The Pope Is A Taker

There have been many books I have read that have caused me to stop and ponder, some have caused me to understand another view, and some have caused me to wonder why they were ever written. Few books have ever caused me to alter my view of myself and the world around me. One of those books was entitled, “Ishmael” by Daniel Quinn. The synopsis of the book and the series is that there are two types of people who have inhabited the earth, they are “takers” and leavers”. The takers believe that that the earth was created for man to conquer and to rule over. They believe that everything on the earth is theirs for the taking and the destroying in pursuit of man’s God given status. The leavers believe that man is just one part of the earth and not the end all, be all. The leavers believe that we as men have an obligation to care for the earth and its inhabitants and to live in it in a way to try and disturb it as little as possible.

The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.[1]

The sad thing about the takers is that they are everywhere. They have permeated every level of society and they espouse all types of beliefs. Takers can be Christians, Communists, Capitalists, Socialists, Libertarians, Agnostics, Atheists, or any other sect, denomination or political affiliation. The difference between the takers whether they are capitalist or communists is not the use or destruction of the resources, but the distribution of that destruction. Both believe that it is man’s to do as he pleases and if nature gets in the way, then nature has to go.

The reason that I am singling out the Pope is because of what he represents to so many people. The Pope for many people is the human representative of God on this earth, so he carries a lot of weight. For this man to come out and basically declare the destruction of the earth at the hands of man “scare-mongering” is more than I can take quietly. If he were just some old man giving his personal opinion that would be one thing, but when you have a billion people listening to your every word then I would have hoped he would have chosen them more wisely. By doing so, he is giving the other takers of this world spiritual cover, the same type of spiritual cover that was given to the invaders that destroyed indigenous people all over the world in the name of progress and conversion and the same type of cover that allowed the Nazis to ethnically cleanse Europe.

The Pope would have us to believe that the world is man’s to destroy if he chooses and that the other things that the same God that created him created are less than man and thus can be extinguished for the good of mankind. What the Pope and the other takers have failed to realize is that we live in an ecosystem and if you destroy one part of it you weaken and eventually destroy all the other parts. Man cannot subsist in the world without the rest of the environment being intact, if that were in fact the case why are the other plants and animals here? I don’t know what Bible the Pope reads, but the one I read says that man is to tend the earth and be a steward. Does a steward destroy the thing he was given to protect and take care of?

The second problem I have with the Pope is his reliance on science over God. He states that the world should rely on the opinion of science to make its decisions, well Pope if that were in fact the case you would be out of a job. Science does not support the existence of God or the Bible, so here you have a man who is sworn to uphold the word of the Bible and he is asking us to believe those who have done all in their power to destroy the word of the Bible. I’m sorry but I am a little confused. If the scientists say that we can destroy the earth with no repercussions we should believe them, but if they say that the Bible is a lie we should not believe them? So when it is convenient or when they justify the superiority of man we are to follow their opinions.

This is precisely the problem with the modern Church, they have come to rely too much on the wisdom of man and they are following the world. Instead of leading the world to peace, tolerance, and love of our fellowman, the Church has become the home of intolerance, bigotry, and hatred. Our temple has been turned into a “den of thieves” and a home of hypocrites. According to the takers there is only one right way to live, their way. I disagree.

[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490

Read more!

Cocaine Sentencing Is Cracked

It is unfortunate that it took the Supreme Court to do what the Congress should have done a long time ago and that is to allow Federal judges to consider the disparity between powder cocaine and crack when sentencing offenders. Rather than showing leadership and courage, the Congress even with a Democratic majority refused to act on the huge disparity in sentencing for crack versus powder cocaine for fear of appearing soft on crime. Once again political expediency outweighed moral conviction and the Congress failed to act. I don’t know about you but the Democratic majority was long on promises and has been short on delivery.

