America votes 2008: election update 2

As predicted by recent polls, CNN projects Barack Obama has won Pennsylvania. Not too big of a surprise, but a huge setback for the McCain campaign, which insisted it was doing well in the state. Pennsylvania is a must-win this year on the path to the presidency...

Going by CNN's numbers, only 168 electoral votes to go until Obama has the 270 necessary to claim the presidency.

Breaking news from around the world

Tensions have intensified between the Western world and Russia and controversy still reigns over the ceasefire signed between Russia and Georgia. Cold War rhetoric has gone through the roof.

(Former) President Musharraf of Pakistan is no longer the leader. At last.

More soon!

Russia trying to topple Georgia's government?

It's a complicated situation in South Ossetia. Russia's fighting because she thinks some of her people are being oppressed in South Ossetia. Georgia is fighting to attempt to regain control of the region. The tensions are intensified because the two nations have been sabre-rattling for quite some time now. Questionable actions by the Georgian government have not helped. Russia's trying to act as regional police, but it's coming out looking like a regional bully.

Russia is escalating the conflict in the autonomous region of South Ossetia in Georgia, and moving into other parts of the former Soviet republic as well as the rest of the world's trying to get the two countries to cool things down.

Moscow said troops had raided the town of Senaki to destroy a military base before leaving again.

Georgia said Russian troops had also pushed into Georgia from South Ossetia itself, approaching the town of Gori.

The US president strongly criticised Russia, saying it might be planning to depose the Georgian government.

Correspondents say it was some of the strongest US language about Russia in years.

President Bush said he had talked to Russian Prime Minister Putin sometime around the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics.

Russia and Georgia have been going at it for years. It's gotten worse as of late. One only hopes a full-scale war can be averted.

Meet the next Democratic presidental nominee

Barack Obama!


According to CNN, Obama has passed the threshold of 2,118 delegates required for the nomination (no surprise as many superdelegates switch over). While Hillary Clinton says she will not make a final campaign decision tonight, it is clear her end has come. However, she mentioned recently that she is willing to be Obama's vice presidential candidate.

This should end months of fracture in the Democratic Party between these two heavyweights. Obama will have to immediately jump into the race and Clinton and Obama supporters will have to get over their differences to beat John McCain in November. We cannot have effectively four more years of Bush-like foreign policy.

The South Dakota and Montana primaries are still ongoing, with Clinton looking to win the former while Obama takes Montana.

One more thing: For all those on the far right screeching that Obama is a liberal socialist, he's not. He is, at most, a left-leaning moderate. I only wish he was more liberal; but, alas, in a country like America, "liberal" is a dirty word and the right dominates more than its fair share of the mainstream.

P.S. The timestamp should be 10:14 PM not 9:14. Blogger has issues with DST.

The end of Musharraf?

Pakistan held elections today, the results of which are flowing in as we speak...

The Times:

President Pervez Musharraf’s supporters conceded defeat last night in a landmark parliamentary election that could seal his political fate and resurrect democracy in Pakistan after eight years of military rule.

But while the two main opposition parties appeared to have swept the vote, neither was expected to win an outright majority, setting the stage for a coalition government in this chronically unstable country.
...
Final results are not expected until tomorrow, but preliminary figures suggest that the PPP will win the most seats followed by the Pakistan Muslim League (N) led by Nawaz Sharif, another former Prime Minister.

One can only hope an opposition party will emerge as winner in this election, and that the dictatorial Musharraf will finally face impeachment. Most Pakistanis want him out anyway.

Meanwhile, a NYT op-ed warns that instability in Pakistan is a problem to all of us — the south Asian country holds active nuclear weapons (not to mention that it's a hotbed of Islamic terrorism).

Super (Tuesday) aftermath

The primary results tonight solidified the campaign of Republican John McCain; he currently almost triples Romney in number of delegates. McCain won delegate-rich states such as New Jersey and New York, and is on track to win California. It looks like Huckabee supporters in the realist camp chose (i.e. defected to) McCain after all. However, Super Tuesday only intensified the campaign on the Democratic side between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Clinton currently is ahead of Obama in the crucial state of California, and has already taken such states as New Jersey, Massachusetts, and New York; whereas Obama found his strength in the south, taking Georgia. Candidates on both sides are in a near tie in the telling bellwether state of Missouri. Obama won his home state of Illinois, another important state delegate-wise. (When I say 'won' I mean either solidly won or is projected to win. Either way they'll take it.)

