Winning the War or Winning the Peace?

America has gotten really good at winning wars. From World Wars 1 & 2 to Korea, Vietnam and scores of other conficts around the world, it is militarily correct to say that America has never lost a war. Our military has never been defeated by the enemy to the point where we ran home with our tail between our legs. Quite on the contrary, America's technological superiority, deep pockets, and innovation has spelled doom for our enemies time and time again. An excellent example of America's military dominance is the 1991 Gulf War. Operation Desert Storm saw the liberation of Kuwait from Saddam's Iraqi forces. Literally thousands of Iraqis were killed in ground engagements with US forces or by American air strikes. American casualties in the operation were less than 100 and most of these were from friendly fire! Politicians focus on winning wars but they seem to always forget about the aftermath. After all the bombs have stopped falling, what do we do with the mess we have made? In short, what good are all of our expensive toys if we can't win the peace?

Vietnam is an excellent example of this American problem. Militarily the war was a major victory. American involvement first began after World War 2 when France tried to regain control of their colony from the Japanese. The locals decided they wouldn't replace one imperial power for another so they began a communist revolution for independence. The war raged for several years until the French were finally cornered and defeated at Dien Bien Phu. Thanks to America's foriegn policy of containment and the famous domino theory, we were drawn in to someone else's war. However, unlike the French we were not defeated in battle. The Tet offensive that everybody claimed won the war for the communitsts was in fact a crushing military defeat. The Vietcong was massacred, so much so that they never again challenged Americans in battle. ALl future fighting was done by reular North Vietnamese forces. The reason that America lost the war is because they failed to win the peace.

Diplomacy is a tricky thing, you have to know when to be tough and when to concede. Howerever even more important than diplomacy is the military commitment to turning civilians against the enemy. This is not done through indicriminate bombing, a favorite past time of America. This is done through public works, building schools and roads and hosptials for the people we claim we are trying to protect. In counterinsurgency operations like the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is impossible to win without the support of the civilian population. They represent a possible pool of recruits for the enemy that we must turn to our side. The information that they can provide is simply invaluable. Without a civilian shield to hide behind, the Taliban will be forced to either run or come out in the open where our military can deal with them. Recently Obama ordered a surge of American troops into Afgahanistan, similar to the one that appears to have worked in Iraq. However all of this will be for nothing if Pakistan falls.

Militants are inching ever closer to Islamabad, the capital of a secular muslim country with a sizable nuclear arsenal. Forget North Korea and Iran, this is the real national security crisis. If these radicals gain control of the Pakistani government and its nuclear arsenal then the results could be devastating. US and Coalition forces in the region would be in danger, India would be threatened and terrorist attacks like those on the hit show 24 could become a reality. America's foreign policy should be focused on winning the peace in Afghanistan and Pakistan as quickly as possible. Pakistan needs military assistance so that its fledgling democracy doesn't crumble and fall apart. World leaders have been whining about the dangers of nuclear proliferation, theft, and terrorism for almost twenty years. Now that its happening why isn't anyone doing anything about it? I'm not sure why there isn't a since of urgency about the events that are currently unfolding in Pakistan but there should be. The Obama administration is committed to keeping America safe. This would be a great place to start.

Voting Discrimination in "Post Racial" America

The Supreme Court is about to hear another civil rights case that could either uphold all of the gains of that costly social movement or set the nation back more than sixty years in race relations. The entire issue of voting fairness hinges on one issue, the idea of state and local government's needing pre-clearance from the federal government before any changes are made to their voting dates, procedures, or requirements. But how should the Supreme Court decide?

America's dark history of racism and racial terrorism lends incredible weight to the affirmative side of the debate. Ever since our ancestors first came to this country they were discriminated against on the basis of their darker skin color. Slavery was an economic institution, given social approval under the guise of white supremacy, that exploited African labor and subjugated Blacks as a people for over 200 years. Politically, Blacks were not people, they were property. The famous three-fifths clause allowed Blacks to be counted up like cattle and their votes given to their owners. Black people didn't even count as a whole person! They were told they were sixty percent of a man, woman or child. Escaped slaves and those who managed to buy their freedom were not allowed to vote.

Following the Civil War, Blacks were freed and took political office and power throughout the south. As soon as the federal troops left, violence and economic warfare was again used against the Black community to keep them in their place. Blacks were again forced into the economic slavery of sharecropping, cheated out of fair wages, and stripped of political power. Jim Crow laws were enacted and after Plessy v Ferguson, "separate but equal" became the law of the land. Things were separate but they were far from equal. It would be another 100 years after the end of the civil war before Blacks were finally accepted as equal citizens and protected under enforcable federal law. The Voting Rights Act of 1964 was a beacon of hope that America could overcome its racist past. Specifically, one of the provisions of this act is that local and state governments had to get permission to change anything about their elections. This pre-clearance would allow the federal government to make sure that everyone was being treated fairly. This protection was essential in 1964 when many state governments and local officials outright defied the federal government's half-hearted efforts to appease Black voters. Klan violence, economic warfare, and corrupt laws like the grandfather clause, poll taxes, and literacy tests were all in place to keep Blacks disenfranchised. The Voting Rights Act was a major step towards correcting these injustices.

