Currently viewing the tag: "Name"
On the Chicago Sun-Times's Web site today, it's reported that former Cook County Board President Todd Stroger has applied for unemployment benefits. Stroger had been earning $ 170,000 at his job, and his former employer is appealing his eligibility. Not mentioned, of course, is the fact Stroger is a Democrat.
A little more than four years ago, Stroger was endorsed by then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as "a good progressive Democrat" who will "lead us into a new era of Cook County government." He certainly did. His tenure was marked by scandal after scandal after scandal. Still, Stroger was constantly on the prowl for new talent to bring to government. So impressed was he with one restaurant busboy he encountered that the man ended up with a $ 61,189-a-year county job. The guy sure must have known how to handle a glass of ice water.
Still, what eventually damaged Stroger most severely was shoving through a sales tax hike that gave Chicago the highest one in the nation. Finally, an issue that even the sophisticated voters of Cook County could understand. Stroger lost the primary.
So Todd no longer is in a position to lend a hand to deserving busboys in the area. He's been reduced to filing a jobless claim for himself. That's newsworthy. So is his political affiliation.
On the Chicago Sun-Times's Web site today, it's reported that former Cook County Board President Todd Stroger has applied for unemployment benefits. Stroger had been earning $ 170,000 at his job, and his former employer is appealing his eligibility. Not mentioned, of course, is the fact Stroger is a Democrat.
A little more than four years ago, Stroger was endorsed by then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as "a good progressive Democrat" who will "lead us into a new era of Cook County government." He certainly did. His tenure was marked by scandal after scandal after scandal. Still, Stroger was constantly on the prowl for new talent to bring to government. So impressed was he with one restaurant busboy he encountered that the man ended up with a $ 61,189-a-year county job. The guy sure must have known how to handle a glass of ice water.
Still, what eventually damaged Stroger most severely was shoving through a sales tax hike that gave Chicago the highest one in the nation. Finally, an issue that even the sophisticated voters of Cook County could understand. Stroger lost the primary.
So Todd no longer is in a position to lend a hand to deserving busboys in the area. He's been reduced to filing a jobless claim for himself. That's newsworthy. So is his political affiliation.
General Mohsen el-Fangari appearing on Egyptian TV to confirm the Supreme Military Council will take over running of the country. Photo: AP
by: Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya / Voltairenet.org
The same group of Egyptian generals running Cairo presently also formed the backbone of the Mubarak regime. There has been no real change in government. The military junta represents a continuation of the Mubarak regime. The previous so-called civilian administration and the Egyptian High Council of the Armed Forces are virtually the same body.
The generals would have run Egypt either way, under the so-called civilian government formed by Mubarak before he resigned or the current military government. While the generals rule the Nile Valley, a “controlled opposition” is being manufactured and nurtured by the U.S. and its allies.
Change is forthcoming. Whose interests will it serve? Those of Washington and Brussels or those of the grassroots movements in North Africa and Southwest Asia?
The Imperial Province of Egypt
Since its inception as a Roman province, Egypt was always a valuable province. Its importance as a territory, breadbasket, and economic hub were so significant for the Romans that it had a status as a special “imperial province” ruled directly by the Roman emperors.
The Suez Canal is often called the “crossroads to Europe, Africa, and Asia” because the route is used to transport goods to and from all three continents.
Today, Washington is the fourth Rome; Rome being the original, Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul) being the second Rome, and Moscow the third Rome. Similarly to its relationship to Rome, Egypt is also of immense importance to Washington. The Suez Canal is a global artery of maritime trade and of vast strategic importance as a military and energy corridor. The “Global Constabulary” that is Washington’s self-imposed role as global arbiter would be crippled without Egypt firmly in place.
Even if speaking hypothetically, when U.S. General James Mattis says that if the Suez Canal is closed, then the U.S. military will engage Egypt offensively (meaning attack or invade), he is not joking. [1] The Suez Canal is an important part of the global economy, the military network of the U.S. and NATO, and Washington’s modern-day and ever more mutinous empire.
What has changed in Post-Ben Ali Tunisia and Post-Mubarak Egypt?
Aside from the spirit and the confidence of the people, both Tunis and Cairo have not seen any substantial changes. The English playwright William Shakespeare said it best: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” [2] In the case of post-Mubarak Egypt and post-Ben Ali Tunisia it must be said that “dictatorship and tyranny by any other name is still dictatorship and tyranny.” The point simply is as follows; what is important is what something is and not what something is called. The chiefs of two oppressive Arab regimes are gone, but their actual regimes still remain in one form or another. Mubarak and Ben Ali were dominant actors within the power structure of the regimes in Tunis and Cairo. Yet, there was still an oligarchic supporting structure around them. Both Mubarak and Ben Ali could almost be thought of in terms of the firsts amongst a set of peers or primus inter pares. Both dictators were members of a cast of oligarchs within their respective authoritarian republics.
The regime structures that Mubarak and Ben Ali were heads of are still carried on. Also, the external forces that supported the Tunisian and Egyptian regime structures persist. These external forces are namely the United States and the European Union.
The Phasing in of the Military Junta in Cairo
Before and after Mubarak stepped down from his office, the military in Egypt started being presented as a circumvent third party actor and as the “protector” of the Egyptian people. It is not coincidental that Mohammed Al-Baradei (El-Baradei/ElBaradei) was calling for the military to takeover. [3] In pertinence to this there has been a calculated ongoing public relations campaign to support and prop the Egyptian military.
The military junta was slowly phased in. Signs of this included the political statements that the Egyptian military had started releasing to the public before Mubarak formally resigned. [4] The journalist Hamza Hendawi, who has been actively covering Egypt, spells this out:
Egypt’s 18-day uprising produced a military coup that crept into being over many days — its seeds planted early in the crisis by Mubarak himself.
