our efforts to move forward on a comprehensive energy plan.

The President, tonight, is going to be talking about how the Republican Party is the party of ideas. The President is talking about what he’s for, and talking about how we can work together and move forward on the shared priorities facing this nation. There are some Senate Democrats who simply to be — seem to be more intent on simply saying, “no,” and blocking things from happening. The American people want us to get things done. They want us to move forward on the judicial nominees, and make sure that they have up or down votes. That’s all that we’re asking for here.

Q So if that’s the case, does that mean —

MR. McCLELLAN: It’s not — I look at it differently. It’s about up or down votes on the floor of the United States Senate. And why shouldn’t the — as I was saying to David here earlier, why shouldn’t these judges be able to have their nominations debated on the floor of the United States Senate? That’s all we’re asking.

Q I understand what you’re saying, and I heard it. What it sounds to me like you’re saying is that the Democrats are going to block us anyhow, so what do we have to lose? Does that means he’s given up on bipartisan cooperation?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me back up, because, again, you’re trying to insert us into this, in terms of the Senate procedures. Those are Senate procedures. The President has made it clear that that’s up to the Senate to decide — that’s his view. It’s up to the Senate to decide their procedures. In terms of the nominees, our view is that all nominees should have an up or down vote.

Q Are you telling me that if the President called Bill Frist and said, look, the rest of my agenda is at risk here, let’s not push this now. He would do that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Mark, we’ve always stayed out of Senate procedural or congressional procedural matters.

Q And this doesn’t mean he’s given up on bipartisan cooperation, he still expects bipartisan cooperation?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Mark, the President has worked to elevate the discourse in this town. The President has reached out to try to find common ground and get things done. The President has put forward ideas. The President has put forward solutions to our most pressing priorities. It’s time for Senate Democrats to start coming to the table with some ideas instead of simply saying, no, and blocking progress.

HUNT: Welcome back. Senator Minority Leader Harry Reid offered to permit a vote on four of the judicial nominations being blocked by Democratic filibusters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: I appreciate his offer for — for a Senate debate and votes on some of the president’s judicial nominees, but I just want to say once again that it is that principle of an up-or-down vote that is going to govern this side of the aisle.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Chilling debate, freedom of speech in the United States Senate. Hah (ph). Hah (ph). Who wishes, Mr. Leader, to have that kind of a legacy to confront him, that he killed — helped to kill freedom of speech in the United States Senate?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Bob, why would Senator Frist refuse an offer to break the deadlock?

NOVAK: Because the whole system (INAUDIBLE) you’re not going to have — like going to a concentration camp and picking out which people go to the death chamber. You’re not going to let the Democrats do that, say, We’re going to — we’re going to confirm this person, we’re not going to confirm the other person. They’re going to — they’re going to say that this is not the way we’re going to do it. They’ve had all kinds of different offers of that kind.

Now, as a matter of fact, I believe that this — this constitutional option is going to work. I think it’s going to — they’re going to get the 50 votes that are needed. There’s no — it’s going to take a couple weeks, but there’s — there’s not going to be any Democratic — maybe it’ll take less than a couple weeks. Not going to be a Democratic alternative to it. And all they can do is decide how much they’re going to do to have a reprisal. So that’s why they’re putting out commercials on what a wonderful thing the filibuster is — is most famous in American history for killing — for — for establishing racist — racism and segregation in the South.

Nations at the summit include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Algeria, Egypt, Qatar, Libya, Oman, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina and of course Brazil.

Between them, they currently pump around 27.26 million barrels per day (mbpd) of the world’s demand of 84 mbpd or around 32.5% of total production.

Dr Muhammed-Ali Zainy of the Centre For Global Energy Studies in London believes that: “Yes, Brazil in particular can play an important role in [oil] field development, especially somewhere like Iraq.

“They helped Iraq a lot in previous times. I do not think you are going to see any real concrete structures coming out of this meeting, but it could be a start of some extra political, economic and cultural bonds.”

“Brazil helped discover some of the great fields in the past in Iraq for example,” says Dr Zainy. “Along with Venezuela they can play an important role in oil field evaluations and at the same time they can win things like service contracts amongst some of the Arab nations. Of course, in return, they could be remunerated in oil.”

….

Venezuela has been looking long and hard for alternatives to simply supplying the United States with its demand for crude oil. Although there have been recent fluctuations in supply, Venezuela – the world’s fifth largest exporter – averages around 13% of the daily imports of the US.

Recently, however, they have been branching out, penning new deals with Spain and a new player in the global energy market, China.

…

China has also figured prominently in South American oil infrastructure. It recently signed deals to build refinery projects in Venezuela and has made some possible exploration deals as well.

This could have prompted the recent news that Venezuela wants to sell two of its US-based refineries. It says they are unprofitable and amount to “a subsidy to the US economy”, according to President Hugo Chavez.