So what about now in 2009? The opponents on the negative or con side of this debate contend that America has moved into a "post-racial" state and that these protectiosn for minorities are no longer necessary. They cite the election of Barack Obama as the ultimate and irrefutable proof that racism in America is dead. I will be the first one to applaud the progress that this nation has made in the area of race relations. That we have come this far in the last 55 years is nothing short of a miracle. However there is still work to be done. When disparities in judge sentencing for minorities, unfair drug laws, police brutality, high African American unemployment and other problems are considered, it becomes evident that more work is required. Barack Obama is not the Black messiah. He was elected president, but he can't solve all of our nation's problems by himself. Just because he was elected doesn't mean that racism no longer exists in this country.

To be clear, I am not saying that if the Supreme Court strikes down the doctrine of pre-clearance then Blacks will be met once again with an open challenge to their political power. No one is going to reinstate the poll tax or grandfather clause. And no Klansmen are going to start making night rides through Black neighborhoods on the night before elections like they did in the 1960's. However, Barack Obama's election victory illuminates some key truths about the American electorate. A major part of Obama's coalition was minority voters. Many of these votes were cast before the actual election in special polling places in inner cities across the nation. In places where absentee ballots and early voting were allowed, the Democratic turnout was much higher than in places where they were not. I went the Saturday before the election and still had to wait six hours because there were so many people in line. The vast majority of them were also minorities. It also just so happens that some 80% of all African Americans in this country identify with and vote for the Democratic party. Political scientist note that when voter turnout is high, the Democrats tend to do better. Therefore efforts at suppressing the vote would have a negative impact on the Democratic party and a negative impact on African American politcial power. In short, discrimination could occur, not on the basis of skin color, but based upon party identification and electoral politics.

Without the doctrine of pre-clearance, changes could be made in local laws and procedures without the consent of the federal government. Systems like absentee ballots, early voting stations and others that are set up to help everyone, but mostly minorities, could be discontinued. Blacks, especially those with kids and jobs, often find it hard to make it to the polls on election day. Most other democracies either make their election day a holiday or move it to the weekend but that is a discussion for another time. What's important is that the supreme court should uphold the Voting Rights Act, otherwise minority voter turnout could be severely curtailed. That sounds like discriminaton to me.

source:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103315775

The Disturbing Prevalence of Misogyny in Modern Culture

At first I didn't know what the word misogyny meant. I kept seeing it repeated in scholarly articles and various blogs around the web. So I had to consult the dictionary. Here is what I found.
mi⋅sog⋅y⋅ny hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.
source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=misogyny

Hatred and distrust of women? One might expect that under repressive regimes like in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but never in a great place like America, right? A recent example paints a telling picture of the double standards for men and women in this great country of ours.

Recently, Carlie Beck, a California high school cheerleading coach, was abruptly fired from her job. She had done nothing wrong. There were no complaints about her personality, job performance or credentials. After all she had served as a cheerleader at that very same school before she graduated and began a career as a model. The kids absolutely adored her.

However problems occurred surrounding a photo shoot that the she did BEFORE EVER BEING OFFERED THE JOB AT THE HIGH SCHOOL. I bolded the last point because it's important. Beck posed nude for a playboy shoot that was subsequently posted to their website as a part of the "Cyber Girls of the Week" feature. A few weeks later when the pictures became public, Beck was called down to the principle's office (like she's some kind of child?) to discuss the photos. The principal told her he didn't have a problem with the photos as long as she didn't advertise them to the cheerleaders, something she in fact NEVER DID.

One would think that would end any drama, but of course not. A few weeks later Beck was suddenly and unceremoniously fired, no explanation given. When she approached the principle, he apologized but said that no explanation would be given to her. Disgruntled parents of a teen cheerleader who didn't make the squad that year printed out the same photos the principle already knew about and took them to the school demanding answers. So what happened? The school took the coward's route and fired Beck instead of showing integrity and standing up for their popular and effective cheerleading coach. The parents cited "moral reasons" for filing their complaint. However it is all too obvious that jealousy was the real motive. After all they didn't file any complaints until after their 14 year old daughter was ineligible to be a cheerleader because of too many school absences.

I wonder if the husband of the couple didn't already know about Beck long before the principal or anyone else found out what she did on her personal time. It is impossible for the porn industry to be booming without someone out there tuning in and giving it their tacit approval, at least until they get their jollies off. After they are satisfied then the industry and apparently everyone in it are scum of the Earth. What kind of attitude is that? Since when were people only useful for one purpose and one purpose only? This is doubly disgusting when the role in question confines the perpetrator to a solely sexual role, it creates a situation where women are exploited and then abused. Basically it says that these women are only good enough for me to fantasize about, but they don't deserve a normal life, working in a profession they love like teaching or trying to make a difference in the lives of young people.

Morally this is unacceptable. Yet people live with it everyday. Who are we to say that Beck is unfit to teach? The principle rightly forbade her from advertising that kind of lifestyle to her pupils and she complied. The kids and in reality most of the parents absolutely adored Beck. The principal himself said that he had no problems with what she did in her private life. Just think of how outraged you would be if your employer tried to demonize you or things that you did while not on company time. If being a porn star is so horrible, then they should be allowed to escape to normal jobs that are acceptable to the moral compasses of the community. But to use women as objects for our own sexual gratification and to then turn around and insult them with such common words as slut and whore is doubly wrong.
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Parenting/Story?id=7405443&page=2

These double standards are so intertwined in our culture that it is simply shocking. If a man has multiple sexual partners then he is a pimp, a playa or a stud (all positive implications), yet if a women shows the same promiscuousness then she is a home wrecker and a slut and deserves whatever consequences she gets be it pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, the scorn of society, or maybe something as simple as a broken heart. Whatever happened to everyone being equal? Why can't promiscuity be wrong for everyone and not just the members of the gender without balls? I'm telling you that the practices of abusing and using women have been going on for centuries and it is still happening today, right under our noses. Except now it has turned into a mind game. These double standards are so common that they are used to blame the victim, i.e. the female into an even deeper state of servitude and sexual slavery. We listen to songs with lyrics about pissing on females and "superman dat hoe" without batting an eye. But as soon as a young woman wants to make a change and do something positive in her life then she suddenly is the bad guy.

