Translate

Friday, June 5, 2009

June 6, 1944: D-Day (65 Years Ago)


Sixty-five years ago, on June 6, 1944, the allied nations invaded France on D-Day to begin taking Europe back from the Nazis.

(Americans in England waiting for D-Day).

The Allied forces involved in D-Day mostly were Americans, English, and Canadians. The men, weapons, tanks, and ships were all gathered in England in anticipation of crossing the English Channel and landing on the coast of France. The Germans knew that the Allies would come by ship, and knew they would come across the English Channel. They did not know when the attack would take place, and did not know exactly where it would take place.

There were months of decoy operations by the British to try to fool the Germans into thinking the landing would come from the North. Once the preparations were completed, the Allies waited on a day by day basis, controlled by the weather. They could not launch the attack if the seas were too rough, or if there were major storms anticipated. So they waited. And the Germans waited on the coast of France, which they had fortified with concrete and steel bunkers and cannons.

The Landing forces included gliders that were flown to France then released, gliding to the ground; paratroopers who were flown into France then dropped into areas where the Allies hoped the German presence would not be too concentrated. These airborne drops were made to have people in France in advance of the coastal landing. The Allies knew it was imperative to quickly take out the communications lines as well as blow up some bridges and prevent the Germans from communicating to Berlin that the invasion had begun and reinforcements were needed.

On June 6, 1944, the public was briefly advised that the invasion had begun: "Under command of General Eisenhower, Allied naval forces, supported by strong air forces, began landing Allied armies this morning on the northern coast of France." The first ships and men hit the beaches of Normandy at 6:30 a.m. on June 6, 1944.


There were 156,000 troops landed in France on D-Day, 73,000 from the U.S.. In addition to the airborne troops who landed by gliders and parachutes, the seaborne troops landed on the beaches in Normandy whose names became familiar to generations who followed: Utah Beach, Omaha Beach, Gold Beach, Juno, and Sword Beach. The allied aircraft flew almost 15,000 sorties that day.


The name of the naval part of the operation on D-Day was Operation Neptune. It included almost 7000 vessels consisting of naval combat ships, landing ships and landing craft, ancillary craft, and merchant vessels. Almost 200,000 personnel worked in the Operation Neptune part of the D-Day operation.

There is no "official" casualty number for D-Day because of the chaos of the invasion. But the unofficial figure is that 10,000 members of the allied invading forces died on D-Day. However, recent studies suggest the numbers may have been much higher. In addition, 24 warships and 35 merchant or auxiliary ships were sunk in June of 1944 in connection with D-Day.

From June 6, 1944 through the end of August, over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing in connection with the Allied advances after D-Day. This figure includes over 200,000 Allied casualties. Roughly 200,000 German troops were killed or wounded, and 200,000 Germans were taken as prisoners of war.

Between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were also killed on D-Day in the Allied bombing.

Seventy (70) Million people were killed during World War II.

http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm

When you look at photos of World War II, or newsreels, there is an obvious respect for the common men and women working and fighting to stop the Nazis, working together, as allies, to protect our world. Not worship, not the nonsense that we hear from the politicians about the military -- just respect for the simple men and women making sacrifices and putting their lives on their line out of a sense of duty to others.

It seems like this may have been the last time that we all were part of a team, working together, united against the clear evil of the Fascist governments of Germany, Japan and Italy. There was a very brief period after World War II when it seemed like our politicians and business leaders acknowledged that American men and women deserve to have jobs, education for their kids, nice communities and homes, living wages, so they created programs and policies to make sure tha happened. No more.

We don't have a team anymore. We have an elite group of incredibly rich people who would steal a lollipop out of the mouth of a child if they thought they could sell it on e-bay, people who see most of us as chumps, clearly not on the same team. These wealthy people have their own team which is made up of the richest people in the world. That's why Daddy Bush was hanging out with the bin Ladens and the Saudi Princes on the morning of 9/11 -- because they're on the same team, and it's not our team. As are Gates and Buffett and the Clintons -- not on our team. As are the CEOs of the major corporations, and all the management insiders of Wall Street and the politicians they own.

They're on one team which is not tied to the U.S. or to its people. The entry fee for their team is that you must have hundreds of millions of dollars. We, the working people of the U.S., are on our own team -- but somebody stole our equipment and uniforms, sold our field and the lights, took all the food from our snack bar, stole our cars while we were waiting on the field for the game to start. Now what do we do?







Victor Jara: Chile Continues Its Search For Truth And Justice. When Will Ours Begin?


