Congress legalizes Bush's NSA wiretapping program

An inept Congress hands Bush his NSA wiretapping program legalized on a silver platter...
Quiz time! What is the one of the last things Congress did before taking a four-week August recess? Hand more power to the Bush administration and slash away at the US Constitution, of course! Another sting to civil liberties courtesy of the 'war on terrorism' and the American government. Enter the Protect America Act of 2007 (Senate vote info; House votes). All links in this post are, in my opinion, quite important to understanding this complex issue.

Secrecy, spying, and a false 'war'
Why did the United States Congress cave in to (NYT) President George Bush on the expanded wiretapping bill? If this were the Clinton years I might think secret deal or tradeoff (i.e. you pass my stuff and I don't veto yours). However, that system hasn't been as prolific in the relationship between Bush's White House and the majority-Democratic Congress.

One would think this new bill would finally resolve the legality of the Bush administration's controversial domestic surveillance program. How could any self-respecting legislator approve it — let alone a Democrat? The answer appears to be fear, on both sides, especially Democratic, of appearing soft on terrorism.

The Dems have already spent — for better or for worse — so much political energy on symbolic jabs at the Bush administration on the subject of Iraq. But when it comes to something real, impacting, non-symbolic, and relevant, but by no means routine, they give George W. Bush the kind of victory he hoped for. The NSA wiretapping program — revealed in 2005 by The New York Times — has been ruled illegal again and again. It sidesteps an already troubling statute: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, whose secret judges grant secret warrants for secret searches or wiretaps, secretly. The Bush administration was forced to but the NSA program under the domain of FISA in January, resulting in a still-secret ruling that the program was illegal and placed restrictions, or something of the sort.

But the word 'illegal' is not in Bush's dictionary...
This bill, signed into law by Bush this weekend, validates the illegal wiretapping program that he has even admitted exists (in his own special way, plus it gave him a chance to attack the so-called liberal news media). It has a decent reach too. One of the administration's excuses for its until-recently-illegal eavesdropping program was that the current FISA court only deals with old means of communication, not modern ones like email and calls over fiber optic cable. Naturally, instead of requesting the then Republican-controlled Congress update the legislation (especially for the post-9/11 world, for which which the administration claims the illegal secret programs are essential), the White House decided to launch its own secret programs — legal or otherwise.

Extension of power
So what's wrong with this law just updating FISA to keep up with the times? Well, keeping up with technology is not the only changes this law puts into place...

Just as before, the FISA court only issues the search warrant after the search/wiretap is carried out — troubling, I know. But this legislation goes a bit further by removing more power from the courts, albeit secret ones that almost never take issue with clandestine spying on a domestic level. Now the searches can be carried out at the discretion of the attorney general or intelligence director.

That is all the more troubling considering the political yes-men Bush keeps in his cabinet and staff, and the fact that Alberto Gonzales is known for politically-motivated (in)justice. The horror! And as if the fact that Gonzales can now order secret searches, legally this time, isn't enough to make you a bit queasy for the disregard of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, keep in mind that under this new law the AG and head of intelligence have plenty of discretionary leeway when it comes to ordering secret surveillance. Plus, it's all secret; I'd expect nothing less transparent from this administration.

The sorta good news
A positive is that the AG will indeed have his power checked to a certain extent by internal audits, which have proved their worth in the past. That aspect of oversight is one the White House doesn't like.

One sliver of good news is that because of lawsuit threats that only increase under this legislation, telecommunications companies and ISPs are less likely to be bullied into invading their customers' privacy under pressure by the Bush administration. In fact, as I understand it this law removes the shield the White House has desperately tried to use to protect the telcos, which is bad news for the industry. Still, Gonzales has less leeway to invade our phone and internet records, though more to wiretap if the conversation might (emphasis on might) be with someone outside of the United States. Nonetheless, the telcos are as scared as ever of being sued for disclosing private details of their customers, as the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, as did the NYT (linked above):

The law also gave the administration greater power to force telecommunications companies to cooperate with such spying operations. The companies can now be compelled to cooperate by orders from the attorney general and the director of national intelligence.
...
In fact, pressure from the telecommunications companies on the Bush administration has apparently played a major hidden role in the political battle over the surveillance issue over the past few months.

Worse than FISA
FISA was scary enough — but maybe understandable and, to an extent, justifiable — but putting the secret search rights into Bush's political cronies (yes, that's what Gonzales, among others, is) is going more than a tad overboard. Justifying it with national security is puzzling. The least Congress could do is get rid of Alberto Gonzales, which would take a bipartisan effort; many, many Republicans are on board with the idea and the Democrats have been jabbing at it for months. This new law will last six months or so, ending in early February 2008.

Just to make this more confusing, this all ties back to the legality of the 'war on terror':

With minor exceptions, FISA authorizes electronic surveillance only upon certain specified showings, and only if approved by a court. The statute specifically allows for warrantless wartime domestic electronic surveillance—but only for the first fifteen days of a war. 50 U.S.C. § 1811. It makes criminal any electronic surveillance not authorized by statute, id. § 1809; and it expressly establishes FISA and specified provisions of the federal criminal code (which govern wiretaps for criminal investigation) as the "exclusive means by which electronic surveillance...may be conducted," 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) (emphasis added).[2]

The Department of Justice concedes that the NSA program was not authorized by any of the above provisions. It maintains, however, that the program did not violate existing law because Congress implicitly authorized the NSA program when it enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against al-Qaeda, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). But the AUMF cannot reasonably be construed to implicitly authorize warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during wartime, where Congress has expressly and specifically addressed that precise question in FISA and limited any such warrantless surveillance to the first fifteen days of war.

So even under FISA the NSA program is questionable. No wait, the White House says it doesn't follow FISA rules because of the 'war on terror' powers given to the president by Congress. No worries: this new law legalizes all that existing wiretapping junk and then some.


There's balance, it's just all tilted towards the White House, (and the only checks are top secret)
In the war against terrorism there's no need to bother with those pesky courts of Constitutional practice anymore, says the White House. Congress seems to have fallen in line with that logic. And this isn't the first time. Remember the horrendous Military Commissions Act of 2006?

Isn't Congress supposed to oversee the operations of the executive? Has everyone forgotten the fundamental idea of checks and balances? With this law Congress has only given more power to the bloated, unpopular, unitary executive Bush administration that a majority of it claims to hate. It also cuts away further at the notion that Americans have rights guaranteed to them by their constitutional, and that civil liberties come with those rights. Freedom trumps security — or at least it should. But in a police state as well as in a certain way modern America (though nothing near a police state), fear rules all.

Soft on civil liberties
If the Democrats are so afraid of being painted as weak on national security, than actually being weak on civil liberties is not a very good fix. Are they more worried of what their opponents think of them and will paint them as than what they are actually doing? That's just sad.