I ask all of you who are reading this to really pause and consider this issue. If you are a man, (and I mean a real man not some wannabe punk child who feels that his manhood is threatened if he doesn't debase and dominate females), then how do we respond to this? What changes do we need to make so that misogyny and gender prejudice is not spread or endorsed by our actions? For the females out there, what do you put up with in this patriarchic society that you shouldn't?

Everyone including me got all bent out of shape when Don Imus called the Rutgers collegiate basketball team a bunch of nappy-headed hoes. If words are just words and they have no meaning then who cares, right? People realize that words DO HAVE MEANING. Not only are they hurtful to the victim and the perpetrator but they often point to more harmful character flaws and tendencies. The same people who don’t have a problem calling a female outside of her God and parent-given name are often the same ones that don’t have a problem beating her down if she “gets outta line”
So Don Imus used the word hoe and everyone created a fuss about it. But culturally what does it mean? What are the distinctions between a hoe and a non hoe? What is the magical number of men that transforms a person from a woman to something that is scorned by society? Is it one, two, or twenty? How come men never or hardly ever receive the same stigma for the same or even worse acts of sin and fornication? How much time must pass between a racy photo shoot and attempts to gain meaningful employment? Is it 6 months, a year, ten years or even ever? Does posing nude really mean that you lose all dignity and that people are no longer required to treat you with respect? More importantly, why do these questions need to be asked in the first place? Whatever happened to everyone being a human being and being loved by God and each other? Why do we as people spend so much time trying to tear one another down instead of building each other up?

I have spent so much time lately trying to figure out what is wrong with the world. I am convinced that problems like low self-esteem, inequalities in gender pay and salary for the same jobs, the prevalence of archaic, hurtful, and often very wrong gender stereotypes and worst of all domestic violence all have roots in this idea of double standards and cultural misogyny. As men its time to stand up and say enough is enough. If you don’t have a problem with this issue then I’m not talking to you. But the next time you’re ready to assert your male dominance and objectify, abuse, or misuse one of God’s people, think very carefully about what it is that you are doing. Imagine that she is you mother, sister, significant other, or daughter. I guarantee that your response will be different.

End the Racist Rhetoric Now!

In multiple previous posts I have mentioned hateful political rhetoric and it's harmful effects on the unity of this great nation. Again I want to acknowledge that no one group or segment of the population has a monopoly on hate speech. Almost every political party is guilty of it in some form or another. More importantly the results are always the same. Tempers flare, fuel is added to the fire, and we are all distracted from the real issues. Discussions and productive policy debates devolve into third grade name calling and shouting matches. This from the people that we elect to lead our nation!

Since the opposition party is generally the ones spewing the most rhetoric it is the Republicans that are currently guilty of fanning the flames. As a nation our patience with idiots who are more concerned with political gamesmanship and getting re-elected than doing their job as civil servants is sickening. In no other profession would people who so callously disregard their duties and the call to leadership be allowed to keep their job, except maybe CEOs on Wall Street.

The Republicans have become the party of no. That is their answer to every initiative or policy that the Democrats propose. Saying no in and of itself isnt bad. As the opposition party their should be tension and disagreement. But use that tension as a catalyst for open and prodductive debate so that the policies that our government enacts are fair to both sides and in turn best for the nation's people. Instead of offering policy alternatives, Republican leaders turn to racism and hate speech, asserting that Obama is a "closet muslim" a socialist, communist or whatever. If it has a negative connotation then they have probably used it in reference to Obama. But what about the really inflammatory statements? Why is no one getting upset about that?

Yesterday Texas Governor Rick Perry had this to say, "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that." Actually no dude I don't know what you are talking about. But if I had to guess, it sounds like you want to secede. Maybe he needs to be told that such talk is treason, hateful, stupid and a million other negative things. Maybe he needs a history lesson, because his predecessors already tried 140 years ago and failed, with great loss of life on both sides I might add. Does he really want war? So its ok when a Republican idiot is screwing over the country but as soon as a black man is elected commander in chief then its time to call it quits and leave? Where were the calls for secession when Clinton was elected president, or FDR. They are just as socialist, marxist, hatever you want to call it as Obama supposedly is. The man has been in office for four months and people already want to start a war.

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20090417/cm_uc_crsesx/op_399701;_ylt=Aqypa6s1LwDRzkulfF2ZUnr9wxIF

Now to be fair, it is all a political act. The Texas governor is going to be up for re-election soon and he is trying to make headlines by opposing the federal government. That is not a new political trick. But while no one in the political world is taking his comments seriously there could be members of the general populace that are. I already reported on right wing extremism and the potential threat to national security that it poses in a previous post. What kind of a message does such rhetoric send to these nutjobs? When will people stop and realize that words have power and meaning? The Texas governor just made public comments about starting a second civil war, no sane or intelligent person would ever do that.