The telltale signs of a coup in the making began to surface soon after Mubarak ordered the army out on the streets to restore order after days of deadly clashes between protesters and security forces in Cairo and much of the rest of the Arab nation.
“This is in fact the military taking over power,” said political analyst Diaa Rashwan after Mubarak stepped down and left the reins of power to the armed forces. “It is direct involvement by the military in authority and to make Mubarak look like he has given up power.” [5]
Moreover, the Egyptian military is not the neutral actor that it is being portrayed as. It is a backbone of the dictatorial establishment in Egypt that hoisted Mubarak. The Egyptian military is also Washington’s best bet for holding onto Egypt and to maintain the status quo.
The Egyptian Military is a Continuation of the Mubarak Regime
Presently the Egyptian High Council of the Armed Forces runs Egypt. It is a military junta that rules by degree. Similarly in Tunis, Fouad Al-Mebazaa, one of the “old guard” of Ben Ali, is also ruling by decrees that bypass any democratic process. [6]
The rule of the military generals in Cairo is only a formality; the military has always run Egypt under the guise of civilian administrations. The Egyptian protests have served to solidify and consolidate the hold of the Egyptian military over the Egyptian government. It is likely that Mubarak, before he stepped down from his office, was preparing the grounds for a military junta to take over with his new cabinet appointments. As a precaution, the new cabinet may have been part of a phasing in of open military rule.
Moreover, Mubarak’s regime began as a continuation of the regime of Mohammed Anwar Al-Sadat. Mubarak and Sadat both also came from within the ranks of the Egyptian military. Sadat was an Egyptian Army officer and Mubarak was a commander in the Egyptian Air Force. The Sadat-Mubarak regime can best be described as a club of military generals. In other words, Egypt’s top military brass and the regime are cast from the same lot.
Omar Suleiman, the man Mubarak selected to fill the long-time vacant post of Egyptian vice-president, too comes from the ranks of the Egyptian military. While a civilian clothed cabinet minister, General Suleiman was the head of Cairo’s intelligence services. This is clear evidence of the nature of the Egyptian regime as a military government or a general’s club.
Ahmed Al-Shafik, the prime minister that Mubarak appointed to his new 2011 government is also a general. Shafik was the head of the Egyptian Air Force. Nor is Shafik a new face to government; he was an Egyptian cabinet minister prior to his appointment as prime minister of Egypt.
Even Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, the deputy prime minister and defence minister of Egypt is a military general. Field Marshal Tantawi is also the supreme commander of the Egyptian military and heads the Egyptian High Council of the Armed Forces, which now officially governs Egypt. Under Mubarak’s rule, Tantawi has simultaneously served as the chief of the Egyptian military and the defence minister of Egypt since 1991 until the present. If not the second most powerful individual in Egypt, Field Marshal Tantawi is one of the most powerful members of the Egyptian ruling class.
From left: Omar Suleiman, Mohammed Hussein Tantawi and Ahmed Al-Shafik.
These generals – officially retired or not – form the Egyptian High Council of the Armed Forces. In other words, Suleiman, Shafik, and Tantawi are running Egypt. They would have done it under a civilian regime or a military regime. Is there a real major difference between the previous so-called civilian government and the current military junta? The differences between the two are really nominal.
In reality, a carte blanche or blank cheque has been given to the same figures that were supposedly running the civilian regime. These officials and the Egyptian state ruled under a military junta will feel less pressure for suppressing the liberty and demands of the Egyptian people. The governing status quo is very much alive.
Washington’s Role in the Establishment of a Military Junta in Egypt
Like Rome in its day, the United States has established a series of global patron-client relationships as the basis of its empire. The Egyptian military is one of these U.S. clients. It is bankrolled by Washington. After Israel, Egypt is the second largest recipient of financial aid from the U.S., and the majority of this goes to the Egyptian military as a means of sustaining the patron-client relationship Washington has with Cairo.
It is because of the nature of this patron-client relationship that the U.S government had aided and abetted the takeover of Egypt by the Egyptian military. Washington presently has no other relationship in Egypt that is analogous in its strength to this. This would also not be the first time that Washington has helped prop a military government in an Arab country. In 1949, the U.S. helped secure another military takeover of the state in Syria. This has been part of the U.S. hegemon’s objective for preserving its control over its Egyptian province.
Sami Hafez Al-Anan (Al-Enan), the chief of staff for the Egyptian military, was in Washington for two days after protests ignited in Egypt. [7] Undoubtedly, the U.S. government instructed him on what the U.S. wanted from the Egyptian regime and the military generals before his departure. After his return to Egypt, Ahmed Shafik was appointed the new prime minister and Field Marshal Tantawi became deputy prime minister. Martin Indyk, who is a former U.S. official, also openly said that the grounds should be prepared for the Egyptian military. [8] Since Indyk is no longer a U.S. official he was able to say what the White House and U.S. State Department could not openly express.
U.S. officials were also praising the Egyptian military before and after the resignation of Mubarak. The U.S. government also has not and does not intend to freeze or end its military aid to the junta in Cairo. U.S. officials are also complicit in all the acts of oppression committed under Mubarak and by the military junta.
The Egyptian Military Serves the Interests of Capital
The state and its military might are subordinated to organized capital. When Smedley D. Buttler, a retired U.S. Marine major-general, wrote in 1935 that he and the U.S. military served the interests of organized capital, he was being utterly frank. The Egyptian military, more specifically the leadership of the Egyptian military, serve the interests of capital, in both its local and global forms.
Under the Mubarak-Sadat regime the corrupt generals of Egypt have run Egypt as a vast estate. They run and control an extensive network of private enterprises and national assets, from the tourism sector and resort areas in Sharm el-Sheikh to construction companies. The lucrative Suez Canal is also under the control of the military.