Brazil too also exports some of its very heavy deepwater crude oil to the Chinese, being less able to refine the sour product at home.

Opec nations too have been opening up new supply routes to the Chinese markets. So this summit may spur the participating nations into more deals and a greater possibility of energy related tie-ups in the future.

“While this [summit] is not going to affect powerful organisations like Opec,” said Dr Zainy: “It may help these nations to more co-ordinated policies, some extra deals and better political relationships. Those may bear fruit in the future.”

Aga Khan (chief commander) is the title of the imam, or spiritual leader, of the sect of Moslems known as Nizari Ismailis. The title was granted in 1818 by the Shah of Persia.

The Ismailis are Shias, one of the two great sects of Islam. Unlike the Sunnis, the major group, the Shias believe that the imam must be a descendant of the prophet Mohammed through Hasan and Husain, the sons of his daughter Fatima. The Ismailis, who trace their origin to the 8th century, were formed around the followers of Ismail, a descendant of Husain. One branch, the Nizari Ismailis, established itself in Persia in a number of strong fortresses in the 11th century.

A minority within a minority, the 15 million Ismailis are spread over about two dozen nations in Central and South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, the Persian Gulf and, lately, Britain (20,000), the United States (50,000) and Canada (75,000).

The 68-year-old imam, a multimillionaire himself, presides over a plethora of the Geneva-based foundations that direct health, educational, cultural and development projects worth about $250 million a year.

The Aga Khan Development Network is the world’s largest non-governmental development agency. Aga Khan Foundation Canada partners with the Canadian International Development Agency in delivering foreign aid projects in Asia and Africa.

His other initiatives include the prestigious Aga Khan Award for Architecture, the Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture based at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the Aga Khan Trust for Culture, which restores historic Islamic spaces.

On the for-profit side — with annual revenues of $1.3 billion — there is the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development.

A venture capital fund, it operates in countries short on foreign investment. For example, it has invested in a five-star hotel in Kabul and a mobile phone company for all of Afghanistan.

Much of this work, employing 50,000 people worldwide, is designed to advance grassroots democracy and economic development in the poorest countries.

The Aga Khan often cites failed or failing democracies — in nearly 40 per cent of the United Nations member-nations, representing up to 900 million people — as a threat to the world.

He talks of three essential preconditions for their progress: the nurturing of civil society, meritocracy and pluralism.

….

The Aga Khan sees multiculturalism as a great force of good; in fact, the missing element in societies plagued by ethnic or religious warfare.

“We have seen, in the last quarter of a century, many pluralistic nations pay a horrible price because they were unable to manage conflicts between different communities,”

Canada, on the other hand, “has a long and highly successful track record of pluralism.

“It is a sophisticated democracy where people of different backgrounds feel they have an equitable voice in the country and have achieved positions of real leadership.”

He visualizes that his non-profit, non-denominational pluralism centre would distill the Canadian wisdom — how pluralism evolved, how it works and what lessons it has taught us — into “significant pedagogical material” for schools, intellectual content for universities and case studies for foreign NGOs, governments and nations to follow.

Canada has become a partner because the mission is consistent with our foreign policy objectives: promotion of democracy, good governance, and the rule of law, human rights and respect for diversity.

I tell the Aga Khan that Canadians, being modest, don’t quite see the significance of the peaceful heterogeneity they have forged.

“I agree completely,” he said. “It’s an extraordinary global asset that Canadians have not necessarily seen. They are a humble people.

“They don’t want to teach other people lessons that the other people don’t want to learn.

“But we have an opportunity here” to spread the Canadian formula around the world.

The pluralism centre is one of Aga Khan’s four initiatives in Canada:

• A diplomatic legation in Ottawa on Sussex Dr., next to the Pearson Building, and two projects on adjacent properties in Toronto, on Wynford Dr., worth $200 million.
• An Islamic museum, which he had initially planned for London, England, and being designed by Japanese modernist Fumihiko Maki.An Ismaili Jamat Khana (house of congregation), designed by the famous Indian architect Charles Correa. Both, situated within a park, are expected to be ready and open to the public by 2008.

“I read that Islam is in conflict with democracy. Yet I must tell you that as a Muslim, I am a democrat not because of Greek or French thought, but primarily because of principles that go back 1,400 years” (to the Prophet Muhammad) — “wide public consultation in choosing leaders” and “merit and competence in social governance.”

“What we have is not a clash of civilizations but a clash of ignorance. This ignorance is both historic and of our time.”

It is “illustrated by events in Iraq. No less deplorable is that the 9/11 attack was a direct consequence of the international community ignoring the human tragedy that was Afghanistan at that time. Both the Afghan and Iraqi situations were driven by a lack of understanding.”

….