Points have been made about Obama's liberalness (e.g. National Journal report — see this post), but the labels "liberal" and "conservative" are more complex than we take them to be. Political Compass, a site I've written about before, has a new graph up of all '08 candidates positions on a two-dimentional political chart.

When examining the chart it is important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while in any other western democracy her record is that of a moderate conservative.

Obama is more 'liberal' on Iraq — in reality, all current candidates fail on Iraq in my book; there is a lack of moderacy — whereas Clinton has more left-leaning domestic initiatives, such as healthcare.

I have yet to support a Democrat, although I am starting to lean towards Clinton because I'm getting sick of Obama's pledge for yet-undefined 'change'. Overall the Democrats have failed to not disappoint this election season. I stick to my support of McCain on the Republican side, although he is, after all, a conservative.

For more results, see CNN.

P.S. I promise to devote the rest of this week to non-election news and issues. It's so easy to get carried away...

Up next: New Hampshire!

New Hampshire primary results should come in tonight. Romney has poured a lot of money into this state; will his losses grow? And what about Giuliani, who snubbed Iowa? Will Obama's Iowa momentum help him against Clinton? And can Edwards, after an impressive second place showing in Iowa, keep up?

All eyes are on the first primary in the 2008 race for the presidency.

Benazir Bhutto assassinated!

BBC News:

Pakistani former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated in a suicide attack.

Ms Bhutto - the first woman PM in an Islamic state - was leaving an election rally in Rawalpindi when a gunman shot her in the neck and set off a bomb.

At least 20 other people died in the attack and several more were injured.

President Pervez Musharraf has urged people to remain calm but angry protests have gripped some cities, with at least 11 deaths reported.

Security forces have been placed on a state of "red alert" nationwide.

There were no immediate claims of responsibility for the attack. Analysts believe Islamist militants to be the most likely group behind it.

Bhutto was playing a major role in Pakistan's hopefully democratic political future. She led the powerful opposition PPP party and recently returned from exile. This surprise-killing should be seen as a sign that instability is not over in Pakistan, even as Musharraf makes security laws more lenient after initiating emergency rule this fall.

The fate of Pakistanis is as unclear as ever following following the death of one of their more famous political figures. She has escaped several near-death experiences over the past few months; I guess it was a matter of time before either Musharraf's camp of the Islamists killed her.

Bush tells everyone to back off on CIA tape probe

CNN:

The Bush administration wants a federal court and congressional committees not to pursue investigations into the destruction of videotapes showing CIA interrogations of two al Qaeda suspects.

It says the inquiries would interfere with an ongoing probe by the Justice Department in collaboration with the CIA.

Defense attorneys for some terror suspects have asked U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy to look into whether the tapes' destruction violated a June order.

The measure requires the government to preserve evidence and information regarding detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

A bit disturbing, but not at all surprising. (See background.) The Justice Department has also dodged questions on the destruction of CIA tapes showing extreme interrogation — e.g. torture. The White House is strongly against all forms of oversight. One wonders what it has to hide...

US and UK terror alerts

First of all, happy first of July.

 

There has been a string of suspected terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom, the first of which was allegedly stopped before it occured in London (police found explosives, etc., in two cars). Just a bit after the London discovery a Jeep full of gas cylenders rammed into the terminal of an airport in Glasgow, Scotland. Inital reports of the Glasgow car ramming made it sound like the car was already on fire before it hit the airport. Now that appears not to be true. It is unknown whether these events are related or whether they are part of a wider network of attempted and planned terror attacks by an al-Qaeda cell or sub-group. There are possible additional plots too:

Glasgow - Burning car driven into doors of Glasgow Airport on Saturday. Two people arrested at scene

London - Two car bombs that failed to detonate found in central London on Friday

Paisley - Controlled explosion carried out on car at Royal Alexandra Hospital

Cheshire - Man and woman arrested overnight on M6, then taken to London for questioning

Liverpool - Man arrested. Police searching two addresses

Houston - Police searching houses in village near Glasgow

Newcastle-under-Lyme - Police searching house in Staffordshire

See here for the alert as it pertains to US national security. Remember, however, though these plots seem serious, and they are, no doubt politicians will try to get the best of us at times when we are most suceptable to the fear and terror these attacks are supposed to create. The UK is at the highest level of its terror alert.  Brace yourselves.