No real changes can be expected under a group of generals who have an interest in maintaining the kleptocratic status quo. The Egyptian junta has also announced as the government of Egypt that it will continue the sanctions regime against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and maintain the treaty between Egypt and Israel.
Manufacturing Dissent through a Counter-Discourse
The U.S. government wants to get control of the situation in Egypt. In order to do this Washington is busy involved in setting up a “controlled counter-discourse” through “manufactured dissent.” The controlled counter-discourse is being shaped through the manufacturing of an opposition (pseudo-opposition).
In this regard, the U.S. has declared that it is preparing to bankroll the rise of new political parties in Egypt. [9] This aid is intended to control and manipulate the internal affairs of Egypt. One should ask, what would be the reaction of the U.S. government and American people if countries such as Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela where funding newly forming political parties in the United States?
Washington is also desperately trying to politically hedge its bets by making gestures of support and giving nominal support to some forms of authentic opposition. Yet, all the while the U.S. government is working to dilute the authentic opposition and infiltrate the protest movements with its own so-called opposition figures. There is also a synchronized effort by the Egyptian regime – which encompasses the military junta – to do the same. The so-called “Wise Men” group is a facet of this.
Mohammed Al-Baradei is also an opposition figure that is intended to preserve the status quo, albeit with cosmetic changes on the surface. Al-Baradei represent’s the imperial interests of Washington. Not only did he support the intervention of the Egyptian military, but he suggested the formation of “a transitional government headed by a presidential council of two or three figures, including a military representative.” The Egyptian High Council of the Armed Forces in effect is what Al-Baradei demanded for before Mubarak’s resignation. In is also noteworthy to mention that Al-Baradei has also stated that he “respects Suleiman as someone to negotiate with over the transition [after Mubarak resigns].” None of this is mere coincidence, including Al-Baradei’s calls for military intervention.
The so-called promotion of “civil society” in the form of non-government organizations (NGOs), which receive funding and training from the E.U. and Washington, are tied to creating a controlled opposition, a controlled counter-discourse, and political hedging. The declaration by the Egyptian High Council of the Armed Forces that it will govern Egypt for about six months or longer could be tied to the efforts to manufacture a “controlled opposition.” This could be one of the reasons that Martin Indyk, before Mubarak resigned, said “What we have to focus on now is getting the military into a position where they can hold the ring for a moderate and legitimate political leadership to emerge.”
Since the end of the Second World War, the U.S. government has been engaged in manipulating political processes through non-state actors. This has been done through so-called democracy promotion, cultural, and educational programs. It is used as a tool of internal manipulation.
Arab Democracy
Hereto, there is no authentic Arab democracy. The consensus system in Lebanon is flawed and based on religious and confessional lines. Ironically, the only democratic system amongst the Arabs existed amid the occupied and downtrodden Palestinians.
The Palestinians had instituted a democratic system that lasted until the Hamas-Fatah split and the establishment of Mahmoud Abbas as a quasi-dictator in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Washington’s contempt for actual democracy amongst the Arabs is visible from its position on the Palestinian elections in 2006 that ushered in a Hamas government. Washington, Tel Aviv, the E.U., the House of Saud, Jordan, and Egypt were all instrumental is the debasement of democracy amongst the Palestinians.
In regards to Israel, Tel Aviv relishes calling itself a democracy in comparison to the Arabs, but claims that Israel is a democracy are also incorrect. Israel can best be characterized as an ethnocracy, which also embraces militarism and aspects of a theocracy. An ethnocratic state is a state where individual rights and state laws are based on ethnicity. Although Jews are not an ethnic group in the conventional sense, in Israel discrimination of non-Jewish Israelis is systematic and legal. Israeli Jewry and Israeli non-Jews do not have the same rights. For example, a non-Jewish Israeli citizen cannot marry someone from outside of Israel and live in Israel with them, but a Israeli Jew can. This type of discrimination is justified as legal “religious discrimination” to keep the so-called Jewish identity of Israel.
Washington’s Greater Middle East Project Will Not Materialize
If the Arab protesters are to make far-reaching changes they must persist with their demands and not back down. Nor can they ignore the role that foreign policy and economical factors play in their states. This is essential in order for genuine changes/revolutions to take place and not bogus shows of democracy. The current transitional government in Tunis and the Egyptian military junta are continuations of the old regimes. They will either try to maintain power or wait until a “controlled opposition” takes power and “managed democracies” are established in Tunisia and Egypt.
All is not doom and gloom. The U.S. government and the Egyptian junta are not omnipotent powers either. They have limited strength. Nor can they control the lower ranks of the Egyptian military. Washington and the Egyptian generals have been worried about defection amongst the ranks of the junior officers and the non-commissioned members of the military.
A new reality is setting in. A new Middle East is coming, but it will be one that no one expects. Creative destruction and political manipulation can only go so far. What is certain is that the new Middle East will not be the one that Condoleezza Rice and Ehud Olmert bragged about when Israel was bombarding Lebanon in 2006. The U.S. establishment will eventually realize that humans cannot control chaos.
The Shifting Sands
All things are finite and no empire lasts forever. Rome’s empire fell and eventually somewhere down the road so will the global empire of the United States. Washington and it cohorts are now beginning to sink in the sands of the Middle East. The U.S. government has put the United States on the wrong side of history. If Mubarak was the modern pharaoh of Egypt, then on the world-stage the U.S. is the pharaoh. Washington too will eventually see disgrace if it does not listen to the growing chorus.
In Washington there is a belief that the Arab protests can be manipulated, but the sands are shifting. The people of the region have realized that people should not be afraid of their governments, their governments should be afraid of them. The Rome of today, Washington, has been stopped in its tracks in the lands of North Africa and Southwest Asia.