When it comes to the reaction to national security — GWOT and its consequences — the Democrats have been disappointing. Does what your opponents think of you matter more than doing the right thing? Enjoy your recess, Congress. Hopefully you'll come back to Capitol Hill with more brains and balls.

Balkinization offers brilliant legal analysis and opinion on the 'proposed FISA "fix"', as they call it.

This post is over 1,500 words. Eventually I will probably cut it into shorter, more specific posts then expanding them. So don't be alarmed if you see a post with parts of this essay in the future.

Rock music and American pop counterculture

From the early origins of rock and roll, to the age of rebellion, to modern fads...
Popular culture and entertainment have always served something people could copy — whether that thing is a lifestyle, a drink, or a hair style. The Beatles were idolized and modeled by Western youth in the 1960s. Fonzie in the American TV show Happy Days provided a role model for many of that generation. He was cool; people wanted to be like him. Jennifer Aniston's character's hairstyle in Friends was copied enough for it to earn its own place in American fashion: "The Rachel". American pop culture has served as a promoter of turning points in American culture.

Pop culture — the widespread appeal of modern or radical cultural elements in a society — seemed to flourish in the 1960s in the form of art, just as being a rebel (i.e. counterculture) seemed like the cool thing to do. It's important to note that like many phrases, pop culture has various definitions believed by various people. A pop culture reader, Common Culture, defines pop culture as

the shared knowledge and practices of a specific group at a specific time...pop culture both reflects and influences people's way of life...pop culture is transitory, subject to change, and often an initiator of change.

Rebellion is a common theme in modern pop culture, especially in regards to music. Punk and its early rock predecessors created a lifestyle in the style of its music. Art has always been a good measurement of a society's openness, its cultural diversity, and even its political feelings. Just as punk music rocked to the voices of angst and rebellion, and the more recent emo movement has played to the (intentionally) depressed, hip-hop and rap saw their beginnings in African Americans venting against the white foundation of the United States. Dr. Dre's (et al) "Fuck the Police", Public Enemy's "Fight the Power", and, in modern rap, "Ridin' [Dirty]" have served as an outlet against a real or perceived oppressor — it's time to stand up, to rebel.

Punk rock was brought to the US in great part by the many great rock bands of the United Kingdom. Bob Dylan's pop-folk became legendary and lasted decades; Elvis Presley's individual popularity saw the role of rock and roll music in pop culture exemplified with his country and blues "rockabilly" (1950s); The Beatles brought pop and rock in general to the United States from Britain (1960s); the Rolling Stones paved the way for more blues and rock and roll (1960s-'70s); David Bowie, the 'chameleon' of rock, was especially influential in the 1970s; the Sex Pistols rocked in a purely punk fashion (1970s); Pink Floyd ushered in progressive rock (1970s) and Led Zeppelin hard rock and heavy metal (1960s-'70s); Queen created an explosion in glam, arena, and hard/progressive rock (1970s-'80s); Nirvana's grunge rock brought in an era of its own in the '90s. Most of the aforementioned came from the UK, a common trend in the history of rock, especially punk.

Especially in their beginnings, movies also served as great pioneers in change of culture and opinion. Though Hollywood didn't used to be so 'liberal' as it is today, movies and television did break down a good many of taboos. But the real counterculture movement rested in the hands of the music industry, with many of the artists introducing pop rock, punk, etc., to our borders coming from Britain. The roots of rock rest in the US though, thanks in part to the great racism against blacks in the US. Such racism also later resulted in hip-hop and rap music from mostly-black urban inter-city areas. Jazz and blues were the predecessors to rock. Scott Joplin in 1899 published a very important composition, "The Maple Leaf Rag", that would come to usher in an age of jazz by boosting the genre of ragtime. Jazz became particularly prevalent in the 1920s and '30s. Ray Charles influenced soul, and thus rock, in the '50s. Motown and soul, which branched off from early jazz in a separate direction than rock, grew in the 1950s and '60s. The early rock and roll innovators bridged what was then experimental and classical music into pop rock.
As rock became more prevalent on American airwaves and in its culture, more bands came and more branches of rock were creates. There are some who believe that rock in general is a force to use to fight against 'the man', just as Public Enemy fought 'the power'. There have often been "rock against..." movements — like "Rock Against Bush" or "Rock Against Racism". Charity events like Live Aid use rock music for a reason: it is often seen as the music of change. It's also popular and culturally influential. And how much many punk rebels want others to think of them as a small, distant, underground minority, punk and related forms of rock have entered the veins of American music, with political and cultural venting galore, and mainstream appeal. Alternative rock, hard rock, progressive rock, psychedelic, and punk rock all express in their music a means of change from the status quo, a rebellion of sorts also seen in some urban music (e.g. rap, hip-hop).

1970s punk rock helped build alternative rock, which was more of a culmination of various rock genres, including electronic, folk, and jazz, and indie music. Alternative rock resulted in more forms of indie, as well as grunge, Britpop, and post-punk. Marginalized in the 1980s, alternative saw its true calling in the '90s and the beginning of the next millennium. All Music Guide states:

Alternative pop/rock is essentially a catch-all term for post-punk bands from the mid-'80s to the mid-'90s. There is a multitude of musical styles within alternative rock, from the sweet melodies of jangle-pop to the disturbing metallic grind of industrial, yet are all tied together by a similar aesthetic -- they all existed and operated outside [sic] of the mainstream.

What effects on the fabric of pop culture in the United States have rebellious music reaped? The 1960s and '70s saw the real formation of modern (post Second World War) counterculture. Counterculture is the political opposition of the current mainstream by a cultural group creating a movement for a period of time. There have been many times of counterculture prevalence, but possibly none so influential, rebellious, and liberal as the counterculture of the modern era. This counterculture was spread throughout developed nations (i.e. North America, Western Europe, New Zealand, Australia) by the rebel youth largely of the Baby Boom.

Hippies were the main group of US counterculture, as opposition to the Vietnam war grew, sex, drugs, and other moral issues became less taboo (within that cultural group), and the conservative politics and culture seemed too restricting, especially in terms of civil rights (segregation) and governmental powers during the Cold War. Briefly put, counterculture of that time period brought about change by those in wealthy, educated nations. Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, and non-musical figures like Andy Warhol, played large roles in this movement. Nowadays, hippies are almost nonexistent, emphasizing the place of pop-counterculture in specific period of time, and not a more evolving, drawn out phenomenon like general culture.
Just as counterculture is a wider movement, rebellion can be large or small in scale. Rebels or pseudo-rebels popped up during and after the counterculture that lasted from roughly 1965 to 1978 in the United States. Punks and indies are seen as the more mainstream survivors or evolution of the counterculture movement. Any sort of rebellious movement has fought conformity, the establishment, and the social status quo — e.g. embracing communism throughout the Cold War, opposing the Iraq war today. The main timeframe where counterculture wasn't a subculture was in its 20th century, post-WWII heyday.