(From The Latin-American Herald Tribune):

Chile Exhumes Singer Victor Jara, Slain Under Pinochet

"SANTIAGO – Chilean police and medical examiners on Thursday exhumed the body of singer-songwriter Victor Jara, who was killed just days after the September 1973 coup led by Gen. Augusto Pinochet. The procedure, ordered by Judge Juan Eduardo Fuentes, who is heading the probe of Jara’s death, could clarify key aspects of the case and it is hoped it will serve to corroborate or refute the declaration of army veteran Jose Adolfo Paredes Marquez, the only person ever arrested for the crime."

"Paredes, 54, confessed to being one of the soldiers who on several occasions shot the popular singer, but later he retracted his statements, said he was innocent of the crime and said that Jara was murdered by another officer with a single shot to the chest. This version differs from the circumstances of Jara’s death, as determined by coroners, who found that the singer was tortured and shot 44 times all over his body."

".... Fuentes has already charged several people in connection with the slaying of Jara, who was a prominent supporter of the Socialist government toppled by Pinochet. Among the defendants is retired army Col. Mario Manriquez Bravo, who commanded the detention and torture camp set up at Santiago’s Chile stadium in the wake of the putsch, the site where Jara was killed. Jara’s murder became a symbol of the atrocities committed by the 1973-1990 military regime, which is blamed for more than 3,000 deaths. Chile stadium was renamed for Victor Jara in 2003."

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=336574&CategoryId=14094
Also see, at this blog, http://nabnyc.blogspot.com/2009/01/victor-jara-desalambrar.html

Te Recuerdo Amanda is one of Victor Jara's most popular songs.

It tells the story of a young girl in Chile named Amanda who used to go every day to the factory where her sweetheart, Manuel worked, to see him for just five minutes on his break. Somebody, the narrator telling the story, talks about seeing Amanda every day running up the wet streets to the factory, the rain in her hair and a big smile on her face, so she could see her sweetheart for those five minutes until the factory siren went off, and Manuel had to go back to work. One day when she went to the factory, Manuel as well as many of the other young men had left, gone to the mountains to fight against the repressive government. But they were all slaughtered. So when the factory siren sounded after that, many of the young men never returned -- including Manuel.

Te recuerdo Amanda
la calle mojada
corriendo a la fabrica
donde trabajaba Manuel

La sonrisa ancha,
la lluvia en el pelo,
no importaba nada
ibas a encontrarte con el,

con el, con el, con el, con el
Son cinco minutos
la vida es eterna,
en cinco minutos

Suena la sirena,
de vuelta al trabajo
y tu caminando
lo iluminas todo

los cinco minutos
te hacen florecer

Te recuerdo Amanda
la calle mojada
corriendo a la fabrica
donde trabajaba Manuel

La sonrisa ancha
la lluvia en el pelo
no importaba nada,
ibas a encontrarte con el

con el, con el, con el, con el
Que partió a la sierra
que nunca hizo daño,
que partió a la sierra

y en cinco minutos,
quedó destrozado
Suenan las sirenas
de vuelta al trabajo

muchos no volvieron
tampoco Manuel

Te recuerdo Amanda,
la calle mojada
corriendo a la fábrica,
donde trabajaba Manuel


(English)

I remember you Amanda
in the wet streets
running to the factory
where Manuel was employed

With your big smile,
the rain in your hair
nothing mattered to you
you were going to meet with him

With him, with him, with him, with him
it was just five minutes
but life is eternal
in five minutes

then the factory siren would sound
back to work
and you, walking again,
would illuminate everything.

Those five minutes
had made you blossom like a flower.

I remember Amanda
in the wet streets
running to the factory
where Manuel was employed

With your big smile,
the rain in your hair
nothing mattered to you
you were going to meet with him

With him, with him, with him, with him
who left for the Sierra,
who never hurt anyone,
who left for the sierra,

and in five minutes,
was slaughtered.

The factory siren sounds,
back to work
but many will never return
including Manuel

I remember you Amanda,
the wet streets,
running to the factory
where Manuel worked.


Thursday, June 4, 2009

Naomi Klein Discussing Her Book: The Shock Doctrine


If there is one book that every person should read today it is Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine. It is brilliant. It is also a dense and intense book, and best read short passages at a time. But it is a critical book for anyone trying to make sense of the destruction of our country, the looting and plundering of our economy and theft of people's wages and pensions and benefits and savings and homes. Because what she lays out, country by country over a period of decades, is a systematic program in place among the wealthiest people in the world to steal all the wealth of the world, to take all the power and control in the world, and leave Americans, along with all the other people, poor and powerless. If we hope to have any chance of stopping this, standing up, saving our country and ourselves, the critical information and analysis set forth in this book seems a necessary foundation. Here is a link to Naomi Klein's website which has further discussion of her work and other books, as well as The Shock Doctrine. http://www.naomiklein.org/main

For those unable to read the book at this moment, here is a brief discussion by Naomi Klein of the book and the important points that she makes about what is happening to our world. This was a speech given by her at the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives.