Revolution is underway in the petro-sheikhdom of Bahrain, while the U.S. and E.U. have been silent as the Bahraini military and foreign mercenaries with Saudi and Jordanian help have been unleashed on civilian protesters. The Palestinian people’s morale has been lifted and pressure is being put on Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, which simply enforces the Israeli occupation in the West Bank. In Iraqi Kurdistan protests have started against Massoud Barzani and the Kurdistan Regional Government, which the U.S. and Britain have always tried to showcase as a model of Anglo-American success in Iraq. Protests have also broken out in Algeria, Jordan, Sudan, Iran, Turkey, and Libya. Yemen is rife with revolutionary fervour.
The bravery of the sons and daughters of Tunisia and Egypt have inspired and uplifted the Arabs as a whole and stirred the Turko-Arabo-Iranic World. Despite any attempts at managing these events, no one will be able to predict how they will play out. Still, one way or another, change will take shape.
__________________________
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is Multidisciplinary sociologist and scholar in Canada. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) specializing in geopolitics and strategic issues. He is also a lecturer and author about the topics of the Middle East, Central Asia and the former USSR. He has been published and cited in languages including English, Spanish, French, German, Italian and Russian
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Outspoken middleweight Chael Sonnen has joined the ranks of Vitor Belfort, Demian Maia, and others in expressing a desire to stand across the Octagon from Michael Bisping when the Brit next sees in-ring action. However, as fans might expect, Sonnen did so in his own unique fashion and actually sent UFC matchmaker Joe Silva an [...]
Five Ounces of Pain
Oregon residents and news followers nationwide can be forgiven for shaking their heads over the Associated Press's latest item on the misadventures of Congressman David Wu. All of a sudden he's apparently not a Democrat — well, at least he's not identified as such by the wire service's Jonathan J. Cooper.
Wu has gained a degree of infamy over his erratic behavior (to be described shortly for those unfamiliar with the story) leading up to his reelection in 2010.
What's odd about Cooper's failure to tag Wu as a Democrat in his latest report is that he and the AP have done so in several previous dispatches:
- A February 19 unbylined report ("Report: Congressman urged to get psychiatric help") identified Wu as a Democrat in its first paragraph.
- His February 23 item ("Newspapers, GOP call for congressman to resign") identified Wu as a Democrat twice, including once in its first paragraph, and later when it described his district as a "Democratic stronghold."
- A brief February 24 item on Wu ("Newspaper, GOP call for Wu to resign") named his party in the second paragraph.
The theory here is that now that Wu's woes have become a more prominent national story, the AP has decided that the party identification of Wu should came to a halt, lest readers get their minds polluted with the craaaaazy idea that politicians in various forms of trouble in recent years have been largely if not mostly from the Democratic Party. Logically (if there is such a thing at AP) it should have worked the opposite way, as national readers are less likely to already know that Wu is a Dem, and would be interested in knowing.
Here are several paragraphs from Cooper's Sunday evening report:
An Oregon congressman whose erratic behavior has recently prompted calls for his resignation said Sunday that some of his actions could be attributed to a reaction to a mental health drug.
U.S. Rep. David Wu told The Associated Press, however, that it does not explain the behavior documented in reports over the last month, which included sending his staff photos of himself wearing a tiger costume.
Wu said he was hospitalized after his 2008 campaign for symptoms that were later diagnosed as a reaction to a common mental health drug. He said he felt dizzy and confused on Election Day that year, when his staff and family reportedly were unable to locate him.
The AP interview in his Portland office was the most detailed public account yet of Wu's psychiatric treatment since reports of his erratic behavior first surfaced last month. Six staff members quit after his 2010 re-election campaign during which the congressman gave angry speeches and talked his way inside the secure portion of Portland International Airport.
The congressman said last year's episodes were the culmination of a period of mental health challenges that began in 2008 as marital issues led toward his separation from his wife.
… He declined to detail the problems in his marriage but said they had nothing to do with his health.
… Wu attributed his outbursts in 2010 to stress from a tough campaign, a dissolving marriage and taking care of his children, ages 11 and 13.
Asked whether he can handle the stresses of Congress and of a future campaign, Wu said his October episode happened during a period of such extreme stress that wouldn't occur again.
… Wu said he would not step down, despite calls for his resignation from Republicans and from some Oregon newspapers.
The last excerpted paragraph, the 18th of 19 in Cooper's full report, is the only clue that Wu is a Dem through and through.
Wu may have had problems with dizziness and confusion as described above, but it's nothing compared to the dizziness and confusion the AP's Cooper must have been enduring when he wrote this paragraph in his February 23 report (bold is mine):
Wu was a political newcomer when he was elected to Congress in 1998 as the first Chinese-American to serve in the U.S. House. He's maintained a centrist voting record but been a leading voice on human rights abuses in China, and he angered the high-tech firms in his district when he voted against normalizing trade relations with China.
Here are a couple of outside opinions concerning Wu's alleged "centrism":
- His 2009, 2008, and 2007 grades from the conservative, economic freedom-oriented Club for Growth are 0%, 0%, and 6%.
- At the ultraliberal Americans for Democratic Action in each of the same three years, he had ratings of 100%, 90%, and 100%. His 2009 and 2007 voting records earned him recognition as an "ADA Hero."
Earth to Jonathan Cooper regarding Wu's politics: Centrist, schmentrist.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
Oregon residents and news followers nationwide can be forgiven for shaking their heads over the Associated Press's latest item on the misadventures of Congressman David Wu. All of a sudden he's apparently not a Democrat — well, at least he's not identified as such by the wire service's Jonathan J. Cooper.
Wu has gained a degree of infamy over his erratic behavior (to be described shortly for those unfamiliar with the story) leading up to his reelection in 2010.
What's odd about Cooper's failure to tag Wu as a Democrat in his latest report is that he and the AP have done so in several previous dispatches:
- A February 19 unbylined report ("Report: Congressman urged to get psychiatric help") identified Wu as a Democrat in its first paragraph.