But wait it gets better. Republicans are so inflamed over Democrat spending and the federal budget that on tax day they organized "tea parties" to protest unfair taxation. This hearkens back to the orignal Boston Tea party in the late 1700's that was an act of defiance by American patriots protesting unfair British taxation. However that is where the similarities stop. The colonials rightly asserted that they were being taxed unfairly, America had no seats in Parliament and was therefore excluded from the political process. The Republicans on the other hand have a fair shot at getting elected. The general public just doesn't want them in power anymore, as teh 2006 and woo8 election results clearly show.

It is their right to demonstrate and protest. As a matter of fact I encourage it. As the eternal blowhard Rush Limbaugh said, any attempt to widen the electorate and public involvement in the political process is a noble one (if only he believed his own words). But when the protests involve racism, fear mongering and hatred then I have a problem. It is one thing to dissent and to disagree, it is another thing to be a bigot. Lets have a look at some of the protestors home made signs...

Hang em high! (this can only be a reference to lynching and Obama, my blood boils over such blatant racism and hatred)

Show us your real birth certificate (again following the already debunked Republican myth that Obama is somehow un-American which even if true would mean nothing because a non-American could probably run the country better than any of these idiots.)

The American Tax Payers are the the Jews for Obama's ovens (this is my favorite one. It really shows the class and humanity of the person that wrote it. First of all it is repulsive that someone would exploit a genocide of millions of innocent people in order to try and make connections to a completely unrelated current political event. This person's logic is a flawed as their personality. Jews and all people that actually have a heart should be offended by such a statement. Oh and it keeps up the stupid and completely wrong connection between socialism, Hitler and Obama. OBAMA IS NOT HITLER. Stop comparing are president to one of the most sadistic and cruel human beings ever to walk the face of this Earth. What genocide has Obama ordered lately? None, remember that the next time to see Obama and Hitler comparisons.)

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20090417/cm_thenation/15427881;_ylt=Aqdyg9KZG8shxB9ciYwp1CH9wxIF

Again while none of this is new, it is offensive and horrible display of just how despicable people can be. If you are having economic troubles then I sympathize with you, but guess what, everyone else is suffering too. Your pain, anger, or different beliefs don't give you the right to insult the rest of America with your bigotry. People always ask how intolerance, racism, and violence lasted openly for so long in this country. I think we've found our answer. It is time for all sides to end the racist and or hate rhetoric now!

Save the Fighting for the Military

Every year the Pentagon sends Congress a wishlist of all the new expensive toys that it wants for the military. And just about every year politicians and the rest of the military industrial complex make sure that budget is passed. But aside from fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, what exactly is the military doing with all of this money? Why, outsourcing of course!

Whatever happened to the good old days when America's armed forces didnt have to rely on civillian contractors to do their job for them. I understand that the military is stretched thin right now but that will happen when there are thousands of troops stationed in far away countires like Germany, South Korea and Japan. World War 2 and the Korean war ended 60 years ago, why are our troops still there?

So now we have contractors, unofficial civilian soldiers, policing important areas in Iraq. Haliburton, the huge defense contracting company that former Vice-president Cheney was part owner of, has made a financial killing off the wars. They are responsible for assisting the military in whatever capacity that the military wants help in. But if our military is supposedly the greatest in the world (which it in fact is), then why do we need these extra measures? The answer is we don't, but because of political reasons and corporate and governement greed, these private soldiers will continue to act with impunity.

Has anyone ever really investigated who these guys answer to? I don't want any random person with guns running around killing people in the name of America. For those of you following the currrent season of the hit Fox show 24, you know that the fictional Starkwood, a defense contractiong company, is currently waging war against its own country. Are such events possible in real life? Now admittedly, most of these guys are ex-military or police anyway so they have training in this line of work. But one has to wonder if some random and inexpereienced Rambo wannabe didn't slip through the screening process and is now running amuck in a foreign country armed to the teeth with the latest weapons that technology has to offer. It would make me feel better if our country's increasing reliance on mercenaries was showing signs of decline, or even stablization, but it's not.

In response to the recent Somali pirate incidents, Ron Paul, a Republican senator, is considering drafting legislation that would allow contractors and private citizens to police international waters off the coast of Africa in order to help fight pirates. What about the navy? I mean honestly with all of the Destroyers, Frigates, Subs and million dollar aircraft carriers that we have, its not enough to stop teenagers with rickety speed boats and rpgs? Such a fight is so unfair it borders on ridiculous. It would be akin to me challenging a UFC champion to the best of three rounds! Politicians are so worried about their public image and their own wallets that they have thrown common sense to the wind. Ron Paul asserts that delegating the task of pirate control to contractors would be cheaper than paying the military to do it. Whatever happened to quality over quantity? In life or death matters like this, it is important to get everything done right, not look for ways to cut corners on final bill. Don't they realize that putting more people out there who are armed and of questionable competency would only serve to esscalate the violence? What happens the first time one of these pirate hunters encounter a Somalian? Will they fire? Will there be reprisals?

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090415/pl_politico/21245

The American captain that was recently rescued proves a valuable point. He was not rescued by civilian Johnny Depp wannabes with itchy trigger fingers. The rescue operation was done by teh highest trained professionals, the US military and resulted in a monetarily costly (estimated in the millions of dollars) but politically and morally acceptable victory. The captain was freed with no loss of life to Americans, minimal violence against the Somali pirates, and little to no political fallout over the confrontation. The keyword here is professional, these men and women are trained and equipped for this line of work and they perform their job well. Lets give them a chance to do it instead of outsourcing to irresponsible and potentially volatile mercenary forces.