Part 1:


Part 2:


Part 3:


Part 4:


Part 5:


Part 6:

President Obama's Speech In Egypt

Matthew 7:4: How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?

President Obama has traveled to the middle east this week to try to start a new relationship between the United States and "the Muslims." I think that's an excellent idea. But we should keep in mind that "the Muslims" did not attack the United States, did not threaten to attack us, have no apparent ability to attack us nor any apparent intent to do so. A gang of rich white men from Saudi Arabia apparently attacked us. But to assume that "the Muslims" attacked us shows the underlying problem in the U.S. assumptions towards the middle east.

President Obama warns Muslims everywhere that they should not resort to violence, should not blow up people, or kill them. I agree. I think that's a terrific idea. And that means that the biggest attacker, bomber, killer in the entire middle east -- the United States -- should stop doing that. Oh yeah: it's not our country, region, territory, or anything else, and we have absolutely no right and no business traveling so far around and the world and lecturing other people about how they should live their lives.

If President Obama wants to give morality lectures about how people should be decent, I suggest he return immediately to the United States and arrest all the war criminals from the Bush administration and enforce the law, as set forth in the U.N. Convention Against Torture, by investigating, prosecuting, and imprisoning those who are liable.

If President Obama wants to give morality lectures about how people should be decent, I suggest he return immediately to the United States and arrest all the members of the criminal enterprise loosely named "Wall Street," many of the leaders of which are now sitting inside the Obama Administration within the White House, with complete control over our entire treasury and our economy, and they are ripping money out of the citizens' hands so fast that they've got fleets of trucks lined up outside the White House to haul away the loot. An insider job. These criminals need to be arrested, their assets seized, public hearings and investigations, prosecutions, and they need to be sent to prison.

Did somebody from Egypt attack the U.S.? Threaten us? No. So why would President Obama go to Egypt to give a lecture?

It's the old log in the eye syndrome.


SUMMARY OF OBAMA’S SPEECH

Lots of religion. You’d think this was a speech from the Bigoted Pastor Warren, so heavily overlain with references to holy books and major religions. I would prefer our political leaders speak English – in fact maybe we need a new "English Only" movement to stop our politicians from speaking "Religiousese" and instead speak English. I would prefer they quote the Constitution as support for their ideas instead of the Bible. I would prefer they spend their time studying the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions instead of studying the Koran or the Torah.

After all, the reason people developed governments subject to civil laws, made by men, is because the religious governments proved themselves to be solely war-mongering perverted murdering thieving manipulative fanatics trying to destroy the entire world to get more gold and jewels for themselves. Not to mention all the particularly bizarre sexual exploits of the men in cloth. Is it really a good idea to tout Christianity and the Bible to a Muslim country in the middle east when that moron and religious fanatic-Christian George W. Bush started wars against many of their neighbors based on his claim that his Christian God told him to go kill all the Muslims? And given Israel’s ongoing slaughter of the Palestinians, is it really likely that an audience of Egyptian Muslims want to be lectured about the morality of the Torah? Doubtful. Obama should stick with the reality-based world and leave the God-stuff to the fanatics, of which there are already way too many.

Beyond the preaching, Obama made seven points:

Issue #1: Violent Extremism


He’s against it. But he seems to define "violent extremism" as meaning non-state groups. Gangs, small groups of people who have hand-held rocket launchers and grenades to fight whatever their battles are. He does not seem to include in the category nations with full militaries. Under this discussion, it seems that a penniless and homeless Palestinian child whose land was stolen by some guy from Brooklyn, and who is roped into becoming a suicide bomber, is bad, but when Israel’s air force bombs the Gaza Ghetto, Israel’s re-creation of the Warsaw Ghetto, sends tanks in, knocks down homes, knocks down everything that grows in a field, denies people medical help, targets U.N. buildings, murders without limitations, that apparently is Okay. But I guess he can’t really condemn violence and murder when the U.S. is responsible for most of it in the middle east. How about speaking out against all violence, against war, and committing to end war being waged by nations against the people of third world countries.

He claims that the only reason the U.S. is in Afghanistan is because of 9/11 and al Queda. He says we have to stay there because people in Afghanistan and Pakistan want to kill Americans. President Obama, listen carefully: there is no Congressional declaration of war against Pakistan. If you are conducting a war against that country, you are already violating the constitution as well as committing international war crimes. Pakistan has not attacked the United States. There is no legitimate grounds to start a war against that country.

He also says that, unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a "war of choice." Nice wording there. Otherwise known as a war of aggression and an international war crime. Unprovoked. And now that he has admitted that, he needs to get us out of there.