- His February 23 item ("Newspapers, GOP call for congressman to resign") identified Wu as a Democrat twice, including once in its first paragraph, and later when it described his district as a "Democratic stronghold."
- A brief February 24 item on Wu ("Newspaper, GOP call for Wu to resign") named his party in the second paragraph.
The theory here is that now that Wu's woes have become a more prominent national story, the AP has decided that the party identification of Wu should came to a halt, lest readers get their minds polluted with the craaaaazy idea that politicians in various forms of trouble in recent years have been largely if not mostly from the Democratic Party. Logically (if there is such a thing at AP) it should have worked the opposite way, as national readers are less likely to already know that Wu is a Dem, and would be interested in knowing.
Here are several paragraphs from Cooper's Sunday evening report:
An Oregon congressman whose erratic behavior has recently prompted calls for his resignation said Sunday that some of his actions could be attributed to a reaction to a mental health drug.
U.S. Rep. David Wu told The Associated Press, however, that it does not explain the behavior documented in reports over the last month, which included sending his staff photos of himself wearing a tiger costume.
Wu said he was hospitalized after his 2008 campaign for symptoms that were later diagnosed as a reaction to a common mental health drug. He said he felt dizzy and confused on Election Day that year, when his staff and family reportedly were unable to locate him.
The AP interview in his Portland office was the most detailed public account yet of Wu's psychiatric treatment since reports of his erratic behavior first surfaced last month. Six staff members quit after his 2010 re-election campaign during which the congressman gave angry speeches and talked his way inside the secure portion of Portland International Airport.
The congressman said last year's episodes were the culmination of a period of mental health challenges that began in 2008 as marital issues led toward his separation from his wife.
… He declined to detail the problems in his marriage but said they had nothing to do with his health.
… Wu attributed his outbursts in 2010 to stress from a tough campaign, a dissolving marriage and taking care of his children, ages 11 and 13.
Asked whether he can handle the stresses of Congress and of a future campaign, Wu said his October episode happened during a period of such extreme stress that wouldn't occur again.
… Wu said he would not step down, despite calls for his resignation from Republicans and from some Oregon newspapers.
The last excerpted paragraph, the 18th of 19 in Cooper's full report, is the only clue that Wu is a Dem through and through.
Wu may have had problems with dizziness and confusion as described above, but it's nothing compared to the dizziness and confusion the AP's Cooper must have been enduring when he wrote this paragraph in his February 23 report:
Wu was a political newcomer when he was elected to Congress in 1998 as the first Chinese-American to serve in the U.S. House. He's maintained a centrist voting record but been a leading voice on human rights abuses in China, and he angered the high-tech firms in his district when he voted against normalizing trade relations with China.
Here are a couple of outside opinions concerning Wu's alleged "centrism":
- His 2009, 2008, and 2007 grades from the conservative, economic freedom-oriented Club for Growth are 0%, 0%, and 6%.
- At the ultraliberal Americans for Democratic Action in each of the same three years, he had ratings of 100%, 90%, and 100%. His 2009 and 2007 voting records earned him recognition as an "ADA Hero."
Earth to Jonathan Cooper regarding Wu's politics: Centrist, schmentrist.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
Obama’s “job creation” commission is chaired and staffed predominantly by experts in how to off-shore jobs, two labor reps, an academic. By Dakine01′s quick check it is
…out of the twenty-three members there are two labor reps, six financial services reps (including Immelt), two media, three “technology,” eight variants on consumer/traditional industries/travel/realty, one academic, and one legal.
Commenter Alternate ID @ 11:28AM, 2/25, contributes the catchy name ConJob Commission. Fitting, as “Con” as in “con man” and “con job” or as in “conservative.”
Tonograd adds, @ xx , 2/26:
To paraphrase Chomsky, a better name for this wrecking crew would be Obama’s Profit Commission. (My emphasis)
Which reality-based name will stick and best describe Obama’s jobs commission? Suggestions?
Captjjyossarian @ 12:19PM, 2/25, contributes this telling comment about economist Laura D’Andrea Tyson, a Bill Clinton adviser now named by the Big O to his ConJob Commissoion, and her interaction with James Goldsmith back in 1993. Note Goldsmith’s predictions.
As far as I can tell, Laura Tyson looks like yet another neoliberal economic hitman.
Back in 1993, James Goldsmith warned Laura D’Andrea Tyson on the Charlie Rose show that if they went forward with the WTO/GATT agreements that the major corporations would move jobs off shore in a heartbeat. She said the opposite would happen, that more jobs would be created with WTO/GATT.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=…
After spending her Clinton years peddling the WTO/GATT agreement, she was given a spot on the board of directors of Morgan Stanley, AT&T Inc, Eastman Kodak. To me this looks like rewards for lies well sold to the public.
James Goldsmith, who was largely correct, also said that WTO/GATT would destroy our society and that it would remain destroyed until wages in the West went down to Asian wage rates. (My emphasis)
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Mubarak’s narcissism apparently knew no bounds.
I saw an Arabic news video that showed what appeared to be Hosni Mubarak wearing a suit that had his name sown in, repeatedly, as the pinstripe pattern:
So I went hunting for the original photo, and, sure enough…it’s there! HOSNYMUBARAK, over and over again.
Here is what the original photo looks like:
And here’s what it looks like up close:
Who knew we were spelling his name wrong all this time?
(The photo was taken in October of 2009.)
Selected quotations from the criminal complaint against Khalid Aldawsari, via Scribd, February 24:
“Only gratification from Allah is what I want; therefore, it is what I seek. And
God willing, I shall encounter it in eternity not in this world” (p. 6).
“You who created mankind and who is knowledgeable of what is in the womb, grant me martyrdom for Your sake and make Jihad easy for me only in Your path, for you have no partner, and make me reside in heaven eternally forever, and shield me in your shadow on the day when there is no shadow but yours. My God, You are the one who responds to supplication” (p. 6).