 

I'l still on vacation of course, but had a bit of downtime and felt the urge to hop on the net since I can (darn you wireless internet access!). I couldn't resist blogging at least a bit. Anyway, more soon.

Get out of jail free, like Paris Hilton!

Hey I'm a celebrity so the law doesn't apply to me! Not only do all too many think that, but it is true in many cases.

The story of Paris Hilton. She contributes nothing positive to society, yet gets out of prison early. She should have been in jail, which I'm sure was made cushy for her liking (and it was), for 45 days, which was then cut to 23 days. How many days did she end up spending? Three.

It's not often I talk about these useless celebrities who dominate the national headlines, pushing out more deserving topics like the G8, but it's amazing how American law caters so much to celebrities. The rich and the famous can evade the law in ways not acceptable to the justice system or public safety or fairness.

I will be in LA later this summer, and I don't want to be run over by a drunk and drugged Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan. And really the wider issue is that in the United States' large, refined legal system, a celebrity can just evade their right punishment.

Hilton drove drink. Thats a pretty damn serious offense and she has basically gotten away with it. It would have been even worse if she was granted a pardon; considering all the high-profile letters California courts were swarmed with, we should be glad that didn't happen.

As I said I usually don't care a bit about entertainment stories, but when it affects how American justice sees the criminals stories like the Hilton DUI arrest and imprisonment become more serious. Needless to say it has also received far to much press coverage.

Hilton will be under house arrest for the remaining 40 days of her sentence. Considering the size of her mansion that shouldn't be a problem.


NOTICE: This blog is Paris Hilton (and other unimportant persons) -free until another one of them finds a way to receive special treatment on such a level that the story is deemed worthy of a blog post.

8 June UPDATE: A screaming and crying Hilton has been ordered back to jail to finish out her 45 days by a judge. CNN and other US news organizations have complete coverage of the Paris Hilton story, as it is their top story. Apparently a spoiled rich socialite serving out the time in jail she was meant to serve is more important than the G8 summit, Iraq, and American immigration politics combined. Another fine moment for American (celebrity) journalism...

technorati tags: paris+hilton, hilton, paris, paris+jail

Pakistan explodes

The row over the dismissal of the pragmatic Pakistani Supreme Court justice has turned violent. Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry had maintained the independence of the court, often standing up to the dictatorial power of Pervez Musharraf. As I blogged about a while back, since the chief justice's dismissal, there have been fairly nonviolent protests my lawyers in Karachi — Pakistan's largest city, in the south — and elsewhere. This past weekend the protests worsened as government loyalist forces clashed with protesters. Soon unrest came and tens died.

Restraints have been put on the Pakistani media's coverage; protests have been all but quelled; and the police has been given the authority to shoot dead anyone trying to spark up more protest — nonviolent or otherwise. Chaudhry, meanwhile, has been marching in protest. A key Supreme Court official was found murdered in his house early on Monday, certainly not a coincidence. Fearful of the chaos, businesses have had to close in several major cities, effectively paralyzing Pakistan.

Speculation has consumed western coverage of the events, as Musharraf's legitimacy is at stake. He says he will follow the Supreme Court's electoral decision — whenever the rigged election takes place — and his ousting of Chaudhry shows that while he may indeed follow the court, he will make sure it is on his side. His message is this: no one shall challenge my power. Of course since Pakistan is supposedly an ally in the American 'war on terror', the US has remained virtually silent on the issue, let alone the democracy bashing by a leader (Musharraf) marginalized by the radicals and the normal people seeing his country too close to the not-well-liked United States.
Here are some of Musharraf's options:

Broadly speaking, the emerging consensus is that the president has four options.

* To ride out the crisis in the hope that the protests run out of steam. The experience of Lahore suggests that is not working.

* He could simply accept that he had been wrongly advised, reinstate the chief justice, and look for a scapegoat. But many say it is too late for that now.

* He could declare a state of emergency and impose martial law. That might lead to violence on the streets, and to international condemnation, including from his strategic ally the United States.

* He could reach out to the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) of Benazir Bhutto, generally seen as the most popular political force in the country. According to the rumoured outlines of such a deal, corruption charges against Ms Bhutto would be dropped and she would be allowed to return from exile, if the PPP supported General Musharraf's presidency. However, the PPP says it will not accept the president if he stays on as army chief.