Issue #2: Israel And The Palestinians: Need Two States

His discussion on this subject is silly and weak in parts. If he wants two states, tell Israel we’re cutting them off instead of sending them billions of my taxpayer dollars every year. Kind of a mixed-message, sending them all that money then trying to "get tough." He talks about the Europeans who set up the colony called Israel as being a persecuted group of refugees in search of a home. But then he says the same thing is true of the Palestinians. That’s just silly. As well as false.

The Palestinians had a home – but the Europeans took it. The Europeans should have stayed in Europe, or maybe they could have come to the U.S. But they had no business stealing the Palestinian’s land. And they have no business staying there. Obama says the Palestinians must recognize Israel’s right to exist. This is also one of those silly mantras. Why must they? What if the Palestinians disagree completely with that bizarre claim by the Europeans? Does that mean they should be killed? People are allowed to think and believe what they want. To condition somebody’s right to live in peace on their willingness to believe something sounds like the inquisition, the crusades.

Issue #3: Nuclear Weapons - Iran

He says he’s against nuclear weapons, but then he says well, only against Iran having them. He admits the U.S. overthrew the democratically-elected leader of Iran but fails to mention we installed and propped up the Shah, a brutal and murderous dictator.

Issue #4: Democracy

He says we want it everywhere.

Issue #5: Religious Freedom


This is ridiculous. Our government is required by our constitution to stay out of religion. For him to go overseas and include as a major point in a speech that our government is committed to going around the world and enforce religious freedom makes him sound as batty as Bush was.

Issue #6: Women’s Rights

Excellent. I wonder if we have Hillary Clinton to thank for this.

Issue #7: Economic Development And Opportunity Through Globalism

Economic development and opportunity are good ideas. If we stopped stealing the resources, stopping bombing and occupying and murdering people, then maybe they would have a chance. As far as the pitch for globalism, I disagree. Globalism is likely to destroy the world, and is certainly responsible for much of the current suffering. With Monsanto, for example, chemically modifying the foodstuff of the world so they can demand a royalty for every grain of rice eaten, starvation will likely rise along with the oceans due to global warming. Globalism is bad. We need to emphasize local agriculture and business. Too bad Obama is in the pocket of the U.S. corporate world which does not care if everyone dies, as long as they get all the money.



****************************************************
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary(Cairo, Egypt
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 4, 2009
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON A NEW BEGINNING
Cairo University Cairo, Egypt



PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al_Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim_majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.


Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do today -- to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar -- that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum -- "Out of many, one."

Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores -- and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.


For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared.

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

Issue #1: Violent Extremism


The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.
In Ankara, I made clear that America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.


The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.


Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths -- but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind. And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced. That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future -- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people -- I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

Issue #2: Israel And The Palestinians: Need Two States

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations -- large and small -- that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers -- for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. The obligations -- the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them -- and all of us -- to live up to our responsibilities.
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.


Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.


At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.


And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.


And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.


Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra -- as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer.


Issue #3: Nuclear Weapons

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.


This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran.


For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.


I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.


Issue #4: Democracy


The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.


I know -- I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other. That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.


But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.


Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.


This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.


Issue #5: Religious Freedom

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.


Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. (Applause.) And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.


Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.


Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism. In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action -- whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.


Issue #6: Women’s Rights


The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights. I know -- I know -- and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.


Now, let me be clear: Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.


I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity -- men and women -- to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.


Issue #7: Economic Development And Opportunity Through Globalism


Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.


I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations -- including America -- this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities -- those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.


But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.


And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century -- and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I'm emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.


On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.
On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.


On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We'll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.


All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.


The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek -- a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.


I know there are many -- Muslim and non-Muslim -- who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort -- that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There's so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country -- you, more than anyone, have the ability to re-imagine the world, to remake this world.
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort -- the dignity of all human beings.


It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples -- a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.


We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.


The Holy Koran tells us: "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."


The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."


The Holy Bible tells us: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."


The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.


Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Race, Age, Class, And Gender Discrimination In The United States.

For most of our history, our businesses, government, and laws have all discriminated in favor of privileged white men and against everyone else. In particular, the discrimination favors white men with money, or born into privileged families, over everybody else. The boys taking the golf and tennis lessons at the country clubs this summer will be smiling for good reason, because they know that our country has things set up so that they will get way more than their fair share regardless of how lazy, stupid, and corrupt they are. The fix is in.

The best jobs in our country are almost exclusively held by white men. White men only represent around 35% of the population, but they hold about 98% of the best jobs, the jobs with the big paychecks and the life-long titles. Notice that men give themselves lifelong titles, like King, Prince. Senators (for life), Judge, Ambassador, Professor: even if they only held the job for a few years, they use the title forever. It's so silly. So pretentious. Women, who are over 50% of the population, are not only excluded from the better jobs, but they are viciously attacked when they try to move up in their professions. Blacks are excluded. Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans, all excluded.