It took the US Sentencing Commission to right a wrong that has sent thousands of blacks to prison for possessing crack for sentences that would require someone with powder to have 100 times as much to receive the same sentence. Needless to say the majority of crack users are black and the majority of powder users are white. Everyone in Washington knew the system was broke and even after years of protests by the ACLU and other civil rights organization, no one in the Congress would show any backbone and right the wrong. What we have in Washington are professional politicians who are more concerned about getting re-elected than they are about doing what is right for the country. I’m sorry but I am having a hard time believing that the answer is electing more of the same, to me having experience in how things are done in Washington is not a real selling point.

In their decision to allow the judge’s discretion in sentencing, the Supreme Court began the process of removing more racial barriers in the criminal justice system. In what has become an almost comical situation, Judge Thomas, the only black on the Court was one of the dissenting votes. And he wonders why he gets no love from other blacks. Maybe because he doesn’t represent the black people he was selected to represent. Mr. Thomas you do not have the luxury of saying I am a Supreme Court Justice that just happens to be black, no sir you filled a spot vacated by a man who represented those who did not have a voice in this country. Now for you to come along with that black conservative crap of I want to be just another Justice who happens to be black is ludicrous. Black people need you on the Court to represent their interests, I believe that the whites you want to represent have enough representation, look around you sir when you are in the chambers and count the number of blacks there with you. I can understand his not wanting to be limited to being a color, but until we have equal protection under the law sir, you are representing not just a color but a people, a people who have long been denied and continue to be denied equal protection. The fact that this case even came before the Court should be evidence enough of that fact. Your denying this fact does not make it go away.

Now the Commission has the opportunity to complete the process they have begun when they vote whether to make the sentence reductions retroactive, this would affect some 19,000 inmates who could see their sentences shortened. The commission in the past has made similar reductions in penalties for drugs primarily used by whites and have made those reductions retroactive. It would only be fair to do likewise in this case.

In previous years, the sentencing commission reduced penalties for crimes involving marijuana, LSD and OxyContin, which are primarily committed by whites, and made those decisions retroactive.[1]

True to their script, the Bush administration is opposing making the sentences retroactive, the thought of blacks being released from prison early is obviously scaring the hell out of the wing-nuts. Citing that there would be a rise in violent crime with the early releases, they are once again using the justice system to promote their racial animosity towards blacks. The problem with their logic is that these are not inmates who have committed violent crimes, these are primarily crack users and low-level dealers. Make no mistake if they were violent criminals their original sentence would have been enhanced to reflect that. This was the same logic used when the original sentencing disparity was first passed, because crack users were more violent than powder users they require stiffer penalties. It was false then and it continues to be false today. It isn’t that they are more violent, it is that their skins are darker.

Making the guidelines retroactive is opposed by the Bush administration. A senior Justice Department official warned Tuesday that retroactive guidelines could have a disastrous effect on crime-riddled communities that are not ready to receive crack offenders who could be released early from prison as a result.

"Areas that already are seeing an increase in violent crime -- this is going to affect those areas dramatically," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the commission had not formally acted.[2]

While I applaud the recent movement on this issue, it is still up to Congress to permanently fix this problem, by removing the current sentencing guidelines that provide harsher penalties for one form of a drug versus another form. There is no scientific or rational basis for the disparity, it is racist at its core and must be removed. Senator Joe Biden has introduced legislation to do just that and must be applauded and supported, even though it was his bill that created the Drug Czar.

UPDATE: The Sentencing Commission voted to make the sentencing recommendations retroactive.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11/cocaine.sentencing.ap/index.html
[2] Ibid.

Read more!

“I’m Going To Kill Them”

After reading about the following case, I know that it is going to elicit emotional responses from many different quarters with many different agendas. While I support the right of all citizens to protect their homes and their lives what occurred in this case does appear to support that doctrine. There were numerous forces at work that day in this neighborhood that all came to a head in the fatal shooting of two men. The case revolves around Joe Horn, a 61 year old retiree who happened to witness the burglary of a neighbor’s house. Mr. Horn did the neighborly thing and contacted 911 to report the crime in progress. So far so good, neighborhood watch is working. However, it is at this point where the story takes a tragic and bizarre twist.

“O.K.,” Mr. Horn said. “But I have a right to protect myself too, sir,” adding, “The laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it.”