Racism, Radicalism and Guns- A Horrible Combination

It really is funny how events in life are all interconnected. Everything happens for a reason, nothing is an accident. Once all of the pieces come together, then true understanding occurs.

Yesterday I was relaxing and playing some Call of Duty 4 with some friends when we joined a lobby with a guy who was probably the most ignorant and racist bigot I have ever heard open his mouth. It all started when one of my friends overheard this guy and the rest of the team talking about the coming NHL playoffs. My friend make some comment to the effect that hockey is a lame sport. Then out of nowhere this guy starts going off and demands to know what sport is better. My friend replied "I watch basketball and football". The other guy, apparently upset by this answer, starts going on and on about how watching niggas run up and down a court throwing around a ball is lame. Now at this point I was a little caught off guard. Already stressed out from school, I wasn't in the mood to deal with this blowhard's ignorance. I told him not to use the n word as I found it offensive, especially in the manner that he was using it. He went on to remark that basketball would be more interesting if all the players ran around with guns and shot each other. "After all", he asserted, "wouldn't that make the game just like real life, a bunch of good for nothin niggas killin each other off"

At this point I lost it. Whatever calm or composure I had prior to that left in a hurry. I proceeded to tell the guy EXACTLY how I felt about him and his 1950's Jim Crow outlook on life. He spent the rest of the match complaining that I was too sensitive and calling me and my two friends "niggas", (oddly enough both of my friends were White). Later that night we jumped in to another match that featured a moron telling two other guys in the virtual lobby that they were Mexicans and demanded that they come mow his lawn. Now how he even came to a conclusion about their racial background is beyond me because all of this happened online. Its not like we were all meeting up in person or something. We couldn't see each other. This guy just decided that they Mexican. Oh and apparently being Mexican is somehow a bad thing? Once again I lost my temper and after slaughtering the idiot and his little posse of internet thugs in the next game I proceeded to tell him exactly what kind of an idiot he really was.

Really? I understand that they are just words but people need to realize that words and ideas have meaning and power. It must become the norm that any form of oppression is wrong, no matter who the perpetrator or the victim is. It was words and ideas that fueled the slave trade, words and ideas that made colonialism and its devastating effects on the native populations exceptable, words and ideas that gave rise to the Nazis and the Holocaust. Shall I continue? Just because these people hide behind the internet doesn't make their comments any less offensive than if they would have said it to my face. The only thing hiding does is save them from a trip to the hospital had they been stupid or brave enough to confront me personally. More importantly, what do these comments say about people's attitudes and beliefs? Are these morons the norm or an abnormality? Is tolerance and political correctness a public display meant to mask sinister inner feelings or is it an honest effort to treat everyone with dignity and respect?

I said earlier in the post that everything happens for a reason. This story does in fact come full circle. This morning I saw an article on yahoo that scared me witless. The Homeland Security Secretary has decided that Islamic Jihad is no longer the top threat to America. 9/11, as horrific and scary as it was, has been superseded by what informed authorities consider to be an even graver threat. Recently the Department of Homeland Security circulated a 9 page memo on the resurgence of Right wing radicals. The report warns of "Right-wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20090415/cm_uc_crmmax/op_199662

Time to connect the dots. Here in America we have ignorant, racist, fanatics whose only moral compass is the second amendment or the right to bear arms. This is serious business people. The government itself has already declared this movement a threat to national security. So go ahead and keep listening to those who say that Rush Limbaugh isn't hurting anyone. Its precisely hate-mongering radicals like him that are fueling this movement. Just because we have a Black president doesn't mean that racism in this country is dead. Those same people who get online and insist that being a Mexican is a fate worse than death are the same people who send death threats to politicians who favor amnesty for illegal immigrants. Scarier still, these are the same people who are card carrying members of the National Rifle Association. Its the whole guns and God movement except they forgot the God part.

The Homeland Security memo should be expanded to include all forms of violent radicalism, not just the antics of those on the right. While their rhetoric may be harsh (wanting President Obama to fail is overboard no matter how they try to explain their comments away) it so far hasn't resulted in violence yet. As far as we can tell the recent string of shooting sprees in public and family spaces across the country were not politically motivated. However a group of 12 Black teenagers did find it neccessary to jump two vicitims, both White, while hurling racial insults at the pair. When will the world realize that human life is the most sacred thing that we have? Are hate and bigotry so entrenched in this world that there is no way out? It starts with everyone becoming responsible for thier own actions. Until that day comes, nothing will improve.

Somalian Piracy- International Terror or Social Injustice?

This has been a really bad month for President Obama. Our European allies have refused to send more combat troops to Afghanistan, North Korea launched a suspected ballistic missile, Iran and Russia remain lukewarm at best to American diplomatic overtures, and to top it all off, Somalian pirates are making headlines again.

A few days ago an American cargo ship, the Maersk Alabama was seized by Somali raiders. After some sort of struggle, the crew managed to retake the vessel. The raiders took the captain of the vessel, 53 year old Richard Phillips hostage. American warships were dispatched to the area following the incident. Phillips attempted to escape pirate captivity by jumping overboard and swimming to a US Destroyer that was following the pirates. Unfortunately, he was recaptured and now remains a prisoner of the pirates.