“if this is the West’s version of freedom, we have our own policies in freedom and it is war until… the infidels leave defeated” (p. 6).
From an email message with the title “How to make explosives”:
“In the name of Allah The Beneficient, The Merciful. Nitro Yoria [Urea] explosive is more powerful than T.N.T.” (p. 7)
From a document found in Aldawsari’s email:
“The page contains a simplified lesson on how to booby-trap a vehicle with items that are readily available in every home. This lesson is directed especially to the brothers in America or Europe stating if anyone is able to execute one of those operations in one of the European countries that is participating in the fight against Muslims, this operation might lead to the withdrawal of that country The message further states that one operation in the land of infidels is equal to ten operations in the land of the Muslims. The writer states that therefore it’s incumbent on Muslims to conquer infidels in their land (p. 8).
Aldawsari:
“I excelled in my studies in high school in order to take advantage of an opportunity for a scholarship to America, offered by the Saululi [perjorative for Saudi royal family] government and its companies, so I applied with [Saudi industrial corporations], and with the Traitor of the Two Holy Places scholarship program and was accepted for all of them, thank God. I chose [a specific Saudi sponsoring corporation] for two reasons. First, [it] sends its students directly to America, …. contrary to [the other] which requires its students to study in the Land of the Two Holy Places for one year. Second, [the sponsoring corporation's] financial support is the largest, which will help tremendously in providing me with the support I need for Jihad, God willing. And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives, and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad. I put my trust in God, for he is the best Master and Authority” (pp. 9-10).
And from the investigating agent, after other information on what Aldawsari considered “nice targets”:
“On February 19 2011, Aldawsari conducted the following keyword searches in order: “party in dallas;” “can u take a backpack to nightclub;” “bakcpack” [sic]; “dallas night clubs” (p. 13).
A truly fascinating piece in the Huffpo about George Wasington’s complicated history with slavery, and the fascinating way his last name became a signifier of “blackness” in America. A clip: …Twelve American presidents were slaveowners. Of the eight presidents who owned slaves while in office, Washington is the only one who set all of them [...]
The Reid Report
(Scott)
National Review’s Robert Costa has the best isconsin update I can find: “Walker holds his ground.” Wisconsin Senate Democrats are still on the run. Somehow, Walker is unfazed. Indeed, his creative juices are flowing:
Walker is confident that he can pressure the on-the-run politicians to return and secure passage of his plan, which would drastically reduce the collective-bargaining power of public-sector unions and force state employees to put 5.8 percent of their salaries toward their pensions and pay 12.6 percent of their health-care premiums.
“We are looking at legal options to compel the senators to come back,” Walker says. “They have no endgame. They don’t know what they are doing. They got caught up in the hysteria and decided to run, but that’s not how this works. You have got to be in the arena.”
Bringing up hot-button legislation while the Democrats are gone is another arrow in Walker’s quiver. Though the Wisconsin constitution requires three-fifths of the senate to be present to pass fiscal legislation, a simple majority of 17 members constitutes a quorum for other bills in the 33-seat state senate. So the 19 GOP senators who remain in Madison can pass any number of bills while their Democratic colleagues are on the lam, and Republicans are a majority in the assembly, too. “They can hold off, but there is a whole legislative agenda that Republicans in the senate and assembly can start acting on that only requires simple majorities,” Walker warns.”If they want to do their jobs, and have a say, they better show up.”
Last week Jesse Jackson showed up in Madison to lead the throng in “We Shall Overcome.” Perhaps we shall overcome Jesse Jackson.
Costa reports that guitarist Tom Morello of the rock band Rage Against the Machine is scheduled to show up in Madison today. However, Morello won’t be raging against the machine. He’ll be performing in support of it. The times they are a-changin’.
“Killing in the Name” was Rage Against the Machine’s breakthrough hit nearly twenty years ago. In the inspirational uncensored version, vocalist Zack de la Rocha screams: “F*** you, I won’t do what you tell me, mother******!” At Woodstock 1999 the band burned the flag while performing the song.
The song was put to its highest and best use when it was played to Guantanamo detainees in order to encourage their cooperation with American interrogators. There is no word whether Morello is threatening to crank up the volume and play it today for Wisconsin Senate Republicans, but they should probably be prepared.
We’ve learned quite a lot about how loathsome a commentator Lawrence O’Donnell is from his “Rewrite” segment on James Hudnall’s and Batton Lash’s “Obama Nation” cartoon. His hilariously uptight lecturing and blatant hypocrisy have already been documented, but one element of his “Rewrite” that needs more attention is his shocking violation of journalistic ethics. Not only does O’Donnell make a fool of himself here, but he crosses several lines, going from pompous to downright menacing.
First of all, check out how O’Donnell introduces Batton and Lash to his audience. The “Rewrite” segment usually includes a comic-style graphic with the title of the segment and, if he’s talking about a right-winger, an unflattering picture of his target next to the word (no picture when it’s a left-winger). However, this particular instance of “Rewrite” went a step further, pasting each author’s picture in the “Rewrite” graphic as well as their names. The formatting turns the graphic into a phrase/sentence: “Rewrite James Hudnall” and “Rewrite Batton Lash.” Am I splitting hairs? Not as finely as those who called for a “New Tone” because of Palin’s target map. From the deluge of death threats these men have received in the wake of O’Donnell’s show, these graphics (and the uniqueness of their layout in this instance) clearly violate the rhetorical standards that pundits like O’Donnell haughtily demanded in the wake of Gabrielle Giffords’ horrendous shooting.
The New Tone at work.
Furthermore, O’Donnell divulges the name of Batton Lash’s wife- not once, but twice. She is a private citizen who had no role in the creation of the cartoon. That fully constitutes an unwarranted breach of privacy on its own, but he goes even further by naming the city in which she and Lash live, directly asking his viewers to confront them in public about Lash’s cartoon- in effect, commanding them to personally harrass a private citizen.