The operator said, “You’re going to get yourself shot.” But Mr. Horn replied, “You want to make a bet? I’m going to kill them.”

Moments later he said, “Well here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I’m going.”[1]

This is part of the exchange between Mr. Horn and the 911 operator. During the call the operator continually instructed Mr. Horn to stay in the house and let the police who were enroute handle the situation. As you can see from the exchange Mr. Horn had gone and retrieved his shotgun and was dead set on confronting the would be burglars. Before expounding on the larger issues raised by this tragedy and yes it is a tragedy because two men lost their lives, I want to touch on the two things that trouble me the most about this incident. Were they illegal aliens? Yes. Were the criminals? Yes, but two men still lost their lives that day over some stuff and that is a tragedy.

The first thing that stands out to me is in the second line of the above exchange. Mr. Horn explicitly states that he is not going to stop them, he is not going to shoot them, but that he is going to “kill them”. To me this implies intent on the part of the “so-called” hero in this story. It appears that Mr. Horn had determined for whatever reason that he was going to not only have to intervene, but that he would have to slay the criminals. Based on his own words, he had come to the conclusion that these two men deserved to die by his hands. It is one thing to have to kill someone while defending one’s own life, family, or even property; but to leave the safety of your own home to confront criminals at a neighbor’s home, who were not home at the time nor in any danger, in my opinion crosses the line.

Captain Corbett said that a plainclothes officer had pulled up just in time to see Mr. Horn pointing his shotgun at both men across his front yard, that Mr. Ortiz had at one point started to run in a way that took him closer to Mr. Horn, and that both men “received gunfire from the rear.”

That fact, alone, however, was not necessarily conclusive, Captain Corbett said. “It tells an investigator something, but not everything,” he added. “They could still have been seen as a threat.”[2]

The second and most damaging to me against any argument of home owner’s rights is the report that the burglars were shot in the back. The case is being spun as a justifiable homicide case, but having the victims shot in the back has got to (pardon the pun) blow holes in that defense. I will be curious to see how it will be demonstrated that two suspects with their backs turned or maybe even fleeing from the shooter could have been a threat. If you put the two together it seems that Mr. Horn decided that he was going to go and kill a couple of ni**ers that day, legally. It should be noted that Mr. Horn was white and even though his victims were illegal immigrants from Columbia, he misidentified them during the 911 call as black. So, in his mind at the time he was confronting two black men.

This story encapsulates the current state of America on so many levels. There is the right to bear arms, the right of citizens to protect their homes, crime, fear, illegal immigrants, race, the role of the media, and the criminal justice system. Anyone searching for a case that has all the current hot button issues couldn’t find a better one than this if they had written it themselves. This one has something for everybody and I am sure it will bring out the fanatics on all sides. But the question now becomes what went wrong here and why? It would be easy to chalk it up to another frustrated white man who saw his chance to kill a couple of blacks and get away with it, but is it that simple?

I for one don’t think so. Of course Mr. Horn’s prejudice played a role in this and anyone who says it didn’t is either a liar or a fool and both are dangerous. But there are larger forces at work and these to me are more sinister. These are the forces that allow Mr. Horn’s prejudice to be played out in this scenario. What usually fails to get mentioned in the right to bear arms argument is that fact that this “so-called” right comes with responsibility. Just because a person can purchase a gun doesn’t mean they should have a gun. I am not talking about the certifiable nut that shoots up malls or schools, I am also talking about the average Joe who watches too much “COPS”, local news broadcasts, or 24. All of which are designed to heighten the fear of the public and increase the level of paranoia and bravado. But of course any talk about responsible gun ownership is immediately shouted down by the gun lobby and the NRA, because to them any concession to complete freedom of guns is considered sacrosanct. This man had no reason to be doing what he did, he was not a trained professional. If he were a policeman who shot two suspects in the back he would still have to answer for his crime. How anyone can justify an armed citizenry performing police work without training is beyond me.