There is no doubt there will be future punk manifestations in the now-postmodern art era. However, it is unlikely we will see another era of hippies, music revolutionaries, and a shift in nearly every form of Western art and culture anytime soon. Who will be the next Beatles, the next Warhol, or the next Sex Pistols? Pop culture will evolve just as art does in one sense and society in another. The anti-establishment voices in music and entertainment will continue to cry out — as long as there is an establishment or movement to fight against.

References

"Alternative rock." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

"Black History Month 2003: Timeline of Key Dates in African-American History". NPR. 2003.

"Counterculture." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

Cousin Steve. "Timeline: Significant events in the history of Rock Music". 1998.

"Genre: Alternative/Indie-Rock." All Music Guide.

McKinney, Jessie. "Pop Culture Definition". Homepage. 13 Feb 2004.

Palmer, Robert. "Critic's Notebook; The Evolution of Rock, a Long and Winding Road". New York Times. 22 August 1985.

Petracca, Michael and Madeleine Sorapure. Common Culture. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2004.

"Punk ideologies." Wikipedia.

"Queen declared 'top British band'". BBC News.

Robb, John. "Popular culture: The Birth of Punk". The Independent. 5 Nov 2005.

Turnwall, Craig. "The apparent indeterminable classification of counterculture", an essay.

Van Dorston, A.S. "A History of Punk". Fast 'n' Bulbous Music Webzine.

Oh how the mighty have fallen: Saddam is dead

Saddam Hussein, former Iraqi leader convicted of crimes against humanity, has been executed this morning for crimes against humanity — just before dawn Iraq time (see Wikipedia). A slew of news analysis and historical tidbits have resurfaced, with the wide view that his death will be of little real significance for the situation in Iraq and the wider Middle East. If anything, Saddam's death outlines how his trial went — and failed — and the effects will be of historical symbolism and the small group of Saddam's Baathist loyalists up in arms while many celebrate. First of all, hanging a person is not the greatest way to start a country's legal system; the ensuing celebrations (from Iraqis and those US government) do not help frame the nation as all-too-well either, as if the violence did not already show Iraq to be in deep, serious strife. The reactions have largely been mixed.

The trial of Saddam Hussein and some of his closest minions was supposed to show Iraqis how bad their former regime had been and how a trial and the legal system should operate. It was all a judicial disgrace. More than a handful of countries seem to think that the execution will — if anything — increase the problems in Iraq. It is not going to have a positive effect, that's for sure. I should say that I am not at all a proponent of capital punishment.
—————
As I mentioned in my previous post on Saddam's impending execution, Saddam is one of several horrible former heads of state who have died this year. There was an extensive Atlantic Monthly article from 2002 profiling the dictator Saddam, who is to be buried with his brothers.
—————
What will the hanging of Saddam Hussein accomplish? What was it meant to accomplish — besides killing Saddam, that is. Between 5:30 and 5:45 (AM) local Iraqi time, the hanging took place. The era of Saddam’s domination in Iraq is now definitely over; he ruled absolutely for nearly 25 years before being overthrown in the United States-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The execution was videoed to quash doubts that the execution was staged, though the actual act of hanging was not photographed (only before and after). “A dark chapter in Iraq’s history has come to an end” said Iraq state media while reporting the execution of Saddam. The immediate aftermath of the execution yielded little reaction in the Iraqi capital city of Baghdad. As word spread of Saddam’s death, some small crowds formed in celebration, a minority mourning the death of their former leader. One can only hope that the book of Saddam is really closed and that no new complications — such as a worse-than-expected reaction from Sunni Iraqis — will spring up as a result of the hanging. Initial media reports said that Saddam was killed alongside his half brother and a judge from his regime, both tried alongside him, though those reports were found to be erroneous. The judge and the half brother will be executed after the Eid holiday.
—————
Rehabilitation certainly would not have been a judicial option for his crimes, but his execution was not just either — nor is the state or otherwise unwarranted killing of a human being (e.g. not for self defense, etc.). Saddam Hussein: a power figure, a murderer and torturer, a danger to regional security, an overall bad man — but as a human being capital punishment should not have been executed (pun) upon him. I will not miss him, and I hope few or no others do, but that does not mean I am content with his hanging or the effects it will bring to an already destabilized — to say the least — region. Most emotions had already been expressed over the merits and failures in the man of Saddam Hussein, so many of the reactions to the news of his hanging are expected.
—————
Saddam Hussein’s trial, which started in 2005 and ended earlier this year, was supposed to show Iraqis how their leader had poorly led them; the crimes he had committed. The trial was also supposed to illustrate an atypical example of the criminal justice and legal systems for the fledgling Iraqi government and citizens being introduced to ‘democracy’. The failures of this trial — on a human rights, legal, and political scale — are momentous enough to make this “example” trial have a negative affect on Iraq. It was a botched trial, it is believed that the display of ‘justice’ did not even teach the Iraqis or their government anything about how a justice system is supposed to work. The long list of additional charges against Saddam will either be dismissed or will be filed and brought against him in his absence [post mortem]. The latter would be ridiculous, I think history has already made its judgment and there is no reason for the Iraqi judiciary to further ridicule itself. The decision on the other charges against Saddam and how the government is to go about treating them is yet to be announced. The “new direction” for Iraq was a heavily rhetoricized American political plan which emphasized the positive points that trying and convicting Saddam would bring — namely a national unity against Saddam, making at least some unity. However, that “new direction” outcome was about as good as the neoconservative doctrine that got the US to invade Iraq in the first place. “National reconciliation” was another key political point, which was minimized by the botched trial of Saddam and the subsequent hasty decision to execute him.
—————
I am reading — among other things — a book called The J Curve. The author, Eurasia Group president Ian Bremmer, wrote an article a while back using parts of the chapter of his book on Saddam's Iraq (which I just finished).

You can learn a lot about a country by looking at the relationship between its stability and its "openness." Stability is a measure of the extent to which a country's government can weather a political, economic or social crisis. Openness is a measure of the degree to which people, ideas, information, goods and services flow freely in both directions across a state's borders and within the country itself.

Some countries (the United States, Germany, Japan and many others) are stable because they are open. Other states (North Korea, Cuba, Iran and others) are stable because they are closed. In each of these closed states, a small governing elite has isolated the country's citizens from the outside world and from one another. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was stable because it was closed. President Bush hopes the new Iraq will be stable because it is open.

Imagine a graph on which the vertical axis measures a state's stability and the horizontal axis measures its openness. Each nation appears as a data point on the graph. Taken together, these data points produce a pattern very much like the letter J. Nations higher on the graph are more stable; those lower are less stable. Nations to the right of the dip in the J are more open. Those to the left are less open.

For a country on the closed left side of the curve to move to the open right side, it must pass through the dip in the J -- a period of dangerous instability. In the early 1990s, South Africa, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia each descended into this dip. South Africa re-emerged on the right side of the J curve as an open post-apartheid state. The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia came apart and ceased to exist.