Meanwhile the attacks continue across the nation. Pakistan is a nuclear state, and its stability is at stake. If Musharraf cannot rule, someone else must. The worst case scenario would be if extremists took over. Then the world would see real madmen with nukes.


technorati tags: Chaudhry, musharraf, pakistan, karachi, justice+violence+pakistan, lahore, islamabad, pakistan+supreme+court, political+stability, united+states, usa, war+on+terror, news

Le prochain président de la France: Nicolas Sarkozy

Nicolas Sarkozy is the winner of France's presidential election, say early results.

Sarkozy has vowed for change. His Socialist challenger, Segolene Royal, has conceded defeat and thanked the 17 million who voted for her.

BBC News:

Mr Sarkozy is estimated to have won 53% of the vote, compared to 47% for socialist Segolene Royal.

The turnout was the highest in decades at 85.5%.
...
Mr Sarkozy has promised to try to reform France to face the challenges of the 21st century, with putting the nation back to work at the top of his agenda.

But the BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Paris says he will have to work hard to unite the French, and try to win round those who voted against him.

More than 3,000 police have been deployed in Paris and its multi-ethnic suburbs in case Mr Sarkozy's victory sparks a repeat of the riots seen in 2005.

technorati tags: nicolas+sarkozy, segolene+royal, france+president+electio+2007

Sarkozy v. Royal: the final chapter begins

Some new updates on the presidential election in France...

Although votes in this close election, which has enjoyed high turnout, are still being tallied, it looks as if there will indeed be a left-right battle in the second round of the French presidential election.

Centre-right Nicolas Sarkozy will meet Socialist Segolene Royal in the run-off of France's presidential election on 6 May, according to initial results.

Mr Sarkozy, a former interior minister, came first with 30%, ahead of Ms Royal, who is bidding to be France's first woman president, on about 25%.

Centrist Francois Bayrou got 18%, and far-right Jean-Marie Le Pen 11%.

Voting throughout the day reached record numbers, with turnout put at 85% - the highest for nearly 50 years.

On a bright spring day, disillusionment with politicians and their promises did not translate into apathy, reports the BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Paris.

For such a close election, these results look almost identical to what the candidates were polling in the days leading up to today's vote.

Campaigning will restart on 27 April, with the second round of voting on 6 May and the final results coming four days later. One should prepare for an intense campaign as left meets right in the nation that came up with the political identifications of "left" and "right" — a country that shows that history in its oft-partisan politics.

Royal, according to the aforementioned preliminary results, polled higher than previous opinion polls had speculated, in part because of the old-fashioned manner polling is done and the fact Royal has many young supporters.

It is very good that turnout was so high, as a politically apathetic France would hardly be the France we know. In a democracy the people must take action and that's what we've seen — for better or for worse — today in France. And even though centrist, left-right bridging Bayrou did not make it to the second round, his decent support has shown a politician in the middle can make it somewhere. Maybe someday that gap between left and right will be bridged for the Fifth Republic, whether by Bayrou or by someone else. It would have been interesting if Bayrou could have made it to the run-off. He was polling higher than Sarkozy in head-to-head polls before the election.

More worrying, however, is the support for extreme rightist Le Pen: one in 10 voted for him. At least this time he didn't make it to the second round, though. The fact Le Pen still enjoyed such support only illustrated further the political repair France is in dire need of.

Now: I am still torn between the gaffe-prone, old left-styled Royal and the xenophobic, right-wing-courting, 'mini-Bush' Sarkozy.

Update:
It's official...

FIRST ROUND RESULTS
Nicolas Sarkozy - 30.78%
Segolene Royal - 25.32%
Francois Bayrou - 18.47%
Jean-Marie Le Pen - 10.89%
Source: French Interior Ministry at 2100 GMT

technorati tags: france+presidential+election+2007, nicolas+sarkozy, bayrou, sarkozy, segolene+royal, royal, election+france, president+france, french+politics, news, voting, le pen, polls

La France vote 2007: haute assemblée dans la première étape de l'élection présidentielle

Or: France votes 2007: high turnout in first stage of presidential election

The French election is still unpredictable.

BBC News covers the news well...

French voters have been streaming to the polls to cast their ballot in a presidential election seen as the nation's most unpredictable in decades.

With three hours to go, nearly 74% had already voted, exceeding the total turnout for the last elections in 2002.

Twelve hopefuls are seeking a spot in the second-round run-off on 6 May.