Then there is the media that feeds the fear and paranoia of its viewers, the worst of which is local news. In their drive to get ratings these broadcasts are filled with either murder and mayhem or misleading stories. If one were to watch and believe the local news broadcasts one would believe the home invasions are happening on every block almost every hour, carjacking is rampant, and all violent criminals are minorities, preferably black. These broadcasts cater to the most sleazy and lowest common denominator. They seemed designed to only reinforce already engrained prejudices and stereotypes.

Then of course, there is the tone of political discourse today. With potential candidates for the highest office discussing torture, locking down the borders, and the mass expulsion of immigrants it is no wonder the public is frustrated and wanting to take matters into their own hands. Rather than providing leadership, today’s candidates are merely pandering to the worst elements of our society. For some reason those who harbor the fanatical views are more politically active and therefore receive the bulk of the attention.

Whenever you have an atmosphere charged by racism, guns, and vigilantly justice, incidents like these are bound to happen. I am very interested in seeing how this one plays out in the criminal justice system. The political agendas are being served; I only hope that justice is served. Regardless of what you think of those two men, none deserves to be gunned down in the back for a burglary. Mr. Horn seems to have come to the conclusion that in this case he was the “decider” of guilt, sentence, and execution.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/us/13texas.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/us/13texas.html

Read more!

Robert M. Gates; Al Qaeda Terrorist?

On the surface this may seem completely insane and unworthy of any critical thought, but on his recent visits to Afghanistan and Iraq there were suicide bombers following him everywhere he went; coincidence? Maybe or maybe he is one of those Al Qaeda plants that we have heard so much about. The rise in the level of bombings on demand should give the “surge is working” crowd pause, the surge is working because those who are opposed to our presence there are allowing it to work. No one knows what their overall schemes are, but make no mistake the lull in violence is not under the control of our military or the Iraqi government. The opposition has for some reason decided it is in their best interest to quell the violence.

BAGHDAD, Dec. 5 — Car bombs in Baghdad and three northern Iraqi cities killed at least 23 people and wounded more than 40 others today as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates arrived for an unannounced visit with senior Iraqi officials.

Indeed, the four car bombs — the first of which detonated in the northern city of Mosul shortly before Mr. Gates’s plane arrived there early today, seemed timed to coincide with his visit. None of the bombings, however, occurred anywhere close to the defense secretary or his entourage.

In Baghdad, Mr. Gates was to meet also with President Jalal Talabani as well as with American commanders. Mr. Gates flew to Iraq from Afghanistan, where on Tuesday he heard appeals from senior Afghan leaders for more money and weapons to combat the recent rise in insurgent activity there. There were two suicide bombings in Kabul during his visit. The first, on Tuesday morning, wounded 22 Afghan civilians; the second, early Wednesday, killed 7 Afghan soldiers and 6 civilians, and wounded 17 others.[1]

Anyone who believes that we are driving the level of violence in Iraq and Afghanistan is suffering from a serious case of delusion. The level of violence in Iraq is dependent on the Iraqis and their willingness to buy into the current government and its ability to solve their daily problems, so far that government has been either unable or unwilling to provide solutions. This lull in violence will only be temporary, if the government of Prime Minister al-Maliki does not begin to resolve the issues that are currently dividing the Iraqis. If this government fails to act, I believe that not only will there be a return to pre-surge levels of violence but also an increase in the number of people taking part in the new violence.

As the frustration level of the Iraqi people grows, the violence will begin to target more of the Iraqi government and less American targets. This decrease in violence is a honeymoon period, but if the delivery of needed public services and infrastructure development do not improve this honeymoon will come to an explosive end. Right now the people are just happy for a respite in the violence, but this will not last. There will be growing protests against the occupation and the impotent government.

The fact that the US security company massacres are passing with little or no response from the Iraqis should be reason alone to raise concerns. I hate to burst some bubbles but we are not that good nor are we in Iraq in sufficient numbers to maintain a continued peace. Many believe that it will be the Sunnis who will restart the cycle of violence, I believe it will actually be the Shias and will not be an orchestrated uprising. In my opinion it will be due to the continued frustration of the Iraqi people to the lack of improvements in their daily lives. Contentment with no violence will only last so long, then what? We should not let these lulls in violence convince us that everything in Iraq is honky-dory, because it is not. And despite the Neo-Con pundits and war supporters the surge is not a success. In their desperation for some semblance of good foreign policy news, they have duped a war weary public into believing that their bankrupt policies are working.