Right-side states have a collective interest in helping to shepherd authoritarian left-side states through the unstable dip in the curve toward a stability that is sturdier because it is based on openness. The Bush administration hopes to achieve just this kind of transition in Iraq.

In the spring of 2003, the United States pushed Iraq into the dip in the J curve.

The Bush administration finds itself in this position because it ignored one of the fundamental lessons of the J curve: it's one thing to destabilize an isolated authoritarian state; it's quite another to transform it into a country in which political and social stability is grounded in the free flow of ideas, information, trade and people.

That's something that Iraqis will one day have to do on their own.

The situation in Iraq is worse now than it was under Saddam, there is no question about that.
—————
One interesting thing is how Saddam stayed in power through his foreign policy disasters, including the invasion of Kuwait in 1991 — which he lost — and the skirmishes with Iran throughout the 1980s (and other dates), namely the Iran-Iraq War — of which no one really won. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of Saddam’s tight and ruthless, and paranoid, stay-in-power policies, his attacks on Kurds and other ethnic and political factions resisting him, and from the stringent sanctions placed on Iraq [by the US]. Saddam lived a life of harming others for his own gain; for his thirst for power and to retain that power. He ruled by fear.
—————
Now a problem is that Iran is as powerful as ever, extending their Shia influence into Iraq too (Iraq's leading coalition is of the Shia Islam sect, Iran is a Shia Islamic state). Saddam — a Sunni — kept Iraq a major stabilizer in the Sunni-Shia Middle Eastern power vacuum. Now, Iran is almost unchecked in power at a time when it is taunting the international community. Also, the Sunni elite that used to run Iraq were dismissed in disastrous American policies in Iraq, increasing the number of guys with money, power/influence, and guns — three things that those former Baath party elites had. This made the ensuing insurgency all the more strong and make Shia-Sunni tensions build up to a high level of civil war that Iraq is in today.
—————
The New York Times had an excellent editorial on the subject.

The important question was never really about whether Saddam Hussein was guilty of crimes against humanity. The public record is bulging with the lengthy litany of his vile and unforgivable atrocities: genocidal assaults against the Kurds; aggressive wars against Iran and Kuwait; use of internationally banned weapons like nerve gas; systematic torture of countless thousands of political prisoners.

What really mattered was whether an Iraq freed from his death grip could hold him accountable in a way that nurtured hope for a better future. A carefully conducted, scrupulously fair trial could have helped undo some of the damage inflicted by his rule. It could have set a precedent for the rule of law in a country scarred by decades of arbitrary vindictiveness. It could have fostered a new national unity in an Iraq long manipulated through its religious and ethnic divisions.

It could have, but it didn’t. After a flawed, politicized and divisive trial, Mr. Hussein was handed his sentence: death by hanging. This week, in a cursory 15-minute proceeding, an appeals court upheld that sentence and ordered that it be carried out posthaste. Most Iraqis are now so preoccupied with shielding their families from looming civil war that they seem to have little emotion left to spend on Mr. Hussein or, more important, on their own fading dreams of a new and better Iraq.

What might have been a watershed now seems another lost opportunity. After nearly four years of war and thousands of American and Iraqi deaths, it is ever harder to be sure whether anything fundamental has changed for the better in Iraq.

Toppling Saddam Hussein did not automatically create a new and better Iraq. Executing him won’t either.

technorati tags: saddam+hussein, saddam+executed, saddam+dead, breaking-news, news, iraq, death+penalty, politics, opinion, analysis, middle+east, justice, new+york+times, dictator, saddam+hang, hanging, capital+punishment, legal, government, united+states, american, usa, saddam+trial, obituary, court

Spotlight on Syria: what we know, what they can do, their motives and actions, and more...

Spotlight on Syria ^{search, news}
General references: Wikipedia, CIA, BBC, FRD/LoC, DoS, CUL

Can this oppressive police state and fighter of Islamic extremism really be an ally to the US in its "war on terror" and troubles in Iraq? Yes. But can it happen in an okay manner accaptable to both Western and Middle Eastern powers?

President Bush critisizes Syria for its human rights — he shouldn't be one to talk, as Syrian leader points out on visit to Moscow. How free are the Syrian people?; how much can Syria do to help the Middle East? One must recognize that both the Syrian and American governments are fighting two common causes: Islamic extremism and human rights [in the process of fighting Islamic extremism or in the name of said fight].

Syria and Iran have become closer friends as of recent; the international community (especially the US) has moved further away from Iran recently. I plan to draw up a little map of Syria's social network soon to help clarify this whole international relation's web.


There is a surprising little amount of information about Syria — as I have found out when compiling and writing this post. The reason it is so surprising is the fact that Syria is in the news regularly and it is part of the geographical area called the Middle East. If there is ever no big news coming out of the mid-east, you know something is wrong. Syria was granted indipendence in 1946 after the French ended their rule over the former Ottoman Empire land.

First off, why is Syria so anti-Israel and anti-US, even siding with Iran (which it has not had an exactly peachy relationship with historically)? The fact that Israel occupies land that rightfully belongs to Syria, the Golan Heights, is one major element to Syria's foreign policy. As we all know and has been shown (especially recently), Arabs and others in the Middle East are very proud of their land; their land is extremely important to them. Israel is more powerful and fruitful than any other Middle Eastern state, so one may propose that the reason Arab states and peoples are so attached to their land is its all they definitively have. When Israel takes away land, this produces an extreme outcome — for reasons aforementioned. Imagine you have one toy, and your young neighbor has many better toys. Let's say your neighbor took away or threatened to take away your toy — or parts of it. You would feel extremely volatile. Tie in some nationalism and exploited cultural [extremism], and add the fact that many need land to survive, and you have an aspect of the Middle Eastern situation between Israel and the Arab states, in a nutshell.

The Golan Heights were captured by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War.

In a pre-emptive attack on Egypt that drew Syria and Jordan into a regional war in 1967, Israel made massive territorial gains capturing the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula up to the Suez Canal. The principle of land-for-peace that has formed the basis of Arab-Israeli negotiations is based on Israel giving up land won in the 1967 war in return for peace deals recognising Israeli borders and its right to security. The Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt as part of the 1979 peace deal with Israel.

The peace talks between Israel and Syria over the Golan Heights stalled in January 2000. The Israeli control of this recognized area of Syria has led Syria to back the extremist security wing of Hezbollah, as well as other groups. Syria has also aided other Islamic and Arab terrorist organizations — whether directly or indirectly.

Syria has been receiving a plethora of refugees from strife-ridden nations such as Iraq and Palestine.

The Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton commission) report recommended the US work with Syria in the fight against Islamic extremism and the stablilizing of Iraq. This set off shockwaves through out Washington, making politicians, including President Bush, showing their ignorant cowboy international diplomacy mentality again. Meaning, 'we won't work with them unless they stop doing all their bad stuff' what is left out of this thinking is a sprinkle of reality '...even if its stuff we do and have control to stop without really harming ourselves, and work with us without incentive'. British PM Tony Blair has shown his support for talks with Syria and Iran, after all, you cannot be best friends with everyone you hold diplomatic discourse — or aim to do so — with!

Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively. In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available. Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of Iran’s nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq.

The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability. There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel’s right to exist), and Syria.

As was reported about the ISG recommendations

The report said Bush should put aside misgivings and engage Syria, Iran and the leaders of insurgent forces in negotiations on Iraq’s future, to begin by year’s end. It urged him to revive efforts at a broader Middle East peace. Barring a significant change, it warned of a slide toward chaos.

Being left out of big matters which affect you directly equals hostility and unrest which does not equal peace.

Yet another significant dilemma is Syria's history with its neighbor, Lebanon. This relationship, which was heavily exposed after the 2005 killing of the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri — possibly by the Syrian government — has obviously put Syria into the dominating roll over Lebanon. Syria pulled its troops out of Lebanon only last year [2005].

Syrians think of themselves as family, and believe strongly in the aspect of respect. Though people — including the press — can now critisize the parliment, prime minister, and others in the government, the president and army are off limits. Syria has been in a state of emergency effectively since 1963. Which is similar, but not absolutely comparable to, how the United States has been since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. Believe it or not, Israel has declared war on — meaning technically been at war with — Syria since/after the Yom Kippur War. As of 2005, Syria was rated seven on a scale of one (most free) to seven (least free) by civil liberty and political rights group Freedom House. On the whole human rights front, an in-depth Amnesty International report lists and explanatorily delves into the abuses and status of human rights in Syria. A summary of the summary:

Freedom of expression and association remained severely restricted. Scores of people were arrested and hundreds remained imprisoned for political reasons, including prisoners of conscience and others sentenced after unfair trials. However, about 500 political prisoners were released under two amnesties. Torture and ill-treatment were common. Human rights defenders continued to face harassment. Women and members of the Kurdish minority continued to face discrimination.

So, yeah, Syria is horrible in regards to every aspect of human rights.

Another problem, besides human rights, with Syria is its relations to terrorist groups. Mind you, the Islamic brotherhood and many other groups are strongly condemned and against the law (can you say death penalty), but its anti-Israel groups like Hezbollah that get Syria's support. In a CFR report and recap of the whole Syria-Lebanon and Syria-terrorist shebang, a few key points should be noted:

Some experts characterize Syria’s involvement in terrorism as “passive support.” But Syria has been involved in numerous past terrorist acts and still supports several terrorist groups.

Syria—along with Iran—gives the Lebanese militia Hezbollah "substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid," according to the State Department. Iranian arms bound for Hezbollah regularly pass through Syria, experts say.

The US and other powers should work with Syria while working with Israel in order to stifle Syria's terrorist group support. On the human rights front, the US should try to nudge Syria in the right direction and work on its own human rights situation. This will cover the fronts of Syria-terrorist, Syria-Iran, and Syria-Israel relations, and, by working with Syria and other Middle Eastern states, the US and international community can better Iraq as well as the states they are working with. Win for US, win for Syria, win for Iraq, win for Middle East and international political stability; good and bad for Israel; not too good for Iran (but they are in control of much of their fate in these matters).
technorati tags: syria, bush, international+relations, terrorism, war+on+terror, Islam, religious+extremism, human+rights, civil+liberties, politics, news, in+the+news, current, foreign+affairs, israel, golan+heights, diplomacy, baker+hamilton, iraq+study+group, harari, lebanon, freedom+house, united+states, profile, country, iran, syrian+society, international, foreign, world, middle+east, history, reference

Yeah, the Democrats won, what's next?

Okay, the “thumpin’”, as President Bush put it, is over. The 2006 US midterm elections came to a close weeks ago, believe me, after all the blogging I did during the elections, I am relieved. Yeah, yeah, the Democrats took the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively, by a landslide and a margin, but what’s next? Time to celebrate for moderates and liberals in the country? Time for change with the new majority Democrats? Not exactly.

The upcoming Democratic-majority US Congress may well be as bad as the current one. One positive: maybe the Dems will stick it to President Bush. One negative: do they have enough of a majority — even within their own party — to get anything done, let alone show the president that he is not the sovereign leader of America (or the world)? What about the fact that Bush has veto power? Just the squabbling — regardless of political affiliation — over Iraq, which, coupled with economy, was the main focus of the voters this past election, shows that the American people may be in for some ride these next years.

2006 elections
Even before the elections, political analysts were warning that even if the Dems won not all would be well. First of all, winning Democrats would most likely be unseating moderate Republicans, replacing them with slightly conservative to conservative Democrats, and, since they would not be able to get any moderate or liberal change done, the Democrats would be sad and worn out (as if they were not already). Meanwhile, the GOP would be ready to rise up to the Democrats. America [usually] loves an underdog, and keep in mind, a quarter of the electorate are evangelical or fundamentalist Christians — predominately in the South. The GOP would rally this massive demographic and stall any good chance of reform by creating a Democratic nightmare in 2008.

Gridlock, past and future
For the next two years, the Democratic Party will also have to deal with the fact that, even though they control the legislature, the executive still has its occupier — a Republican. I am speaking, of course, of President George W. Bush.

Back in 1992, a man from Arkansas, a man with a hope for America, was elected. President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, served for eight years, many of which were probably not what he wished they were. In 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich and others launched what they coined as the “contract with America”, now referred to as the ‘Republican Revolution’ that resulted in massive seat gains for the GOP in both houses of Congress. This disabled Clinton from passing many of his sought-after laws. This also gave Americans a good taste of what political gridlock really is.

After the 110th United States Congress is sworn in next January, there will be at least two years of this gridlock. The differences between the Clinton era gridlock and the upcoming gridlock include the fact that back then the Democrats controlled the presidency, the Republicans the Congress, and it is now the other way around. The Dems also have less of a majority now then the Republicans had back in the ‘90s, and there is an ever-increasing conservative base ready to be fired up to come to the assistance of the Republican Party.

Pelosi and the Democratic roadmap
It will be interesting to see what the first woman Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, will bring. Pelosi is third in line for the Presidency (on the very off and unrealistic occasion that both President Bush and Vice President Chaney were to pass away in the next two years).

I am starting to feel a bit more optimistic about House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi's vision for the Democratic Party and America as a whole. Pelosi’s "100-hour plan" — a spin-off of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “100-day plan” — looks especially promising, albeit quite ambitious. The plan, outlined in an often-cited Associated Press article, calls for ethics reforms (e.g. lobbying restrictions), implementation of the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission (which the US government is still getting failing grades from), and an easier way for people to pay for college (e.g. interest rate cuts for student loans, educational initiatives). On Pelosi’s 100-hour to do list is also the passing of federally-funded stem cell research legislation, a raise of the minimum wage (from $5.15 to $7.25), the creation of a path to lower drug prices (which 85% of Americans back) [for those using Medicare], and other positive and progressive goals.