A hostage situation has developed into a standoff between the Somalians and American forces. Negotiations are underway to procure the release of the hostages. However this apparently isn't enough for American Hawks who can't get enough of war. Since the incident began they have been blasting Obama for not issuing a statement concerning the crisis. Reporters questioned Secretary of State Hilary Clinton on the administration's stance towards the pirates. She deflected the question with laughter and proceeded to change topics.

Republicans are up in arms, charging that Obama is an incompetent president and that he is showing weakness by not dealing strongly with the Somalian piracy. However this is a problem that has been going on for years, so why the sudden outburst now? American forces are already in the area and the FBI has sent in hostage negotiation experts to get our people out alive. What more do Republicans want? Why more war of course! After all, invading Iraq and Afghanistan while simultaneously threatening Russia, Iran, and North Korea just isnt mean enough. After all, America is weak if it relies on diplomacy fro a change instead of indiscriimantely bombing everyone who disagrees with us, civilians included.

Let look at some of the comments from the article posted to a conservative leaning website.
I’d be laughing to if I wasn’t so ashamed of the actions of this president. My God a row boat with five pirates, out of fuel holding off a US warship is beyound belief! What have we become? I’m waiting for three Mexicans with muskets taking over El Paso. Whats next?

Perhaps we should let the Turkish Navy handle the pirates. They still hang men from the yardarm. I’ve seen it.

Hint: Pave Somalian coast and destroy all ports. Let’s have lil bHo monitor that on tv with his sports watching buddy. Boo ya

Will Patrick “Pork Man” Leahy write new legislation to set up a “Piracy Visitor Center” in Vermont where they can serve organic sandwiches and inform the Nation about the need to conduct ethical trade so pirates wont get their feelings hurt?

source:http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/09/why-is-hillary-laughing/

Yes because blowing up these people's only method of trade and importing food is going to make matters better. Somalia is a failed state that has no working government and little infrastructure. Their national economy is a joke. Their Gros Domestic Product for all of fiscal year 2008 was a meager $5.756 billion. We have single businesses here in AMerica that make more profits than their entire country does! I don't know much about economics but I do know that you can't feed a family off of that. Faced with ongoing civil wars between regional war lords, a failed governement, unbelievably high poverty, disease levels, and horrible living conditions, some segments of the population turn to another source of income, piracy.

To be clear I am in no way saying that piracy is right. However, to call these people terrorists is absolutely absurd. They are no different than the criminal in America that steals bread to take home to his children. Do we declare war on these people? No, a better idea would be to give them alternatives to build a healthier and more productive lifestyle. These people have been suffering for years. Piracy has been going on for several years now and no one has been hurt. The ships and hostages are always released unharmed in exchange for ransom money. In reality is all comes down to alternatives. In Somalia, the conditions are so bad that they have no other options. And they are smart enough to realize that the international community doesn't give a rat's tail about their well being.

During the last joint UN and American aid mission a firefight broke out that led to the events dramatized in the movie Black Hawk Down. We lost two helicopters and then ran away like a bunch of cowards. Did we lose the war? NO, there was no war to be lost. We simply didn't care enough about Africa to commit the time and resources needed to better these people's lives. The Rwandan Genocide was supposed to be the last time that America stood by while innocents were massacred by the thousands. Every politician in the UN and American governments admitted after the shooting had stopped and hundreds of thousands lay dead that they had made a "mistake". But they said is would never happen again. A decade later in 2003, women were being raped and shot by the Muslim Janjaweed in the Darfur region of Sudan and not one American politician lifted a finger. It was ok for us to fight a war of liberation in Iraq to get rid of weapons of mass destruction that didn't even exist, but we couldn't stop yet another genocide in Africa. Little boys and girls were hunted down and shot like dogs, men were forced to serve in the milita's or watch their families be slaughtered, women were sold into slavery or worse, yet America did nothing.

Now we stand at a crossroads. Do we help these people who are so desperate to make a living any way they can. Or do we blame the victim and condemn them to death in a war that nobody wants except bloodthirsty Republicans. Remember, to show mercy to the "enemy" is a sign of weakness. America needs to realize who its real enemies are.

Sentencing Discretion and the Justice System, Not Justice at all

This country places a premium on the rights of the individual versus the rights of the whole. The entire due process system is designed to prevent abuses of power by the government against the defendant. Miranda rights, constitutional rights against self incrimination, lawyer-client privelege, and the ability to appeal a conviction are all part of the due process system.

But what about parts of the system that don't work? Discretionary sentencing is a mechanism that is intended to allow judges and juries to take each specific trial on a case by case basis to insure maximum fairness in imposing sentencing. This allows legal (age, prior criminal record) and extra-legal (gender, past relationship history) factors to be taken into account so that the entire process is made more fair both to the defendant and to society. Under such a system, mercy could be given under circumstances that called for it like when a father steals food to feed his starving family. Consequently, the law could come down hard on those criminals who are truly inhuman in their behavior, like the serial killer who rapes and strangles his victims, cuts up the bodies and stores them in his freezer.

This is what discretionary sentencing was designed for. Indeed, when it was in danger of being taken away through the passage of mandatory sentencing guidelines, judges ranted and raved that the system would no longer be fair if they lost these powers of discretion. Current studies still show that minorities get harsher sentences than their white counterparts for COMMITTING THE SAME CRIMES. This is not a new phenomenon. Although things are getting better, racial and socio-economic tensions continue to mire the fairness record of criminal sentencing in this country.