We have heard nothing about the internal refugee problems or the lack of basic services. If the best you can come up with after almost 5 years of occupation is a drop in violence, you know the redevelopment efforts are in trouble. The bottom line in Iraq continues to be the daily improvement in the lives of everyday Iraqis, until there is progress made in that area any peace will be transitory and elusive. The surge has worked to the point of exposing why we should have never entered into this quagmire in the first place. It has exposed that even with the most technological military in the history of the world, it will never bring peace or democracy. The best you can hope for by its usage is stability in the face of a bad situation. The surge has exposed that without diplomacy there can be no lasting peace. Of course for many of us it is a lesson we already knew, something about being a student of history.

Is Robert Gates an al Qaeda terrorist? Probably not, but I sure don’t want him coming to my town. The guy appears to be a suicide bomber magnet and I have no desire to be part of the collateral damage which also seems to follow.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/world/middleeast/06gates.html?hp

Read more!

Where’s The Garlic When You Need It?

In what is sure to become the new profit center for “legitimate banks”, many are now salivating at the check cashing/payday loan market. These customers were forced to go to the blood suckers at the payday loan offices because the legitimate banks had shunned them or did not have branches in their neighborhoods. Well, now that the market has ballooned into a 10 billion dollar a year enterprise guess who wants to reach out to these poor underserved consumers? The same banks that were under serving them, talk about the ultimate irony. The good news is that you escaped the werewolf; the bad news is you did it by running into Count Dracula’s castle and its after dark.

WASHINGTON — After years of watching check-cashing stores and payday lenders steal potential customers, banks and credit unions are beginning to offer the same services and products, but in more affordable and responsible ways.

The movement comes as federal bank regulators focus their attention on the estimated 73 million Americans who are underserved by the nation's banking industry.

The hope is that mainstream financial institutions can convert the check-cashing customers and payday loan-seekers of today into the sought-after depositors and low-risk borrowers of tomorrow.[1]

Here is where it gets good, the banks and Feds would have us to believe they are doing this to drive the costs of these services down. I’m sorry, but when have banks ever reduce the costs of their services? They are tired of letting the other loan sharks make a killing and now they want to muscle in and legitimize the fleecing. Using the excuse that the current purveyors of these services are overcharging, these legitimate banks relying on their lobbyists and legislators will low-ball the competition or buy them out and have total access to these billions of dollars. Unfortunately for the current industry it won’t be hard; they have done everything in their power to undermine themselves. They have been charging exorbitant fees, they have treated their customers like crap, and they have resisted any changes to their business model.

In what has to be the most insane marketing campaign I have ever witnessed they are now running an ad by the “Community Financial Services Association Employees” stating that they are now going to make their rates understandable to their customers, no more small print. I don’t know how you can hide 400% annual interest in fine print, but I guess you can. Why is it whenever an industry gets in trouble they come out with these “feel good” ads about how they are just trying to help out the community? These people are predators, pure and simple. They prey on the low to middle income in an effort to keep them in the high cost borrowing cycle.

For those that don’t know the program, it works like this. People who ordinarily are not able to qualify for bank or credit union loans, (eventhough many have accounts at these institutions) they go to these payday or title loan places (which usually double as check cashing centers) where they are offered small cash loans. The consumer will apply for the loan and upon approval will present the lender with blank personal checks that will be deposited on the day the borrower is paid. Here is the kicker, the annual interest on these loans average about 400% of the principal; because the lender only talks about the two week rate the consumer is usually unaware of the astronomical rate charged. The borrower can continue the loan at the maturity date by simply paying the interest of the loan. This is how the cycle begins, the borrower rather than paying off the principle will continue to pay the interest over and over or will pay off the loan only to have to take out another loan because they cannot afford the loss of income.