Did any conservative commentators do this to Nir Rosen for his truly despicable tweets about Lara Logan? Did Glenn Beck say, “He lives in [town]; if you find him, say ‘Shame on you!’” Did Sean Hannity directly address his family members? What about Chauncey DeVega and his demonstrably racist screed? Were his family members dragged into right-wing responses to his disgusting attacks on Herman Cain? Was there a talk show host on Fox who scrambled to post his real name and face onscreen?
As James Hudnall originally stated, Lawrence O’Donnell should be disciplined for his indiscretions. Giving out the name of a private citizen who was not involved in the story, giving out the home city of that private citizen, and putting up a graphic which, in effect, reads “Erase this person”- this is totally unprofessional behavior. Who on the right responded to offenses far greater than “Obama Nation”’s cartoon with such egregious intimidation and personal endangerment? Perhaps we’ll find some angry leftist commenter who can point to an obscure example of a right-wing host doing one of these things, but what about all three in a single outrageously sanctimonious segment?
Also, I’ll be waiting patiently for SNL to mock O’Donnell for not looking into his camera the same way they did Michelle Bachmann.
Note the threat: he is demanding that the government destroy the Ahmadiyya, or he is going to do so himself. So if the government is inclined to be more moderate, he is going to do all he can to force it in a more Islamic supremacist direction. Islamic Tolerance Alert from modern, moderate Indonesia. “FPI Vows to Disband Ahmadiyah ‘Whatever It Takes,’” by Rahmat and Markus Junianto Sihaloho in the Jakarta Globe, February 18:
Makassar. The Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) is threatening to disband Ahmadiyah, regardless of the risks, if the government does not take action against the Islamic sect.
Speaking in Makassar, South Sulawesi, on Friday, FPI leader Habib Riziq said that Ahmadiyah was deviant and “must be disbanded.”
“On that basis, the government must know which one is freedom of religion and which one is desecration [of religion]. In the name of Allah, I swear that until the last drop of my blood, whatever the risks, Ahmadiyah must not exist in Indonesia,” Riziq said while giving a sermon before Friday prayers at the Al Markaz Al Islam mosque.
Riziq said he was not afraid of anyone who supported or defended Ahmadiyah, be it the police, the military, nongovernmental organizations, ministers or the government.
“We are not afraid of them,” he claimed.
Riziq said Ahmadiyah was a form of desecration of Islam and the government had to know the difference….
(David Post)
Over at the New York Times, yesterday, Scott Turow and James Shapiro, both of the Authors’ Guild, penned a short piece in defense of stronger copyright law under the title “Would the Bard have Survived the Web?”
“Copyright, . . . linking authors, the printing press (and later technologies) and the market, would prove to be one of history’s great public policy successes. Books would attract investment of authors’ labor and publishers’ capital on a colossal scale, and our libraries and bookstores would fill with works that educated and entertained a thriving nation. Our poets, playwrights, novelists, historians, biographers and musicians were all underwritten by copyright’s markets.. . .
Yet today, these markets are unraveling. Piracy is a lucrative, innovative, global enterprise. . . . The rise of the Internet has led to a view among many users and Web companies that copyright is a relic, suited only to the needs of out-of-step corporate behemoths. Just consider the dedicated “file-sharers” — actually, traffickers in stolen music movies and, increasingly, books — who transmit and receive copyrighted material without the slightest guilt.
They are abetted by a handful of law professors and other experts who have made careers of fashioning counterintuitive arguments holding that copyright impedes creativity and progress. Their theory is that if we severely weaken copyright protections, innovation will truly flourish. It’s a seductive thought, but it ignores centuries of scientific and technological progress based on the principle that a creative person should have some assurance of being rewarded for his innovative work. . . .”
To begin with, how odd is it that they’d invoke Shakespeare in this context? “We need stronger copyright or else we won’t get the next Shakespeare” is like arguing “We need the designated hitter, or how will we ever get the next Babe Ruth?” In a copyright-free world — not that I’m advocating such a thing, but hey, you brought it up — we’ll get the next Shakespeare the way we got the last Shakespeare, in a copyright-free world. The first copyright statute, the Statute of Anne, wasn’t passed until 1709, long after Shakespeare was a-moulderin’ in the grave. [That’s what we need a name for — this kind of absurdly misplaced historical argument]
I won’t go on about the larger, more substantive issues they raise, only because I’ve written about it a zillion times in the past. As Barack Obama reportedly said, at the very end of the last conversation he had with Hosni Mubarak before the latter resigned: ’”I respect my elders. And you have been in politics for a very long time, Mr. President. But there are moments in history when just cause things were the same way in the past doesn’t mean they will be that way in the future.”
But one point they make deserves a more extended reply. Turow and Shapiro voice their support for the bill that was recently introduced in the Senate — the “Combatting Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act” — which would, in their words “target Web sites dedicated to stealing American intellectual property.” COICA, as the bill is known, is a monstrosity, another example of the copyright industries’ attempts to bend the Internet to their private gain. I blogged about it here, and authored a “Law Professors’ Letter in Opposition” posted here — and penned this op-ed piece this past weekend (which the Times chose not to publish):
How Not to Combat Online Infringement
David G. Post
On February 16, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on S.3804, the “Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act” (COICA). The bill authorizes the federal courts to issue injunctions against Internet sites that are “dedicated to infringing activities” — i.e., sites “primarily designed,” or with “no demonstrable commercially significant purpose or use other than,” to offer goods or services in violation of the federal copyright or trademark laws, based upon nothing more than an application by the Attorney General and an assertion that the sites in question are operating unlawfully. The injunctions would not actually be directed at the websites themselves (many of which may be located overseas beyond the jurisdiction of US courts), however, but at their domain names; they would require removal of a site’s domain name from the Internet’s central domain name registry databases, and from the “routing tables” used by Internet Service Providers to process Internet messages and route them to their appropriate destination.