But don't worry it doesn't stop there. Things get much, much worse. Two cases in particular show the danger of discretionary sentencing when it is applied by unmerciful, callous bigots of a judge who dare to assert that they represent justice and morality. The first case involves a man who was a blue collar worker. He came home one night to find his wife in bed with another man. Enraged, he assaulted the man and chased him from the house, pursuing him for some time before giving up the chase. Up to this point, everything was fine and no crime had really been committed. We can all agree that catching our signifigant other in the act of adultery would cause considerable emotions of anger and distress. However, here things take a turn for the worse. Four hours after the incident occured, the man and his wife were having an argument about the affair. During the course of the argument the man grabbed a hunting rifle and SHOT HER IN THE HEAD. She died and he was arrested.

Now under law this man's actions can fall under a couple of categories. If it is proven that he premeditated his actions, then that is murder. The least he could be charged with under the Ohio Revised Code is voluntary manslaughter. Now the average sentence for voluntary mansalughter is normally at least a few years. In order to qualify as voluntery manslaughter, the emotional state of the defendant had to be of sufficient provocation. I know that adultery is wrong, but is it really worth killing someone over? Besides, this wasn't right after the he caught them in bed. He had more than a few hours to cool down and collect himself. Instead he decapitates his wife with a firearm.

This brings us back to discretionary sentencing. The minimum that this man should have gotten was a year, and probably more than that considering the violent nature of the crime. However this didn't happen. At the trial, the judge sentenced the defendant to only six months in prison! Even more incredible, the judge told the defendant afterwards that "I wish I didn't have to give you any jail time at all, but I had to in order to uphold the law!" At this point in my law class I was angry, but I rationalized it by saying that the judge was just showing an incredible amount of mercy. So surely such mercy in discretionary sentencing would be applied in cases where it really mattered right? Wrong, as a matter of fact it couldn't be farther from the truth. Consider this next case and then you will see what "justice" in America amounts to.

A woman who had been married to her abusive husband for over a decade had finally had enough. For 11 years he had beaten her, degraded her, psycologically and emotionally abused her, and threatened her on numerous occasions. Obviously one can only take such treatment for so long. So one day when he comes home from work, she kills him. During her trial it is made known that for years she had been the victim of domestic abuse. Because of these mitigating factors she was charged with voluntary manslaughter. The prosecutor himself knew the facts of the case and was only requesting a sentence of one year or less. He knew the absolute hell she had lived through for years and the suffering and trauma she must have experienced. So everyone agrees that she had a legitimate reason for killing her husband, some people might even argue that what she did wasn't even wrong. I know if I knew someone in her position I would put the husband 6 feet under. No further questions asked.

So this is the part where the due process model comes through with a victory right? I mean after all this is America, land of the free, home of the brave and the worldwide defender of justice and equality. Nope, the judge sentenced her to a THREE YEAR PRISION TERM, THREE TIMES THE SENTENCE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ASKED FOR. So there you have it, justice American style. When a man comes home and finds his no good "whore" of a wife cheating on him, he blows her brains all over the wall and no one cares. The judge in that case is winking at the defendant the entire time during the trial and then comes out and says he wishes he could let the man go free without serving any jail time! This is what happen to women who dare committ adultery against their husband. But when you have a women who has been used for 11 years as someone else's human punching bag, oh well that's apparently ok. Because after all, if she gets tired of it and finally stands up for herself, she gets 6 times the sentence the jealous husband did for the same crime, voluntary manslaughter.

6 times the sentence, and morally her reason was a thousand times better than just simple adultery. I don't know all the particulars of the case but her life very well could have been on the line. What happened to self-defense? What happened to mercy being applied when it is called for by mitigating circumstances? Can those judges look me in the eye and honestly tell me that adultery is 6 times worse than getting the hell beat out of you for 11 straight years. I'm disgusted, I'm angry and if you're not then something is wrong. How dare these men claim to represent justice and morality and equality! When I heard my law professor explain these two stories in lecture I almost fell out of my chair. I can't even find the words right now to express the uncontrollable rage I feel from this injustice.

To be clear, I still believe in the justice system. Just because something is broken or damaged doesn't mean you throw the entire thing away. But something must be done about these double standards. Misogny, bigotry and hatred can't be exemplified any more clearly than these two cases illustrate. Its absolutely sickening. Discretionary sentencing, when done right, can be a great tool for good in the world. Lets hope that the system begins to live up to its potential.

Mixed Couples-The Real Deal

So I just read a post from another young black male like myself who was writing on a black forum website. He said that he was very outspoken about racial injustice and was very proud of his heritage. He met a very kind and attractive Italian girl in high school and they immediately hit it off. Its been over a year and they are still happily together. To get to the point, the young man was asking if it was irreconcilable for him to be outspoken about systemic and enduring racism while simultaneously dating a white girl. I was horrified by the responses he received.

The first response was something along the lines of "you're an idiot get off of our forum" No further explanation was given. A few other people chimed in with words of encouragement, saying the choice was ultimately his. Then a Black female gave her opinion and all hell broke loose. She called him a poison because he dared to date outside the race and said that he obviously doesn't care about black people since he's dating some random Italian chick. I almost signed up for an account just so I could tell her what a heartless bigot she really is (and no those weren't the only words I wanted to use).