But today, Mary Cheh brought three former payday loan employees who said they were in business to hook low-income wage earners into a cycle of debt. This is Mike Donovan. He resigned yesterday a Check 'n Go District Manager.

Mike Donovan, Former Payday Loan District Manager:

“The average Check 'n Go customer in Washington, D.C. is continuously in debt to the company for over a year. We train our sales staff to keep customers dependent. The repeat borrower is vital to our business model.”

Bill Harrod was a payday loan manager for 10 months and says he was trained to target a specific community.

Bill Harrod, Former Payday Loan Manager:

“My company was deliberately targeting minority people for a continuous loan process that they would never, ever get out of. “

And Cameron Blakely is a former payday loan store manager.

Cameron Blakely, Former Payday Loan Store Manager:

“Our borrowers were like indentured servants. They work, they work, but each payday we claimed a piece of their paycheck. Every paycheck.”

The Community Financial Services Association, the payday loan association, says today's allegations do not represent the experiences of millions of customers and employees in payday stores across the country.[2]

These types of predatory loan practices are not unusual, but are indicative of this industry. Once again wealth cannot be gained by low income workers because the cost for their services is always higher than the public at large. They pay more for everything from food due to a lack of grocery stores, check cashing due to a lack of banking services, and transportation due to credit difficulties.

While I am no fan of these types of lenders, I am not naïve enough to believe that bankers will come in and make it all better. The problem is that they see an opportunity to take advantage of a consumer that will not complain or call their legislator. This is the same industry that is front of Congress regularly for high interest and bad loan practices on credit cards and other service fees. Now we are to believe that they won’t bring that same greed to an industry that has been allowed to bleed communities dry? This is a travesty, the consumers will still be fleeced but by “legitimate banks and credit unions”, that ought to make them feel better.

There is a system being deployed in many Third World countries where low income or even poor people are given small cash loans at interest rates that are low to help them start up small home businesses or for education. There is even a program at Kiva Org. where you can help provide the proceeds for these loans. They call them micro-finance loans and they are given to people to help them begin the process of rebuilding their lives. They are being utilized all over the world, except here. Here we have low income people being fleeced by greedy corporations, in another instance of transfer of wealth from the needy to the greedy. Where is the garlic for these blood suckers when you need it?

[1] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/22683.html
[2] http://www.nbc4.com/consumer/14100234/detail.html

Read more!

Did I Feel A Draft?

In what will surely turn out to be the largest case of CYA in recent memory, the destroyed CIA torture tapes are continuing to make headlines. As each agency proceeds to cover their respective butts, the question of torture will continue to go unanswered. It has become the giant elephant in the room that no one talks about inside the beltway, while outside the beltway it is a heated topic. Here we have another instance of the electorate and the elected being disconnected. But do we really? Are the majority of Americans against torture? I know that on many blogs there is never a shortage of commentators who advocate the use of torture and these are not wing-nut blogs, but so-called progressive sites. There are also mainstream political candidates who have advocated the use of torture. We seem to be a nation torn on this issue and that speaks volumes about who we have become.

“There is never any justification for destroying materials that any reasonable person would believe might be requested in a civil or criminal proceeding,” said Mr. Remes, of the law firm Covington & Burling. “The C.I.A. had every reason to believe the videotapes would be relevant down the road.”[1]

I beg to differ with Mr. Remes, but yes there is a justification for destroying evidence if you have been involved in illegal activities. It happens all the time and with the impotence of the current Congress it will probably go unpunished. Anyone remember the Justice Department subpoenas, the Dick Cheney missing emails, or how about that undercover CIA agent leak? I would not be surprised if there were still copies of these tapes floating around in Langley somewhere, probably being used for training purposes. I read these articles and it makes me sick, the MSM refuses to call the procedure of waterboarding torture. They say things like according to the critics it is considered torture. I say we take all the editorial boards and subject them to a little waterboarding and see if their views will remain the same.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we as a nation are moving more and more towards fascism. There are now stories being released about how torture has actually saved the lives of Americans, how convenient that these anonymous sources have chosen now to leak this information. In what is being referred to as an “unpleasant procedure”, the source says while he was not involved in the act, it was effective. Well, no sh*t. Here is the problem, I am not opposed to torture because it works or it doesn’t works. That should not even be an issue. I am opposed to torture because it is wrong, both ethically and morally. We can argue from now on as to the effectiveness of it, the fact they we are even having the conversation is what should be troubling to those of us still a part of the human race despite 9/11. Someone help me here; did 9/11 remove our obligations to the rest of humanity? Did it give us a license to torture, maim, and kill without regards to the victim’s humanity. If it did, then God help us.