If enacted into law, COICA would fundamentally alter U.S. policy towards Internet speech, and not for the better. Along with 50 other law professors, I signed a letter (available at http://tinyurl.com/COICALetter) urging the Senate to reject the bill, because of its dangerous consequences for free expression online, for the integrity of the Internet’s domain name system, and for the United States’ ability to support Internet freedom abroad.
To begin with, COICA authorizes the suppression of Internet speech without any meaningful opportunity for any party to contest the allegations of unlawful content. By styling these as actions to “seize” domain names (as opposed to actions against the individual(s) performing the allegedly illegal acts), the bill avoids the inconvenience of providing the affected party an opportunity to defend his actions or to receive a final judicial determination, after a full adversary proceeding, that the website in question contains infringing material. Relying solely on prosecutorial allegations of a violation of US law, Internet websites around the world would go “dark” — their content unavailable to Internet users anywhere because their domain names will no longer “resolve” properly in the central databases.
Not only does this violate the offending parties’ rights to fundamental due process and free speech — adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before a neutral judge in an adversary proceeding before content is removed from circulation — it will inevitably suppress large amounts of entirely lawful speech, “burning down the house to roast the pig,” as the Supreme Court once put it. Recent “seizures” of domain names hosting allegedly infringing content by agents of the Department of Homeland Security, operating under the civil and criminal forfeiture provisions of federal law, illustrate the difficulties. Among the websites whose domain name was “seized” in a recent sweep was Rojadirecta.org, a Spanish site offering links to videos of sporting events available on the Internet; unbeknownst (presumably) to the federal agents or the judge issuing the seizure order, court proceedings over the course of several years in Spain had found that Rojadirecta.org was not infringing anyone’s copyright through its listings of available content.
By enlisting private ISPs to block Internet sites solely on the basis of their content, COICA would also represent a dramatic retreat from the US’s long-standing policy of allowing ISPs to focus on empowering communications by and among users, free from the need to monitor, supervise, or play any gatekeeping or policing role with respect to those communications. It is a policy that has not only helped make the United States the world leader in a wide range of Internet-related industries, but it has also enabled the Internet’s uniquely decentralized structure to serve as a global platform for innovation, speech, collaboration, civic engagement, and economic growth.
And perhaps most troubling of all, COICA would compromise the United States’ ability to continue to serve as a bulwark against censorship and other threats to freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and the free exchange of information and ideas on the Internet. At a time when dozens of foreign governments have dramatically stepped up their efforts to censor Internet communications in order to suppress legitimate dissent, to marginalize religious minorities, and to prevent citizens from obtaining information about the world outside their borders — efforts which, in light of the recent events in Egypt and Tunisia, are likely to intensify — the United States has always been a voice, and often the only voice, opposing these efforts. Our ability to defend the principle of the single global Internet — the Internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas, the Internet that looks the same to, and allows free and unfettered communication between, users located in Shanghai and Seattle and Santiago, free of locally-imposed censorship regimes — will be deeply compromised by enactment of S. 3804, which would enshrine in U.S. law for the first time the contrary principle: that all countries have a right to insist on the removal of content, wherever located, from the global Internet in service of the exigencies of local law. Nothing limits the application of this principle to copyright or trademark infringement, and nothing limits the application of this principle to actions by the United States; when all countries exercise this prerogative in support of their local legal regimes, as they surely will, we will have lost — or, more properly speaking, we will have destroyed — the single global inter-connected communications platform that we have built over the past several decades and that holds out so much promise for the improvement of human society across the globe.
The film was made by a “moderate Muslim.” “Pak film lauds ‘death for blasphemy’ in name of Islam reminiscent of Taseer’s murder,” from ANI, February 17 (thanks to Twostellas):
Lahore, Feb 17 : An upcoming Pakistani movie lauds extra-judicial killings in the name of Islam, in a grim reminder of last month’s killing of liberal Punjab Governor Salman Taseer by one of his own bodyguards because of his support for the release of Pakistani-Christian woman Asia Bibi, who has been sentenced to death on blasphemy charges.
Both Taseer’s assassin Malik Mumtaz Qadri and Tariq, the fictitious hero of Noor’s film, are thickset men with bushy beards and dark, round faces, hail from the province of Punjab, the conservative hinterland, and both achieve hero status after committing murder.
Even the film’s tagline carries the same chilling message backed by Qadri and his supporters: “Punishment for Blasphemers: Decapitation.”
Still, director Syed Noor denies any similarity between his film-”Aik Aur Ghazi” (“One More Holy Warrior”)- and Taseer’s killing.
“My film has nothing to do with Salman Taseer,” The Christian Science Monitor quoted Noor, as saying in an interview at his studio.
“The villain in my film claimed he was the prophet of Islam. Salman Taseer was just trying to help a woman,” he argued, referring to Taseer’s efforts to free Aasia Bibi from jail where she awaits a death sentence for blasphemy.
However, critics remain unconvinced, and argue that the film”s expected commercial appeal is indicative of the growing acceptability of extrajudicial killings in the name of Islam.
Pakistani columnist and cultural critic Nadeem Farooq Paracha questioned: “He is making a fictional character who did the same thing as Mumtaz Qadri- how is it different? Where is the logic in that one?”
According to him, Noor’s reputation as a “moderate Muslim” gives his work more credibility. He said that the Pakistani media are full of personalities who, while proclaiming to represent progressive values, often espouse extreme views.
“Such people are far more dangerous than those extroverted about their fundamentalism,” said Paracha, adding, “These are people whose numbers have grown and who call themselves moderate Muslims: They are anything but [moderate Muslims].”