The ethics reforms are planned for the first day, in order to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation,” says Pelosi. During this entire plan, Pelosi has told AP she does not wish to further raise the national deficit that has ballooned under this president and this Congress; she says she is to institute a “pay-as-you-go” plan after her first 100 hours. The ultimate goal of this so-called 100-hour plan: "drain the swamp" of Republican rule the past 12 years in Congress, says Pelosi.

Political climate
The political winds have changed with the elections resulting in a Congressional majority for the Democrats, but it may be too insignificant, too late. Speaking of changes in the political winds, President Bush seems to want to be everyone's bipartisan friend again; a "united, not a divider", I doubt it. Much of the White House's political strategy depends on polarizing and dividing a nation, which is easy to do with (1) lack of government transparency and accountability more than ever (2) fear mongering in the "war on terrorism" (3) splitting a two-party nation so most vote for the GOP, using (1) and (2) as vote-gainers. This is all along with ideological and economic class partitioning, e.g. evangelicals/religious right, neoconservatives, 'safety moms', 'Wall Street types', and [other] special interests.

One ongoing question is whether the GOP can keep these conservatives and evangelicals on their side and can get them out to the polls, while staying congruent with respective ideologies of their various right-wing bases. This is where a two-party system with lax campaign finance regulation gets America: extreme polarized partisanship, elevated positions for special interest groups, and very limited choices for already-disgruntled constituents.

Representatives Pelosi (D-CA) and Boxer (D-CA) are two of the few quite liberal House members; Senators Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), and Kennedy (D-MA) are some of the few quite liberal Senate members (all are Democrats).

Dem options; in conclusion
The Democratic win in Congress is symbolic at best. There are, however, a handful of things that may be of good use to the Democrats and the nation. One of the best things that can come out of this exchange of power in Congress is that the rules former Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay set up making the House majority party so much more powerful could be used to the Democrat's advantage — and possibly the advantage of the nation. DeLay is now indicted on a slew of well-deserved charges, including those relating to campaign finance, and is being investigated for his roll in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandals.

It ultimately comes down to this question: can the Democrats make a significant difference with their new majority in the US political scene? Unless the Democrats can rally support for the required two-thirds vote for a presidential veto override, I remain pessimistic. The Democrats may be or may not be lucky enough to get some of the forward-looking reforms passed by a majority of Congress anyway.

I am not too optimistic that the Dems will take full advantage of the majority power and the ability to investigate the White House by using Executive subpoena, but not to the extent that Executive-Legislature relations are harmed [too much]. One can only hope that the Dems will take this chance, grab it by its horns, and make the best of their around 30-seat advantage in the 435-seat House of Representatives. No matter what, there will be gridlock.

Meanwhile, the race for 2008 is already well underway. That’s politics.

The above is an essay outlining the Democratic victory and the issues surrounding it in this past midterm election in the United States. Some of the writing is extracted from previous posts I wrote on this blog.

technorati tags: democrats, republicans, gop, dems, pelosi, nancy+pelosi, bush, chaney, delay, house, congress, usa, united+states, politics, news, current+affairs, in+the+news, iraq, white+house, 2006, elections, midterm, essay, opinion, news, president, senate, 100-hour+plan, minimum+wage, economy, domestic+issues, liberals, conservatives, ideologies, demographics, gengrich, newt, feingold, feinstein, boxer, california, kennedy, history, analysis, veto, gridlock, majority, in+perspective, clearthought

Essay on identity, political correctness, and the uncontrollable factors of one's life

Though I consider myself centre-left, liberal in modern, relatively conservative America, I do not believe in affirmative action. Is it not hypocrisy to fill up positions that would be for those possibly better suited for them with people who are minorities — just because they are of “minority” ethnic status? Keep in mind there is no “average American” (you can’t have 2.2 children), though the vast, vast majority of those living in the United States describe themselves as “average”. Another issue I have been dealing with is that of identity. If I were black, or African American, would I care more about African American civil rights in the US, or anywhere with those of African descent? Race is something that is biological. Although the term “race” sometimes makes people forget we are all of the same race; we are all humans… for the sake of this writing, I’ll ignore that semantic aspect.

Traits that are biological are — for the most part — uncontrollable factors by us, as is gender, etc. We have seen what happens when people change the color of their skin or modify the sex of their body, and that receives a usually-bitter response from society in general. If we are to look at each other in a way where we cannot change these biological and uncontrollable traits, and many times it is scientifically impossible to do so, should the fact that I am not black hinder me from caring about the human rights of those who are not of the same close descent as me? Although I think you are what you are, people should be able to do those things to their body unless it is endangering themselves or the livelihood of others.

Since the era of African American civil rights, largely in the 1950s and 60s, all of America seems to be stuck in a time warp. Of political correctness — which is often hypocritical and irrational, like religion —, of viewing others as equal even though many think otherwise, of not questioning how Americans are supposed to look at things and keeping the status quo. Although I am not totally against political correctness, it does stifle free thought and free speech in ways I obviously do not promote. This era of excessive close-mindedness needs to come to an end, as does the one oppressing homosexuals, which is quite tantamount to past oppressions of those of African descent, et al. (See my views on gays in this post and this one, more soon.)

So, my question is this, does someone view the world differently for being different via an uncontrollable factor, e.g. being black instead of white? Even if they are not treated differently (which is sadly unlikely, even in this day in age)? Even if they can dissociate themselves from racial and other uncontrollable factors’ generalization and stereotypical labels from society as a whole?

technorati tags: politically+correct, race, racism, affirmitive+action, identity, society, essay, in+perspective, clearthought, race, gays, thinking, united+states, black, white, african-americans, being, life, sociology, opinion, politics

Venezuela votes

Tomorrow, 3 December 2006, Venezuelans will go to the polls (see Wikipedia) to either re-elect long-time presidential incumbent Hugo Chavez, which looks likely, or decide on a new face to represent their Latin American nation. Venezuela has become more well-known in recent times due to Chavez's statements (like the one at the UN) and other headline-grabbing actions. Chavez, however, looks to have his strongest opponent in recent times running against him, a man by the name of Manuel Rosales. 2006 may be a year to remember for Latin American elections and politics. Even in the imperialistic and closely followed post-imperialistic days, politics in the Latin American countries were vocal and vivacious.