So white men get the best paying jobs. They also get the jobs with the most power. They get to control everything in our society, and they use their positions to enrich and protect themselves and other white men. For example, Congress (mostly white men) pass laws saying that Wall Street (mostly white males) cannot be sued or held liable for stealing money from the public. Cops (mostly white men) are never held liable for wrongful death of a citizen, even if they walked up to an unarmed, blind, 90-year-old grandma and shot her in the face, the media and the courts immediately label it a "Suicide-By-Cop." What a stupid term. It's like when women get raped, and the media says she asked for it. Same thing. Automatically blame the victim and excuse the (usually) white male.

And we now know that even when the white men engage in international war crimes, start wars of aggression, lie the nation into war, torture and murder people, loot and pillage and plunder the nation, even then they are not held accountable for their actions. They have permanent immunity. Privileges and immunities, like Princes or King. How creepy is that? Even when they kill people, they get away with it.

Certainly our entire nation and its laws have always given preference to whites and to males. For example, after the country gained its independence, it was decided that there should be some law saying how a new person can become a citizen. So a law was passed in 1790, and it said that any person who had lived in the U.S. for at least 2 years, and was free and white, could become a citizen.
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6551182.html

Note that non-whites were excluded. Many blacks in this country were slaves and, even after they were freed, they were denied status as citizens by the southern states. Regardless of how many laws are passed, the Republican Party to this day continues to have an official organized policy dedicated to preventing black people from voting in our elections.

Of course voting was always reserved based on gender and race and class. Originally, only white male property owners could vote. At the time George Washington was elected our first President, in 1789, only 6% of the population of this country was allowed to vote -- white, male, property owners only. In 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was executed at the end of the U.S. War Against Mexico, and provided that Mexicans residing within the then-claimed land of the United States would be citizens, although they were routinely denied civil rights based on a variety of tactics. In 1856, all states in the country had finally removed the requirement of property ownership for voting, but voting was still generally limited to white males. In 1870, blacks were given the right to vote, but were prevented from doing so by local vigilantes. In 1872, Susan B. Anthony decided to test the exclusion of women, so she tried to vote, and was arrested and tried for her "crime." Women were not legally given the right to vote nationwide until 1920, with the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Our actual history doesn't quite live up to those patriotic songs. A little shoddy on closer examination. http://www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/education/digitalmedia/us-voting-rights-timeline.pdf


I saw three stories today that made me think of this national, institutional, legal and historical bias in favor of white men and against everyone else in our society. The first, of course, was about Pat Buchanan and the drug addict from the radio, as well as their hangers-on, trying to incite hatred and violence among the population by hysterically screaming that Sonia Sotomayor was out to destroy white men, and that white men need to join together to defend themselves against their enemies -- I guess women? Hispanics?

Then I saw a story that Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia was back in the hospital again. He was just there a few weeks ago. He's 91 years old. White, male, and 91 years old, yet he's still allowed to hold one of only 100 seats in the Senate. God forbid anybody should tell this guy to go home, he's old enough to retire. Let somebody else have a chance. We see this same thing in judges -- sometimes suffering from dementia, peeing their pants on the bench, drooling, falling asleep, yet nobody will remove them from the position. See http://www.metnews.com/articles/2005/nels120805.htm (rarely, the judicial commissions will remove a judge when they are completely disabled. Example: Justice Marshall McComb of the California Supreme Court was only removed from the bench when the state finally intervened. He was totally disabled by senile dementia, yet the other privileged white men on the California Supreme Court just turned his chair around during the hearings, and let him keep the job). So it is special treatment and privileges for the wealthy white men, and unemployment, no healthcare, no rights for anybody else. White men not only get all the good jobs, but they get to keep them long after they no longer are able to properly acquit their responsibilities.

Finally, I saw a story about a basketball player who allegedly cheated on his SAT exam. Apparently this young man is a terrific basketball player who is good enough to go pro right now. But the monopoly professional basketball team owners in this country, for some bizarre reasons, want to keep kids out of the profession until they are at least 19. That means that a kid gets out of high school, and has to get into college to play basketball there, for one year, in order to get picked up by the pros when they turn 19. I see no legitimate reason for this. None. Supposedly the white males who own the teams and run professional basketball don't want to have to pay these young men at 18, and can save a lot of money by blacklisting these young men for a year. Which is all it is -- blacklisting without any rational basis. The person who wrote the article noted that in effect (regardless of intent) this rule mostly discriminates against young black men. It seems like a really stupid rule to me. There's certainly no rule that prevents young people from getting professional contracts as singers, or actors, when they are under 19 years of age. What's the difference? See "The NBA's uncool rule - College Basketball - Rivals.com" http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaab/news?slug=dw-rose060109&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