The leading candidates are centre-right Nicolas Sarkozy, socialist Segolene Royal, centrist Francois Bayrou and far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.

At 1500 GMT, turnout stood at 73.87%, according to the interior ministry, the highest rate in a first round since at least 1981.

Correspondents say many French voters approached the election in a mood of mingled fear and hope, believing France needs change after 12 years under President Jacques Chirac but unsure which direction to opt for.
...
There are more than one million newly registered voters, the biggest increase in 25 years.

RESULTS COUNTDOWN
1600 GMT - 22 April: Polls begin to close
1800 GMT - 22 April: Early exit polls
1800 GMT - 25 April: Official results
27 April: Campaigning restarts
6 May: Second round poll
10 May: Final official results

Whoever wins, says the BBC's diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus, it will mark a change of political generation and perhaps a shift in French international priorities, making this election matter even to those outside France.

BBC News has an interesting feature, now common for many major news stories, showing the views of an array of 'ordinary' people on the issue at hand.

I'd say my views are most on par with Muriel Calvez, who states:

Sadly, I feel that my vote will probably be more of a vote against a candidate - or several candidates - rather than a vote in favour of anyone.
...
The problem with the rest of the candidates is that they represent extremes - either the extreme left or the extreme right.

I consider myself more of a centre-left voter, but I cannot find any candidate that truly represents my views.

I feel like there is a lot of choice - but also no choice at all.

She said she will most likely vote for Segolene Royal or Francois Bayrou.

Hazem Eseifan also makes some strong points on the two candidates he is torn between: Nicolas Sarkozy and Francois Bayrou.

I will watch both candidates closely between now and election day. I would like to see Sarkozy softening up a bit and for Bayrou to sharpen up.

See also a LRB article on the elections and, a NYT article on how the poverty of immigrants and the troublesome suburbs will play such a large role in the elections.

Sarkozy is disliked by the immigrants; liked by the tough 'law and order' types and xenophobes. He is trying to shift to the right to court some of Le Pen's lighter supporters. Royal's political weaknesses, along with Sarkozy's right-tilt, have empowered centrist Bayrou.

Even for non-voting, third parties such as myself it is a hard choice. Sarkozy will no doubt reform the reform-needy French system, but are some of policies too hard? Royal is ambitious and, at first glance, seems like a model modern liberal, but she is really just aligned with the policies of the Old Left — not in sync with the modern politik (which France ever more needs to be). Bayrou looks decent too, but, like the other two, has interventionist tendencies. He also believes in subsidized farming. France needs to open up and move its economy forward, not remain closed and keep slowing down.

technorati tags: sarkozy, bayrou, royal, france, french+election, france+president+election+2007, politics+de+France

The right to bare arms, but not the right to murder

CNN does some decent reporting for a change (I know, it's a long quote)...

The U.S. is the world's largest maker, buyer and seller of guns but the country's constitutional right to bear arms comes at a high price -- one that gun control advocates say the whole world is paying.

Monday's shooting at the Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Virginia, that ended in the deaths of 33 people was symptomatic of a global gun crime epidemic, campaigners said.

"The U.S. stands out as the developed country with by far the highest levels of gun deaths and gun homicides," Alun Howard, a spokesman for the International Action Network on Small Arms, told CNN.

The White House defended the right to bear arms at a press briefing Monday.

"As far as policy, the president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed," said Dana Perino, a spokesperson for President George W. Bush.
...
According to an IANSA report published in 2006, gun-related incidents result in 300,000 fatalities and one million injuries worldwide every year. Many of those guns come from the U.S.
...While most developed nations react to incidents of gun crime with legislation to insure stronger control measures on the sale and flow of firearms, the gun culture in the U.S. has resisted change.

Weapons manufacturers and pro-gun government officials have consistently rejected efforts by domestic as well as international bodies to regulate and control the flow of arms in and out of the country.

A report released by Amnesty USA noted that the governments of the U.S., China and Russia saw new regulations as "limiting their commercial and foreign policy options," while arms manufacturers feared "a threat to their bottom line."

According to the report, small arms manufacturing in the U.S. is a $2 billion-a-year industry. Companies profiting from that business, as well as powerful lobby groups like the NRA have consistently blocked efforts to clamp down on easy access to firearms.

International reaction

World leaders Monday responded to the Virginia massacre with messages of condolence as well as calls for change.