Chavez has long been the prickliest verbal and symbolic thorn representing Latin America in United States' side, hold Cuba — which is more sharp than dull only because of the US's policy towards the communist-run island. Chavez hates everything about President Bush, which elevates his popularity in a region increasingly left-leaning, and has gone so far as to call him "the devil". Venezuela, with its vast oil wealth, seems to have improved under Chavez, but with his cavalier, polarizing, and un-statesmanly attitude and his increasingly questionable agenda, Chavez may serve just as a poster boy of the anti-US group with the sort of politicking that no developing — or otherwise — country needs. His policies seem more shallow and superficial than ever; his movement for a democratic, people-led Venezuela seems to be canceled out by his chumminess with the likes of Libya, Iran, and Cuba.

Chavez-challenger Rosales, on the other hand, looks like a verge towards the realistic moderate politician contrasting Chavez's populist fantasies. The Rosales I have tried to learn about looks to have the social democratic mindset with the 'let's work together' attitude that has the potential to be beneficial for all. Sadly, even when Chavez wants to stand as far away as possible from the "imperialist" United States, his country and the US have one thing in common at this time: incumbents win. Venezuela needs a leader that will deal with unemployment, putting oil revenues to work for the people, verging the wealth gap while keeping economic freedom, standing up to powers such as the US, but not defeating good principles or trying to bend reality in the process, and certain things all countries need to have an effective government (little corruption, public welfare, stable economic policies, good but not blind foreign policy, etc.).

Bottom line: the United States should prepare for several more years of Hugo; opposition parties to Chavez's should get their democratic acts together; Chavez himself should practice much that he heavily rhetorically (another thing the US and Venezuela have in common) preaches — something President Bush should do as well. Neither the United States nor Venezuela politically control Latin America, though they both, in a third common trait, think/wish they did.

See also: BBC News special report.

technorati tags: current+events, politics, current+affairs, 2006, 2006+Venezuela+elections, Chavez, elections, USA, united+states, foreign+policy, Latin+America, news, politics, Rosales, clearthought, in+perspective, americas, hugo+chavez, Venezuela

Fighting terror with... terror?

See earlier post on US foreign policy. (See later in this post for a list of some of the reasons America is so hated, especially by those in the Middle East.)

The "War on Terrorism" is not a real war*, it is a series of offenses — military and otherwise — launched by the United States and its participating allies following the 11 September 2001 terror attacks on the US. This "war" is or should be targeting the fairly fragmented extremist movements throughout the world, whose followers are like a [more] violent form of America's religious fundamentalists. I would think the US government would be able to understand fundamentalist Islam better than it does, considering the tens of millions of fundamentalist Christians (religious right and evangelicals, et al) residing in the United States. Alas, this is not the case.

These Islamic extremist movements do not target the United States and others because of their/our 'freedom', as has been heavily rhetoricized by the George W. Bush administration (and some by British PM Tony Blair), but because a multitude of actions and policies that anyone who studied up realistic sociology and history may grasp (i.e. not most of the Neoconservative movement).

Just some of those things causing the easy recruitment and support to fight against the "western menace" include:

the discrimination America** has shown or seems to have shown (in the eyes of the 'repressed') towards Muslims, partly due to a lack of understanding (poor public education) by many;

American — and overall western — foreign policy in, but not limited to, the Middle East, specifically the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia and the pro-Israel stance that US foreign policy reflects, this stance is seen as an anti-Palestinian thus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim stance in such a delicate region on such a delicate topic (see here for my latest post on Israel);

a narrow view with an "us versus them" (black and white polar view) mentality shown by the US especially after 9/11 (11 Sep. 2001 terror attacks);

the notion that the United States, as the one standing superpower, has the right and privilege to police the world — even in defiance of international laws, etc.;

and, of course, Iraq, which practically speaks for itself (see my withdrawal plan here).

When Israel attacks a village, like Biet Hanoun (in Gaza), and kills civilians or causes other direct anguish, those in Gaza or elsewhere who may have sympathized or even really liked Israel are automatically targets of extremist groups, especially if they are also united by religion. That is, if such people are not recruited by extremists — or at least support anti-Israel causes — they may even become core extremists themselves. That is the fire paradox at work: you breed terrorism in your attempts to fight it.^

Vengeance is the ultimate recruitment tool, not fear of freedom.

*: See Wikipedia, BBC News, Amnesty International, and others (Google search).
**: I am generalizing, something I do not like to do too much, because there is no other way to put it).
^: More on this 'fire paradox' (esp. in the Mid East in re to terrorism) in an upcoming post.

While on vacation this long weekend (Thanksgiving weekend in the US), I wrote down in a little journal — several times — ideas I had in my head. I often do this. An established opinion, or just a random musing, may run through my head and, if I can find somewhere to write my thoughts down, I record this thought for later use. Sometimes it gets lost if I am not able to write it down; sometimes I am able to record the thought but it never gets used; sometimes I make a record of the thought and later use it (e.g. for a blog post). The point of this explanation of my thought processes is that the opinions expressed above were entirely manufactured in a seemingly random fashion as I woke up the other day, were written down, typed up (after translating my odd handwriting, which looks like shorthand plus vowels, the same I use for note-taking), and posted.

technorati tags: news, politics, current+affairs, usa, united+states, foreign+policy, US+foreign+policy, foreign+affairs, world+affairs, middle+east, mid-east, palestine, palestinian, pa, israel, fire+paradox, in+perspective, opinion, thanksgiving, 2006, november, clearthought, US+politics, islam, muslim, fundamentalism, evangelical, religion, views, terror, terrorism, gwot, war+on+terror, bush

Cease fire, Israel

This post is a sort of continuance or update to "Israel's disproportionality, defenders and friends".

There is finally a ceasefire agreement between some militant groups (specifically in Palestine) and Israel. This has come after Israel has continually turned ceasefire agreements down — I mean, it's ironic that a militant group like Hamas would jump on the chance of a ceasefire, but the State of Israel scoffs!

Israel has committed all too many human rights offenses, such as the much-reported attack on an area earlier this month, in Gaza, now synonymous with the word massacre: Beit Hanoun. The Israeli government called the Beit Hanoun raid 'defensive' against militant hotspots — and man have we heard that excuse before. Obviously, as I have said, Israel has the right to sovereignly defend itself, but to use the principle of full defense against a lesser, uncertain, and not yet occurring offense. Ironically, this just breeds more violence and terrorism; it makes easier for enemies of Israel to recruit more enemies of Israel, and creates such hate.

Those who use the talking point that Israel is protecting its existence should keep in mind that the Israeli military is one of the strongest in the world, fighting off Arabic nations for decades. Those vagrantly defending Israel's every move should also look to history to remember that Israel was build from those in the Zionist branch who believed that Israel should be created... with violence. Many of these people were what we now call terrorists, striking terror into the existing Arab establishment in the Palestinian area in order to create the state promised but not promised to them by Great Britain. One thing also looked over is that Israel may not only be violating international human rights laws by the actions taken (e.g. cutting civilian power, I guess they forgot guns are not plugged in) during their many offenses, but also from the actual land Israel occupies. Israel is not conforming with the agreed borders that allowed its existence to be overall accepted. Yes, someone of power should speak out on this. Problem being many public officials from various governments and organizations are afraid of criticizing Israel too harshly, for fear of being labeled an anti-Semite.