But again, when I put these together, it makes me think of how much things remain the same in our society. Most young black men are completely excluded from any opportunity in our society, which is why sports is such an attractive option. Many black families live in poor neighborhoods and their kids are sent to crumbling, unsafe, poorly staffed schools where they do not receive a decent education. Many of them, like most poor people in our country, are fed only high-starch low-protein and low-nutrition food which makes them fat, sluggish, unhealthy, and destined for diabetes and heart disease at a young age. These kids are screwed from the time they are born. But once in awhile, a sports star comes along, and he has a big ticket out. And the white-male professional basketball owners of America, who have a monopoly control of the sport, decide to park these kids somewhere for one year out of high school and prevent them from earning a living. How is that fair?

At the same time that these 18 year old kids are denied opportunity, we have a 91-year-old white man who's had way more than his fair share, but he will not let go.

And we have a woman who has done exactly what our society said she should do: work hard, go to school, get an education. Yet when she asked for the well-deserved promotion, she's attacked by a bunch of vile, threatening, racist old white men who seem dedicated to inciting violence among their followers -- "Defend The White Men Of America." They're crazy. And dangerous.

That's the thing about the privileged. It does not matter how much money they have, how many times they get to go to the "insider" dinners and bars and get-togethers and resorts, doesn't matter how many homes they have, how much art or stocks or shoes, doesn't matter that they will never live long enough to spend even a big chunk of what they already have -- they won't let go of a penny. I know quite a few people who are extremely wealthy by most people's standards, and they are cheap. The worst tippers, most resentful at having to fund public schools, nastiest about the unemployed (why don't they get a job), strongest opponents to public healthcare (that's socialism), least likely to pay a bonus to their employees.

I know a guy who is very wealthy, mostly because he's a privileged white country-club male, upper class, private schools, an insider from birth. Every year when a group of us go out for a holiday lunch, and invite all the office staff as well as the professionals -- he will not pay for his secretary's lunch. That's how cheap he is. I don't think there's a person in the world who likes him, and doubt he'll live long enough to spend all the money he has accumulated like a miser. But it doesn't matter -- he will not buy his secretary a sandwich at the Christmas/holiday lunch.

He's typical of people I know with money. There is no reason to try to appeal to them based on fairness or justice, because they don't believe in either. And, needless to say, most of these people are white men who use their accumulated wealth to try to get control over the people around them -- employees, wives, kids. They don't care if everyone hates them, as long as they feel like they have control. If they'd gone into politics, they would be starting wars to make themselves feel strong and powerful. It's a sickness.

When Bill Gates claims he's charitable, don't believe it. He, and Warren Buffett, and Bill Clinton, (all white males) all set up and fund private charities as a way to hold onto their money and avoid paying taxes. They can put up to 1/2 of their income into a private charity which they completely control, and keep all that money tax-free. Let's say they earned $200 million in a year, they put $100 million into a separate account, label it "charity," and don't pay $30-40 million in taxes that they otherwise would owe. It's all a tax fraud. As long as they pay out 5%/year of the money, they will never have to pay taxes. So guess how much they pay out every year? 5%. How much of that 5% goes to a kid, or relative, as compensation for them "managing" the charity? And they spend all their time going around telling the rest of us that they don't want the money for themselves -- they just want to help others. Warren Buffett keeps saying he's going to give away all his money when he dies. Don't bet on it. If they wanted to help, they would give their money away now, not hide it in private charity accounts in their own names. What's the problem? They don't think there's enough need, enough starving, enough suffering in the world already?

The politicians in Congress are mostly white men. I don't think putting privileged white women, or non-white women, into Congress, will change much. I'm not suggesting that other people are kind and honest, but white men are bad. Just that our society has built in a bias towards white men which is unfair to the great majority of the people in this country. 65% of the people are not white men. We need affirmative action to change that and try to bring about some equality.

And we need a serious change in our taxes to go back to when the tax system made sense. Stop these private charities and start taxing rich people again. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett should never have been allowed to accumulate so much wealth, because it should have been taken in taxes. And Microsoft should have been busted up as a monopoly decades ago. Bill Clinton should never have been allowed to leave office then go out and solicit close to a billion dollars from the corporations he benefitted while in office, and from foreign countries that he helped while he was the president. Politicians should be prohibited from taking so much as a penny from anybody for any reason when they leave office, other than reasonable compensation for an actual job.

A woman should be allowed to move up in her profession without being viciously attacked by an organized group of white men, publicly threatened and humiliated just because she wanted a better job. A 91 year old white man should step down, move out, and let somebody else get a chance, instead of holding onto power just because he can. And an 18 year old black kid should not be prevented from getting a job by a conglomerate of millionaire basketball-team owners who figure they can do whatever they want, because nobody ever listens to young black men in this society.