"Like everyone, I am deeply shocked by the terrible loss of innocent lives at Virginia University," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair, expressing condolences to the families of the victims.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard was more candid in his remarks, offering his sympathies, but condemning U.S. gun culture as a negative force in society.

Howard, who staked his political leadership on pushing through tough laws on gun ownership in Australia after a lone gunman in his country killed 35 people, said the Virginia shootings were a tragedy of a kind he hoped would never be seen again in Australia.

"We had a terrible incident at Port Arthur, but it is the case that 11 years ago we took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country," he said.

Among the victims in Virginia was a professor from India. His death brought a strong response from K. Subrahmanyam, a former member of India's National Security Council.

"It's not a question of an Indian professor getting killed in the firing. This is related to the American gun laws," he said.

"We can't do anything about it. It is something which has happened in the United States. They have got to change the law."

Interesting that Howard, ever so chummy with America, spoke out strongly against its domestic laws. Handguns are banned in the United Kingdom. And in many other developed countries there are great restrictions, including the need for people seeking a firearm to provide a valid reason (e.g. Italy), or if it is for hunting purposes (e.g. Sweden).

President George Bush visited today the site of the massacre at Virginia Tech university in Blacksburg, Virginia. "It's impossible to make sense of such violence and suffering", he said. It is actually possible to make sense of the violence: a disturbed student, possibly a bullying society, but not like the totally isolationist one of Columbine, where the most vivid student massacre in US history took place almost eight years to the date of the killings yesterday. Bush is amazingly thick if he cannot recon with rampant depression in Americans, which has next to nothing to do with lack of religion, and the easiness of acquiring a firearm.

I know, there is usually no reason to be so hostile to a man (George Bush) who already looks so bad. But really, this is a man who has fought against any measure of firearm regulation; a man who received large amounts of money from disgusting organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Gun Owners of America, organizations who, I might point out, care not about the rights of Americans, but about the profits of gun makers, plus a possible touch of sadism. The American gun culture and the politics associated with it are influential in Washington: lobbying groups like the NRA often get their way.

Okay, so the constitution allows the right for individuals and/or state-run militias — depending on one’s interpretation — to keep and bare arms. Great: if a government conspiracy strikes against you I’m sure your Magnum will do a fine job defending you against a couple dozen AKs and a handful of tanks. If a mugger strikes you on the street, yeah I’m sure whipping out and unlocking your small handgun would be a faster defense than a squirt of legal, and non-lethal, pepper spray. For all those who don’t undersand the concept of sarcasm, that was it.

Self defense is fine, but would it not be easier to just paralyze or harm in a minor way the perpitrator? There are plenty of options: from mace to the Taser to a less dangerous firearm.

Americans generally think of Mexico as a violent place, at least relatively to their society. Here's an interesting fact: "80% of guns in Mexico originate from the US".

The easiness involved in getting a gun makes it the weapon of choice for disturbed Americans, especially teens going through their more turbulent times, to commit suicide or harm others.

The majority of firearm deaths in the US are from suicide, a number around 70%, the same percentage representing homicide as a cause of gun deaths in other developed countries. Nearly half of all households in America have one of more firearms. One in three American households has a handgun (i.e. one could also consider it a gun not used for hunting or sport, more likely for crime or 'self defense'). Around one in ten of the at least 200 million guns in the US are used for hunting purposes.

However, in some categories violent gun deaths have dropped in the United States, and more regulation of certain types of rifles, namely semi-automatics and automatics, along with more locking features and child protection, has played a role. In the United States, the lifetime odds of dying from suicide by firearm is, as of 2003, one in 222; of assault by firearm, one in 314. There are over or around 30,000 deaths by firearm each year in the US.

Back to the Virginia Tech shooting: there was administrative incompitance abound as it took two hours for students to finally be alerted of the first shooting event. By then, it was too late. There is an investigation into whether the primary shooter of a confirmed 30 people (killed) had an accomplice in the first shooting, which killed two.

For some legal analysis, see Jack Balkin's timely overview of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution and how it relates to things like the 'war on terror'. He concludes:

Although there are abundant rhetorical similarities, I don't think that the issues arising from the Virginia Tech shootings and 9/11 are at all the same. What I do think they have in common is a tendency for overreaction: a tendency for salience-- and a sense of emergency-- to displace good public policy. If there is anything we should have learned from 9/11, it is that a sense of emergency can justify all sorts of bad decisions that we will come to regret later on.