UPDATE: Read revised version here.

technorati tags: beit+hanoun, hamas, palestine, israel, middle+east, opinion, news, in+perspective, clearthought, zionism, zionist, terrorism, terror, united+states, usa, uk, israeli, arab, human+rights, gaza, 2006, november

Short story: "Something about Mary"

See also my previously posted original short story, "Sanctum". Here is a short story I just wrote today:



"Something about Mary"

Mary was waiting for destiny. Maybe it already came and left. She twirled around the drink in her hand. The stem of the martini glass, dangling between her index and middle fingers, felt as smooth as the as the dark bar counter — and cool to the touch. He was standing there, talking to the woman in red. How could he move on so fast… how could he just forget me? These questions Mary asked herself. Destiny never came; Mary's former love never again looked at her. She walked the road of the anybody, the everybody. She forgot she was a somebody, an individual, a person. Saturated in society's expectations — of marriage, of love, of wealth; becoming a gray in the poles of black and white. Forgetting about the past, not caring about the future. Mary lived a life not even fit for a looter of happiness. She drank herself to death; drove drunk and the police didn't care, oblivious to the legal violation as long as her top buttons were undone. Countless messages left on the answering machine of alleged friends and supposed family. No answer, no call back. Mary sat there, wallowing in her self-hating delusions, waiting for even one call or one buzz; just waiting for a sign that someone, anybody, gave a damn about her being. She died eleven flips of her floral monthly calendar after that day at the bar, aged thirty-two. Nobody cared.



Technorati Tags: short story, story, work, in perspective, clearthought, fiction, drama, blog, blogging, blogger, story, weblog, sanctum, something about mary, writing

Thoughts on homosexuality, part 2

See part 1 too.

There is hard evidence (from studies other than the linked one too) that homosexuality is biological. It is something, like being black (for example), that one cannot essentially control. You are born with it. As I said before, you cannot really tell from how someone looks whether they are gay or not; that does not keep people from scorning gays. It is quite easy to compare the current atmosphere of contempt for gays to Nazi propaganda attacking those of the Jewish faith, see here. Everything from control and wealth to abnormality to un-Biblical/un-Christian arguments were plastered by the Nazis to Jews and my the religious right to homosexuals.

Like in the civil rights era, many sensible Americans are having trouble connecting to how someone can be different from them, and can still receive the same rights. Those who were brought up with contempt for those different feel this way especially so. The truth is, there have been many historical figures that were most likely gay (Leonardo da Vinci, possibly Abraham Lincoln, et al). There is nothing new with being gay, there is nothing wrong with it, homosexuality is not only isolated to the human species, and, while being gay can hinder procreation, maybe that's just how nature intended it. As humans, there are many things we cannot grasp — period. How someone can be gay is not one of them, but why nature created that wired homosexuality in their genes is a conundrum — like multiple dimensions and the finer points of relativity and metaphysical existence — that we can't understand. It will take time for moderate Americans to accept homosexuality, but hopefully the government can give them a push in the right direction, like the (at the time) liberal US Supreme Court did for African Americans in the 1960-70s.

Here and here are two of many Amnesty International reports on human rights abuses to homosexuals. Sadly, it is not hard to find more.

Most of the above can apply to bisexuals too.

Just as a clarifier, I am not homosexual myself, but do know some who are. I was raised to neither like nor hate homosexuals.

"Thoughts on homosexuality, part 3" will most likely be about the politics of homosexuality, in the United States and elsewhere.

technorati tags: gays, lesbians, lesbian, gay, homosexual, homosexuality, biological, biology, lincoln, da+vinci, bisexuality, opinion, society, jews, nazi, nazis, racism, sexism, descrimination, civil+rights, blacks, procreation, human, brain, mind, clearthought, in+perspective

Thoughts on homosexuality, part 1

You learn something new every day, you know.

Well, one of the new things I learned today is that homosexuality is akin to adult bed wetting and fear of flight — put bluntly: gays are still mental cases. Well that is what the Pentagon thinks.

Pentagon guidelines that classified homosexuality as a mental disorder now put it among a list of conditions or "circumstances" that range from bed-wetting to fear of flying.

The new rules are related to the military's retirement practices. The change does not affect the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits officials from inquiring about the sex lives of service members and requires discharges of those who openly acknowledge being gay.

While it is not my view whatsoever, I believe that people — especially in the ethnically (etc.) shifting melting pot of America — seem to always [think they] need someone to discriminate against, attack, and use as a scapegoat, and portray as a symbol of evil. Throughout American history it has been Native Americans, blacks, hispanics — many of which are still discriminated against today. Also, the British, Jews, Germans, Irish, and more have also been discriminated against, but for cultural and national, not biological or color (noticeable), reasons.

Racism, sexism, just content for those different from the supposed norm. Gays, however, stand out. Today they receive arguably the most bad rap in the US than any other group. Just as being black is biological, so, as it has been proven, is homosexuality. One of the problems is you cannot [usually] tell if someone is gay or lesbian from just looking at them. While at least the Pentagon has moved homosexuality from a mental disorder like schizophrenia to a "condition" like bed wetting, it is probably political correctness and superficial beurocracy, not a policy change, that is causing this to happen.

As an example: recently there was a soldier... who was gay. What really made this man, Bleu Copas, important was the fact he could translate Arabic, a skill that is much needed in the US government and military (especially in these times). He was kicked out, pretty much unexplained, from the military. The official story was that he was a danger to his peers and had homosexual lovers. The US military and much of American society in general still holds the notion that gays are lower than them, that they distract easily, are weak, are girly, have stronger sexual attraction to other men than men to to women, etc. By the way, this soldier was outed by a series of anonymous emails.

technorati tags: gay, homosexual, lesbian, opinion, blue+copas, military, united+states, usa, society, news, in+perspective, clearthought, pentagon

Counting down to US elections: 0 days (update 3)

General information, news stories, and issues influencing and/or relating to the US midterm elections today...
A catalog of all previous In Perspective election and election-related posts.

News and info:
* List of websites (T- 45 days)
* Various (T- 12 days)
* Polls (T- 4 days)
* Election day: update 1 (T- 0 days)
* Election day: update 2 (T- 0 days)

Topics/issues:
* Illegal immigration
* Iraq situation (in general)
* Iraq policy
* Terrorism and exploitation of terror fears
* Iraq PR
* Saddam Hussein
* Voter turnout
* White House message/perception
* Foley scandal
* Kerry comments
* 2008 presidential elections

technorati tags: election, elections, us, united+states, foley, white+house, iraq, president, senate, congress, voting, vote, politics, news, commentary, list, weblog, blog, blogging, current+affairs, clearthought, in+perspective, blogging, blogger, pr, kerry, saddam, midterm