Al Qaeda suspect Abu Zubayda gave up valuable information after being waterboarded, a former CIA agent involved in other parts of his interrogation told CNN today. John Kiriakou said he did not want to perform the "entirely unpleasant" procedure branded by critics as torture, but added it brought results that stopped attacks and saved lives.

Despite the executive blessing, Kiriakou and other agents were conflicted over whether to learn the technique, he said.

"One senior officer said to me that this is something you really have to think deeply about," the former agent said, adding he "struggled with it morally."

Kiriakou conceded his position might be hypocritical and said that the technique was useful -- even if he wanted to distance himself from it. [2]

We are perched on a slippery slope and I hope that we are aware of the consequences of the decisions we are making. This isn’t about stopping terrorist attacks. If you have a determined person who is willing to commit suicide there is no defense against it, even with isolation, torture, and preemptive war. Our becoming fascist will not keep us safe; it will only isolate us more from the rest of the world. We now have an Attorney General who never had to give an opinion on torture, confirmed by the Senate. It’s like everyone wants to divorce themselves from it, like Mr. Kiriakou and yet we want the results. I’m sorry we can’t have it both ways, either we are torturers of our fellow human beings or we are not. A black man just got 23 months for torturing dogs and we torture humans with little more than a whimper.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/washington/11intel.html?pagewanted=2&hp
[2] http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/11/agent.tapes/index.html

Read more!

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Finally, a President from the impoverished continent of Africa had the courage and the good sense to disregard the advice of the World Bank, which has an atrocious record for helping poor nations end their hunger and economic problems. In an unprecedented move, Bingu Wa Mutharika recently elected President of Malawi decide to go against the dire predictions of the World Bank and other rich agriculture countries and start subsidizing his country’s farmers for fertilizer and seed. I have been quite vocal for years against the policies of the World Bank and other agencies run by the industrialized nations for being unrealistic and in many instances detrimental to the economies and especially the agriculture of the states they are suppose to be helping.

LILONGWE, Malawi — Malawi hovered for years at the brink of famine. After a disastrous corn harvest in 2005, almost five million of its 13 million people needed emergency food aid.
But this year, a nation that has perennially extended a begging bowl to the world is instead feeding its hungry neighbors. It is selling more corn to the World Food Program of the United Nations than any other country in southern Africa and is exporting hundreds of thousands of tons of corn to Zimbabwe.

Farmers explain Malawi’s extraordinary turnaround — one with broad implications for hunger-fighting methods across Africa — with one word: fertilizer.

Over the past 20 years, the World Bank and some rich nations Malawi depends on for aid have periodically pressed this small, landlocked country to adhere to free market policies and cut back or eliminate fertilizer subsidies, even as the United States and Europe extensively subsidized their own farmers. But after the 2005 harvest, the worst in a decade, Bingu wa Mutharika, Malawi’s newly elected president, decided to follow what the West practiced, not what it preached.[1]

It has long been my contention and now being proven that these policies are designed to keep the impoverished, poor and dependent on the large food subsidies being supplied by these nations. By keeping these poor nations reliant on the agricultural subsidies of the richer nations, it allows these richer nations to continue to subsidize their own agricultural industries. The very thing they tell the poorer nations is wrong and will lead to ruin. Apparently it will only lead to ruin for the poorer nations because the rich nations don’t seem to be having any trouble feeding their people. It works so well they are even able to send out millions of metric tons of excess to the poorer nations.