Although Michael Moore is usually just annoying, this humorous-yet-informative cartoon scene from his documentary Bowling for Columbine is interesting, and funny:


technorati tags: virginia+tech, gun+control, gun+rights, blacksburg+shootings, politics, NRA, firearms, balkin, bush, white+house, news, second+amendment, bowling+for+columbine, columbine, michael+moore, videos

Libby trial verdict: guilty

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Breakthrough in North Korean nuke talks

I was skeptical of this news at first when CNN reported it earlier today, but it seems to be making the press rounds now...

BBC News:

Delegates at the six-party North Korea talks have reached a tentative deal, the US nuclear negotiator has said.

A "final text" outlining initial steps for disarming North Korea was now being referred to each government for approval, Christopher Hill said.

His comments followed late-night meetings on what was meant to be the last day of the talks in Beijing.

If approved, a deal would be a significant step forward in a process stalled since September 2005.

There has been no comment from North Korea.

The BBC's Daniel Griffiths in Beijing says the deal has yet to be approved by the leaders of each country involved.

Even then it would only mark the first step in what is likely to be a very long, slow process with further delays almost inevitable, he says.

The current round of talks - aimed at persuading Pyongyang to give up its nuclear programme - began on Thursday with a renewed sense of optimism from all sides.

But negotiations faltered over the amount of energy aid the North was demanding in exchange for disarming.

Reports suggest North Korea is seeking large-scale deliveries of heavy fuel oil in return for shutting down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor.

If only we could get this seeming progress on Iran's nuclear program. N Korea tested a nuclear missile back in October and there was plenty of reaction from the international community. As one might guess, the reaction was one of scorn and dismay as one of the world's most brutal closed states tested the most powerful weapons. What is really worrying is not that N Korea possibly could nuke a barren area in Alaska, but their other motives. N Korea is not well off financially — at all — so their best moves are to use nukes as leverage from incentives from the international community and sell nuclear technology, whether it be to al-Qaeda or Libya. The whole nuclear missile incident was confusing to say the least.

China has played a major role in the while issue. Obviously they do not want their neighbor to collapse for a number of reasons; the fact that both North Korea and China are supposedly communist is really not a factor at this point.

Three cheers for diplomacy — in re to North Korean nukes? We will have to see.

technorati tags: news, north+korea, nukes, north+korea+nuclear

Iraq situation: surging…

…in more ways than one — political, violence, and US troop levels (?).
UPDATED

See this post — on White House newspeak, public opinion on Iraq, and the "surge" — for more.

BBC News::

US President George W Bush is preparing to unveil his long-awaited strategy for the future of US involvement in Iraq.

Not as exciting or fresh as the iPhone, but important nonetheless. Ever since the Democrats’ win in the midterm elections last year, and since the new Congress’ swearing in almost a week ago, Bush has been stepping up the level of discussion on US policy in Iraq — prodded of course by the aforementioned political events and the former’s significance. In fact, as a Washington Post article points out, it’s a change in tactics, not strategy.

As Washington journalists debate whether to call President Bush's plan to send 20,000 more American troops into Iraq a "surge" or an "escalation," they are letting the White House get away with a much more momentous semantic scam.

The White House would have you believe that Bush tonight will be announcing a new strategy. But from all indications, all Bush will be talking about -- yet again -- is changing tactics.

No doubt the Democrats, still basking in their midterm glory and unaware that the honeymoon is [long] over, are very divided when (NYT) it comes to what to do with Iraq.

While Democrats find themselves unusually united in their resistance to a troop increase, party leaders are locked in an internal debate over how far to go in objecting to the administration’s Iraq strategy.

In the most aggressive of the new tactics, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, has said he will introduce legislation on Tuesday to require the president to gain new Congressional authority before sending more troops to Iraq. The bill is the first proposal in the Senate that would prohibit paying for an increase in American troops over their level on Jan. 1.

The new House speaker, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, has similarly suggested that Democrats consider blocking financing for a troop increase, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, vowed Monday “to take a look at it.”

The Democratic Party sailed to victory in midterm elections in the fall on a promise to change course in Iraq. Still, there is little consensus over how to proceed.

Some Democrats are urging an immediate withdrawal of troops and a drastic reduction in war spending. Others are calling for a gradual re-deployment of troops to move them out of Iraq. Still other Democrats are waiting for Mr. Bush to present his plan before criticizing it.