“One of the difficulties is that the Western world does not understand the pluralism of the Islamic world, which is heavily, massively pluralistic, even more so than the West. But the West does not understand it because it has not included the Islamic world in the teaching of what we call `general knowledge.’

“This is a very important issue in democracies because democracies presume that the electorate is capable of commenting on major issues of national or international importance, and of choosing good government,” which, in turn, would formulate informed foreign policy.

So, “unless there is a better understanding of the Islamic world, democracies are not going to be able to express themselves on Islamic issues.”

The gulf is not going to be bridged by what he calls “the narrow focus of the interfaith dialectic,” but by broad education, starting at school, and dialogue between citizens, civil society groups and governments.

This is essential, he has said, because “you cannot build a dialogue based upon ignorance.”

A political specter haunts North America — the specter of the world’s next failed state.

We can still call it Canada, at least for a couple years. And who knows, like news of Mark Twain’s demise, my pessimism may be greatly exaggerated.

Our northern neighbor’s polyglot populace of beer drinkers, peaceniks, Mounties and socialists may yet dump their crooked politicians and craft a new, more robust deal with Quebecois separatists.

If you don’t know about Canada’s crooked politicians, you’re not alone. Democracy and free speech are breaking out in Beirut, but they’re both taking a beating in Ontario. The Canadian government has a press clamp on an investigation into the ruling Liberal Party’s “Adscam” kickback scheme. A “judicial publication ban” is the term. It may soon rank with Watergate rhetoric like “modified limited hang-out.” Canadian Prime Minister and Liberal Party leader Paul Martin is implicated in the Adscam fiasco, and he’s starting to look like the northland’s Richard Nixon.

Linda Seebach of the Rocky Mountain News, in a column about Morrissey’s coda of Watergate’s Woodward and Bernstein, observed that there’s “hardly any coverage of what the Canadians call `AdScam’ in the U.S. press, although something that could cause the Canadian government to fall ought to be of interest to that country’s southern neighbor … “

What might a grand Canadian breakup look like? Jim Dunnigan and I, in the 1991 edition of A Quick and Dirty Guide to War, played speculative cartographer and redrew Canada’s political map.

Here’s a thumbnail sketch of that analysis: Say Quebec does become a separate European-style nation-state — a “people” with cultural, linguistic, religious and historical identity (never mind the objections of Mohawk and Cree Indians living in Quebec). Quebec has the people and resources to make a go of it, though the economic price for its egotism will be stiff. British Columbia also has “nation-state” assets: Access to the sea, strong industrial base, raw materials and an educated population.

Oil-producing Alberta might join the United States and instantly find common political ground with Alaska, Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma. Canada’s struggling Atlantic provinces might find statehood economically attractive and extend the New England coastline. A rump Canada consisting of “Greater Ontario” — with remaining provinces as appendages — might keep the maple-leaf flag aloft. As for poor, isolated Newfoundland: Would Great Britain like to reacquire a North American colony?

Girls make up almost half of the 300,000 children involved in wars, according to a report which says they are abducted, raped and often used as currency among fighters.

In the violent, desperate world of child soldiers, they are the most vulnerable, subjected to the worst abuse and with little chance of returning to something resembling normal life.

They are far more out of the reach of the international agencies than boy soldiers under 18, and are wary of joining rehabilitation schemes because of fear that it will expose what had happened to them and lead to further shunning by their home communities.

…

Research has shown girls are used extensively in combat in a wide range of international conflicts, in some cases by groups who have had the support of Britain and the United States. Among countries involved are Colombia, Pakistan, Uganda, the Philippines and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). In the DRC, there are up to 12,500 girls in armed groups. In Sri Lanka, 43 per cent of the 51,000 children involved are girls.

…

Mike Aaronson, the director general of the organisation, said: “When people picture conflict they think of men in bloody combat, but it’s girls who are the horrifying and hidden face of war. Most girls who escape or leave an armed group do so on their own because formal programmes have not been designed with them in mind and can actually make matters worse.”

One of the main problems is that returning boy soldiers are much more likely to be accepted than the girls. The boys can even boast about what they have done as “warriors” while the girls are ostracised as “immoral”, “unclean” and “promiscuous” because they had been used sexually. There are also fears that fighters who took the girls away may return to reclaim them, and take revenge on the community.

Many rescued girls are driven from their villages and end up working as prostitutes in nearby towns. As well as sexual abuse and combat, female captives are often forced into arduous and dangerous tasks, surviving on less food and medical aid. Many suffer chronic illness and disability, and have to look after babies conceived after rape.

Girl soldiers: the forgotten victims of war – The Independent

Girls as young as eight are abducted and forced to live with armed groups. Some carry weapons, others serve as porters, cleaners and cooks. Almost all are forced to be sex slaves or “wives” of commanders, Save the Children says in the report, entitled Forgotten Casualties of War: Girls in Armed Conflict.