Seriously isn't life hard enough without us bringing our fellow brothers and sisters down? True love is always enough to overcome anything, race and other superficial differences should not matter AT ALL. Recently John McCain drafted a bill to posthumously exonerate a famous black boxer who was convicted in the early 1900's for consensually dating a white woman. After all back then such horrors were against the law! Where are we as a people when our mate is determined, not by how good a person they are or what chemistry the relationship possesses but by the color of their skin? Didn't Dr King give a great speech about that very sort of thing a little over 40 years ago?

According to this logic anyone who dates outside the race is a traitor, well sort of. And please pay attention because this double standard is tearing our communities apart at the seems. From what I've heard in conversations with other people, it is socially acceptable for a black man to date a latino, asian or any other race OTHER than a white woman. As soon as that barrier is crossed, then all bets are off. Sistas start freaking out, talking about how the dude wants some docile and submissive white woman over a strong Black one. No, maybe they just really love each other. From what I've heard, men don't really give two tail wags who women date in terms of race. That could be wrong, maybe I just haven't seen that sentiment expressed yet.

The truth of the matter is that this is not just a Black female or Black male issue. Everyone should be allowed to date whoever they want and everyone else should just mind their own business. Being on the receiving end of these comments is hurtful, aggravating, and downright unnecessary. I've talked to white females seriously before and was totally fine with it. Unfortunately some of my friends weren't. "What you playin in the snow now?" was actually one of the nicer comments I got. I won't bother posting the other ones.

When will people get over this? People its 2009, we have a Black President in the oval office and experts report that most Americans will be of mixed race by 2040. I'm currently involved in a relationship with a beautiful, intelligent, strong Black woman and I couldn't be happier. But would it really make me a traitor if I dated someone that didn't look like me? I choose real love over archaic prejudices any day. I can only pray that everyone comes to realize the truth before its too late. In the meantime I have to hold in my anger. Its hard though. I hate bigotry and racism of any kind, especially coming from Black people. Really? Come on people, we've experienced it often enough. We should know better.

source:http://www.afrochat.net/forums/love-relationships/21947-should-i-feel-guilty.html

Mulitilateralism vs American Hegemony

Out of the ashes of destruction in the wake of World War Two rose two world superpowers that would alter the course of human history. The United States and the USSR, flushed with victory over the Axis powers, turned on each other and began to assert their influence over every corner of the globe. The resulting "cold war" plunged humanity into 50 years of darkness where it was possible, thanks to advances in weapon's technology, that any given day could have been the our last. Never before had there been such a disparity in power between those at the top and those at the bottom. All of history's greatest empires, from Macedonia and Alexander the Great, to Rome, France, and the British colonial empire paled in comparision to the military, economic, and ideological might that America and the Soviet Union possessed.

Following the fall of the USSR in the early 1990's, America became the World's only superpower. The world changed from a bipolar world to a multipolar one, but American foreign policy remained stagnant. Just like an old coach who stupidly refuses to change his sports team's tactics when facing a new situation, America refused to re-examine it's new place in the world. Stuck in selfish "us first" mode, America took the tactics that successfully one the cold war and tried to use them in the new world order of the 21st century. Unsurprisingly these bull headed efforts failed.

America is finally beginning to realize that its power, while great, is not enough to solve the global challenges that our world faces. Terrorism, economic recession, environmental degradation, human rights abuses are all problems that need to be addressed. The US can not do it alone. International Relations scholars have correctly theorized that America must make its dominance, soft and acceptable or risk international backlash. History shows that might nations do not last forever. Even Rome, the 1000 year old empire, eventually fell pray to internal weakness and corruption and outside mass migrations.

What must America do to avoid such a fate? It must reverse its selfish unilateralist foreign policies and instead embrace a culture of cooperation with other nations. Under Bush, America was unafraid to go it alone. The Iraq war was launched without the permission of the United Nations Security Council and was basically an illegal occupation. Countries around the world saw this blatant disregard for international law and state sovereignty and are taking note. American power hurt us bu pushing people away, making them resent American power and interests. This encouraged states like North Korea and Iran to develop weapons programs thait could not be ignored by American leaders. These they intend to use for intimidation, leverage in negotiations and if necessary in self defense. After all America sent a very clear message in 2003 that it is unafraid to wage unjust wars in order to accomplish its goals.

Unilateralism is akin to the bully of the playground. He can walk around and pick on the little kids for only so long before everyone is tired of his arrogance. Eventually the smaller kids form alliances and the bully finds himself outnumbered and surrounded on all sides by enemies. America must stop this reckless and arrogant behavior before the rest of the world decides that enough is enough. Pentagon analysts recently wrote a report that China is drastically increasing their military capabilities by investing in attack subs, cyber warfare, and research and development of aircraft carriers. Add to that the fact that they have a population of over a billion people (outnumbering America more than 3 to 1) and currently own a large section of the American economy and we have a reason to be concerned.

I'm not saying that war with China is inevitiable, or even likely. But countries are taking notice. Russia is beginning to make more noise about its own ambitions in eastern Europe, China wants Taiwan, and the European Union is tired of being called America's kid brother. Conflict could come if we don't tread very carefully. America must look at the long term. Not only is it morally right to cooperate with other nations to serve common interests, but it will restore America's image as the benevolent protector of freedom and democracy, a label that America lost when it decided it could act alone without the consent of the international community. If problems like the economy and the war on terror are to be solved, it will require everyone's cooperation. America can't do it alone. Obama seems to realize this and is taking steps to rebuild America's alliances. Let's hope that this multilateral trend continues.