The expectations set by the elections, Democrats say, present a complicating challenge as they begin to govern.

Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said he believed that his party lost the White House in 2004 because of Iraq. “My concern now is that too many Democrats are going to want to play it safe on this issue and not take the strong stand that American people demand,” he said Monday.

The pressure from war critics on the Democratic left has been particularly intense. “The bottom line is that they were elected on a mandate to get the nation out of the mess in Iraq,” said Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org, a liberal political action committee.

By law, Congress can limit the nature of troop deployments, cap the size of military deployments and cut financing for existing or prospective deployments.

Representative Adam Smith of Washington, vice chairman of the moderate New Democratic Coalition, said he feared that withholding financing — even for new troops being sent to Iraq — could have a detrimental effect on all forces.

Both John Dickerson and Jacob Weisberg of Slate say that the Dems will not stop the “surge”. Is it all political showboating? (Probably not from Kennedy, but who knows…)

My view is that withholding finances would not only be a bad Democratic policy view in the eyes of the American people and would give the White House and GOP an excuse to rally around their causes, but it would also bring the matter of Iraq down to such a low partisan, political mudslinging level. A gradual deployment, by all military strategy standards, would not be a smart move either — it would be inefficient and more damaging than a blitz-like “surge”.

CFR analysis:

President Bush is expected to call for a surge of twenty thousand troops, or five combat brigades, bringing the total number of U.S. forces in Iraq to roughly 160,000. The plan will likely focus on clearing Baghdad and Anbar province of Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias with the help of Iraqi—and Kurdish peshmerga—forces and set benchmarks for the Iraqis to meet. A dramatic surge in reconstruction aid would also follow.

I do like the reconstruction bit. Check out the plan on Iraq withdrawal I enforce.

For more enlightenment on the “surge” and what it means, check out this FP article.

Who knows, maybe Bush's plan is just — and only just — recycled rhetoric.

I welcome the aspect of the Kennedy Plan that increases the righteous powers of Congress and puts a damper on the all-too-high (and escalating) powers of the president. Bush has already overreached on the "war on terror" and Iraq enough, its time to call him on it. However, keep in mind the Dems only have a slim majority in the Senate, and their 30-some seat majority in the House of Representatives is such a majority because many of the Democrats who beat Republicans were moderate-conservative Democrats beating moderate Republicans.

Bush's announcement finally comes! BBC News:

US President George W Bush has said he will send more than 20,000 extra troops to Iraq, as part of a new strategy for the future of US involvement.

In an address live on US TV, he said the deployment would help break the cycle of violence and hasten the day when US troops are able to come home.

The situation in Iraq was unacceptable, he said, adding that responsibility for mistakes rested with him.

However, US Democrats says they will oppose any "escalation" of the war.

technorati tags: bush, kennedy, pelosi, moveon, baghdad, iraq, news, surge, troop+surge, iraq+war, in+the+news, politics, democrats, congress, current

The year of the bad dictator deaths... (updated)

BREAKING NEWS!
Saddam to be hanged [by] Sunday (31 December) or within 48 hours!
From MSNBC:

Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, sentenced to death for his role in 148 killings in 1982, will have his sentence carried out by Sunday, NBC News reported Thursday. According to a U.S. military officer who spoke on condition of anonymity, Saddam will be hanged before the start of the Eid religious holiday, which begins that Sunday.

Earlier Thursday, Saddam’s chief lawyer implored world leaders to prevent the United States from handing over the ousted leader to Iraqi authorities for execution, saying the former dictator should enjoy protection from his enemies as a "prisoner of war."

Some info seems to be coming out of the White House too.

The White House expects ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to be executed perhaps as early as Saturday, a senior official said on condition of anonymity.

Between Pinochet, Slobodian Milosevic, and Saddam Hussein, many horrible, human rights-violating dictators will have died in 2006! — two of natural causes and one of execution (see here and here). 2006 is the year of the bad dictator deaths.


29 Dec. UPDATE1:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) An Iraqi judge says Saddam Hussein will be executed by Saturday at the latest.

29 Dec. UPDATE2:

Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has been handed over to the Iraqi authorities ahead of his execution, his lawyers say they have been told.

technorati tags: saddam, hussein, saddam+hussein, death+penalty, iraq, united+states, NBC, dictator, death, breaking+news, news, current