In what has turned into a viscous cycle of greed the rich nations led by the US, subsidizes its agriculture industries and then sells the excess to aid organizations who gives it to the poorer nations. On the surface this appears to be a good thing, they are after all helping to fight hunger. In the short run it is true, but in the long term growth of a nation it is not good. Instead of supporting the development of the poorer nations own agriculture industries it floods the market with cheap food, depressing their already suffering markets. Because they are not developing their own markets, they are dependent on the donor nation’s good will to feed their people.

There are two problems with this scenario in my opinion. The first is that it allows the donor nations to exercise too much control over the poorer nations, their politics, and their economies. So long as the poorer nations support the policies of the donor nations, everything is cool. However, should the poorer nations decide to exercise their own sovereignty, there could be issues with the donations. The donor nations are able to keep the poorer nations in line through dependency on food subsidies. Should the people elect a leader that is not supportive of the donor countries policies, the aid could and sometimes does evaporate. This was the basis for much of the Cold War strategy.

The second problem with this scenario is that it is short-sighted and smacks of racism. It keeps the poorer nations in a state of begging. This constant state of poverty and begging reduces their national pride and personal growth. Because many of the poorer nations today are brown or black, it prevents these dark skinned people from playing a role on the international stage. This keeps their issues and concerns from coming to the forefront in international circles. The strategy appears to be, “keep them barefoot and hungry”. When your belly is empty, you don’t have time for international concerns. As a result most global policies are being created by and for the rich nations, with little concern for their effects on the poorer nations.

Recent increases [in foreign aid] do not tell the whole truth about rich countries’ generosity, or the lack of it. Measured as a proportion of gross national income (GNI), aid lags far behind the 0.7 percent target the United Nations set 35 years ago. Moreover, development assistance is often of dubious quality. In many cases,

Aid is primarily designed to serve the strategic and economic interests of the donor countries;

Or [aid is primarily designed] to benefit powerful domestic interest groups;

Aid systems based on the interests of donors instead of the needs of recipients’ make development assistance inefficient;

Too little aid reaches countries that most desperately need it; and,

All too often, aid is wasted on overpriced goods and services from donor countries.[2]

Not only has Malawi demonstrated the ability to feed itself using the subsidies, they were able to provide excess to other countries just like the donor countries. So what are we to make of this news? That too often impoverished nations are kept impoverished for economic and political reasons. It is time that the IMF and the WB provide policies that actually aid the impoverished and not the rich nations. Policies that allow the poor nations to provide for their citizens and build for their futures are what is needed. We can no longer continue to subsidize our industries on the backs and the bellies of the hungry and the poor.

It is time for the US and other rich nations to stop being obstacles to the development of these poorer nations for the sake of their own political and economic ends. It is time to support real reforms to how we provide aid and food to developing countries. These nations deserve our help in creating their own markets and development, not our being an impediment to their futures. If we don’t change how we support others, eventually there won’t be enough food for everyone and then what.

Malawi’s determination to heavily subsidize fertilizer and the payoff in increased production are beginning to change the attitudes of donors, say economists who have studied Malawi’s experience.

The Department for International Development in Britain contributed $8 million to the subsidy program last year. Bernabé Sánchez, an economist with the agency in Malawi, estimated the extra corn produced because of the $74 million subsidy was worth $120 million to $140 million.

“It was really a good economic investment,” he said.

The United States, which has shipped $147 million worth of American food to Malawi as emergency relief since 2002, but only $53 million to help Malawi grow its own food, has not provided any financial support for the subsidy program, except for helping pay for the evaluation of it. Over the years, the United States Agency for International Development has focused on promoting the role of the private sector in delivering fertilizer and seed, and saw subsidies as undermining that effort.[3]

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/world/africa/02malawi.html?em&ex=1196830800&en=8767515f8a8ac086&ei=5087%0A
[2] Pekka Hirvonen, Stingy Samaritans; Why Recent Increases in Development Aid Fail to Help the Poor, Global Policy Forum, August 2005
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/world/africa/02malawi.html?em&ex=1196830800&en=8767515f8a8ac086&ei=5087%0A

Read more!