They Only Need 51 Votes To Confirm Sotomayor. The Democrats Need To Stop Hiding Behind The Republicans.

We're all waiting for that change. You know, the change that President Obama promised. The change-claim that the corrupt Democratic Senators and Representatives hid behind in their own coattail elections in 2008, claiming "yeah, -- me too -- I'm change too." But all we're seeing is a Republican Presidency with Republican policies being ratified and promoted by a Republican majority in the Congress. Who won the elections? I thought the Democrats did.

To begin, President Obama campaigned on his opposition to the war in Iraq and promised to end it. Yet he's already broken that promise by double-speak and clever wording, extending the official killing campaign to sometime next year, saying 50,000 U.S. military troops will remain even after 2010 for some indefinite period, then waiting a few months and having some top-level military guy casually mention that the U.S. plans to militarily occupy Iraq for at least another 10 years. That's not called ending the war. That's called continuing and extending it.


Maybe not a surge in Iraq, but a surge in Afghanistan. For what? All that exists in Afghanistan are poor people and rubble. Is there any reason the U.S. military continues to murder people in Afghanistan other than for the purpose of grabbing real estate to use as an oil pipeline for the oil corporations on whose behalf the U.S. military is waging these wars?

And a surge in Pakistan where the U.S., under the "change" government of Obama, is now apparently waging another illegal war, an international war crime, an undeclare, illegal, unconstitutional war against Pakistan. What part of "International War Crimes" and "Constitutional Law" do Obama and the Congress not understand? Only Congress can send the nation to war. Did they declare war against Pakistan but just forget to mention it? And besides, Congress cannot legally declare war against Pakistan because that would be [another] war of aggression against a nation that has not attacked nor threatened to attack us. WTF is going on?

And finally, a purge in the military where high-level, trained, experienced, decades-of-honorable-service career military men continue to be purged, stripped of their jobs and exiled from the military community in disgrace, not because they did something, not because of any action or inaction, but because they said something. If somebody says "I'm gay," they will be thrown out of the military, even if they're not gay. Even if they never had sex in their life. No requirement that they have engaged in sexual harassment, had sex with a fellow-military person, no conduct required. Just say the words "I'm gay," and they're out. No First Amendment rights at all. And contrast that with the heterosexual males in the U.S. military who harass women in the military to the cheers of their fellow men. President Obama said he opposed this policy, but now that he's in office he won't do a thing to end it.

Of course Congress does nothing, ever, under any circumstances, to help the people of this country, or even to acquit their constitutional responsibilities. What was that joke about dragging a dollar bill through a trailer park? That's what Congress is like: if you want them to do anything, you need to drag a dollar bill through Congress to get their attention. They don't even hide it anymore. That's their new mantra. They say "well, yes, we are corrupt, but we can't help ourselves; if you want us to do something, you will need to get all your fellow unemployed, homeless and destitute working people to contribute money, pay us bribes -- then we'll think about it."

Then we have the collapse of the economic foundation of American working people. Millions of American jobs have been taken overseas to third world countries (like GM did -- transferring all the knowledge and know-how and trade secret information developed by generations of Americans to third world countries, along with the hundreds of millions stripped from the company by management insiders, leaving only the rusted plants and debts and American workers behind, stealing the money from the retirees' pensions and healthcare programs). But Obama will give them more money -- the same criminals who have looted the business, sent all the assets to other countries so they can hide from American taxes, the same company that has thrown so many Americans out of work -- Obama is going to give them my money. Reward for a job well-done. Just like Bill Clinton said: send all the American jobs to other countries. What happens to the retirees? For the people who still have a job, their wages are slashed and their benefits stripped away (no pension, no healthcare, in some cases a loss of sick days and vacation days, no job security).

For the Wall Street Criminals who should have been arrested and thrown into prison, held without bail, a long time ago, Obama instead gave them cushy jobs in his administration where they can solicit bribes on the side from their friends on Wall Street, and come up with more programs to send billions more to their criminal friends. Rewarding the criminals, punishing the people in this country, the taxpayers, who actually work and live by the law.

What about job creation? We heard last week that Obama claims he saved 150,000 jobs. It's just so pathetic, with millions unemployed and millions more on the edge, this is absurd.

The first job of Obama and Congress should be to protect Americans, not by starting corporate wars against third world nations, but by protecting and defending and creating and promoting economic stability for Americans here in our own country. I'm supposed to be happy that the military is murdering people who live in Afghanistan? I want the military brought home and largely dismantled, and the war-money used instead to rebuild this country, make sure Americans have good-paying jobs and the benefits of being Americans which they are owed: decent roads, police, firefighters, good schools, healthcare.


Why is it that Americans are treated like inferior human beings by our own politicians? They act like we are worthless, deserving of nothing, we should simply go away, keep our mouths shut, and let them get on with their criminal enterprise of looting our country. Because that's the only apparent function of Congress: a criminal enterprise to negotiate a percentage kick-back from every deal in this country. They're corrupt. They sell their votes and their access and their influence.

Health care? We want single-payer. Every person who has studied the options concludes single-payer is the best. The government pays for every citizens' healthcare and sets the amounts to be paid to doctors. If somebody is so rich they want to buy private insurance, let them. For everyone else, you're covered. But the Medical Industry doesn't want that. The doctors charge obscene amounts for their services. Drug companies grossly overcharge Americans for stupid and needless drugs, and refuse to provide life-saving drugs to people because they want to keep their prices up. Hospitals overcharge for everything, and often kill patients because of a lack of basic sanitation and inadequate staffing. The Medical Industry wants to be able to rape the American public. They don't care if half the people can't afford medical treatment, as long as they keep making the big bucks.

So what does Congress announce? No single-payer. It won't even be considered. No speakers will be allowed to address the issue in Congressional hearings. It's like a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy for the healthcare issue. Instead of (Don't Ask), they are saying that there will be a "Public Option." I think Obama came up with that term. What does it mean? Nobody knows.

Here's my best guess what they mean by Public Option. We have Blue Cross as a private insurance company. They will create a subsidiary called Blue Public Option, and they will claim that this is a big savings, a really good deal. But it won't be. It will be a fraud, and might charge slightly less per month but will provide inadequate coverage. It's a scam, a con. Every time you hear a politician say "Public Option," what you should hear is "I think Americans are so stupid that they won't realize we politicians have just negotiated an enormous bribe from the Medical Industry in exchange for agreeing not to pass single-payer healthcare." Because right before the Democrats started pushing this "Public Option," the Democratic politicians did have private meetings with the CEOs and lobbyists from the Medical Industry. Want to bet money changed hands? Or at least the promise of future bribes?

What excuse do we hear from the Democrats for their failure to do anything to help the working people? They say the mean old Republicans won't let them. So what is it the Republicans are doing to stop the Democrats? Do they say mean things? Is it the drug addict on the radio? Are the Democrats afraid he won't like them? Do the Republicans punch the Democrats in the face when they try to speak? Do they bar the doors, bring guns to Congress and threaten to shoot the Democrats? Kidnap the Democrats and prevent them from showing up for a vote? Have the Republicans planted bombs in Congress so nobody can go in and do any work?

No. None of that. The Democrats claim that they cannot do anything to help the working people of this country because the Republicans threaten a filibuster. That's it. It's like saying the Republicans threaten to blow their bad breath in the Congressional halls, and the Democrats just can't take that risk. This is ridiculous.

Now we have the right wing collectively jerking off over the last week about President Obama's first nominee to the Supreme Court, a middle-of-the-road judge named Sonia Sotomayor, who happens to be of Puerto Rican heritage. Because she is female of Puerto Rican heritage, the right-wing has gone ballistic. They are blanketing the airwaves with vicious, racist sexist attacks against this woman. Pat Buchanan is rallying his troops to fight on behalf of white people everywhere. The vile, violence-promoting attacks on right-wing media has been astonishing. The Republicans say they will refuse to complete the hearings before August -- two months isn't enough time? The Republicans are demanding this, and threatening that, and suggesting the other. They want to turn this into a race war, and a gender war, and drag it out till Christmas.

Oh dear. Pity the poor Democrats, helpless in the face of these threats. Or are they?

How many votes does it take to confirm a President's Supreme Court Nominee? 51. Fifty-One Senators is all it takes to confirm Sonia Sotomayor. So the Democrats should stop their cowardly hiding behind the Republicans, because I'm sick of it. Let the Republicans filibuster for six months if they want, while the country goes to hell, but refuse to shut down the hearings for even ten minutes. Let's see how long these privileged, corrupt, lazy gasbag old white male Republicans will actually stand up on cspan and talk in their filibuster. I don't think they'd last four hours. They'd be worried about missing the noon cocktail hour.


In any event, it only takes 60 votes to end a filibuster, and there is likely at least one Republicans remaining in the Senate who would vote to end a filibuster. But the Democrats need to be called out on this cowardly act they're using as an excuse for them selling out the public. They can't keep hiding behind the Republicans who are completely powerless to stop the Democrats from doing anything they want. No more excuses.

Under Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, the role of the Senate is to provide its advice and consent to a nomination. Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee may be consulted in advance by the White House about potential nominees. After a nomination is made, it is assigned to the Judiciary Committee. The Committee holds a public hearing and a subsequent vote is taken to report the nomination to the full Senate. A majority vote of the Senate is required to confirm a nominee.