And now, for a change: just some good news.

Almost two weeks ago we reported the sad case of Laurent Ghilain and Peter Meurrens, a Belgian couple that were caught in a bureaucratic nightmare. They wanted a child in their family and decided to use a surrogate in the Ukraine with Laurent as the donor. Their son Samuel was born two years ago but they have not been able to bring him home because the Beligian government has refused to issue a passport for the child. Even though the boy has a home waiting for him he has been stuck in a Ukrainian orphanage. The bureaucrats claim they have no regulations for this situation so they can't do anything because they don't know what to do. (A Facebook page for this case is here.)

Today Laurent sent out a notice:

The Belgian judge said YES, we just got the decision. The judge recognizes, after 2 years of waiting, the "lineage" (bond between father and son). Prosecutors still have 1.5 months as from 28/02 to appeal. We will demand a Belgian passport for Samuel at the Ministries of Foreign Affairs this week, and we cross our fingers that the response is immediate and that we do not hear of an appeal. If all goes well, it should go fast... let's hope."

This is damn good news and I'm thrilled for little Samuel and his fathers. Given the nature of bureaucrats, they aren't human, I still worry that more heartache will come to this family before final victory. But I believe they will eventually win, but they need the loving support of everyone.

More Justice, Well a Little Bit

Kelley Williams-Bolar is a mother who lied, and I applaud her for doing so. Kelly is a 40-year-old mother of two who is working on a teaching certificate and works with special needs kids at a local school. She lives in a housing project and the local government school is a pretty awful place to send children. Kelley's father lives in a a different school district and she registered her children in that school district using her father's address. Kelley would drive her daughters to a school bus stop, and after school they would walk to their grandfather's, who would watch them until Kelley got off work and could pick them up. For this "crime" she and her father were arrested.

When those damned bureaucrats (yet again) learned of this they demanded Kelley pay them $30,000 for tuition fees. When she was unable and unwilling to do so they put her on trial and she was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison, reduced to 10 days, two years on probation and 80 of community service.

After hundreds of thousands of protests were lodged, the Governor of Ohio, John Kasich, has asked the Ohio Parole Board to consider a pardon. Of course, that is a rather cowardly way for Kasich to deal with the situation since he could issue a pardon on his own. But he'd rather have a bureaucratic stamp of approval on it first. Kasich said: "Many people have shared their thoughts with me in letters, e-mail and phone calls and I appreciate their outreach." (Anyone want to bet he doesn't appreciate their outreach and finds this whole thing a headache?

The teacher's unions don't like cases like this as they don't want any attention drawn to the sorry state of public education, unless, of course, it is to find a reason to increase their salaries again. And the sad reality is that the public school system is now run for the benefit of the teacher's unions and not the students.

The best solution to the inequality situation is allowing parents to send their children to any school they wish, with the funding following the student. Yes, that would defund some schools—the shitty ones, who either have to get their act together or go under. But the unions want to protect those schools and those teachers at the expense of the children.

And, of course, Egypt

There is really good news in Egypt as well. As you no doubt know the entire Middle East is in turmoil after the Tunisian people successfully rid themselves of their dictatorial government. Then Egypt erupted in similar protests with hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets in amazingly peaceful demonstrations—in spite of violence being used by the government and their thugs. I was absolutely convinced these would succeed and that Mubarak would be ousted. It took a few days more than I thought it would, but he resigned.

The most recent marches in Egypt, however, were quite interesting. It was the police marching, telling the public they are sorry about how they treated them. I guess they realized that things have changed and they better apologize if they want to have employment, and with Mubarak out of power they aren't working for him anymore. Now, if we can just get the TSA employees to walk off their jobs and apologize to the American people for their groping, fondling, intrusive photos, abrupt and rude manners and flagrant disregard for the humanity of their victims.

More good news out of the Middle East is that the protests are spreading from one Arab dictatorship to another. Contrary to the hysteria pushed by the war lobby and Israeli lobby, a very large percentage of people in Muslim nations actually do want modern government that is democratic and, at the very least, respects a greater amount of individual rights than currently is the case. These sentiments are held down by an alliance between the dictatorial government and the radical Islamists—which in Iran is the same group.

Now hundreds of thousands of people are protesting, yet again, in Iran. The Islamist theocracy there has never been popular. It was put into power as the only real opposition to the tyrannical rule of the US-backed Shah of Iran. Had the US not backed the Shah I doubt that the Ayatollah's would have come to power and the modern Islamists political movement would be much less than what it is today. Truly, US foreign policy has created, as Jonathan Kwitny put it, "Endless Enemies."

Iran has always been one of the most Western Muslim nations in terms of culture. And with most the population being young people, who are not enamored with the moralistic rule of Iran's version of the Republican Party. There has been widespread hatred in Iran for their godly rulers. The one thing that would unify the people behind their government would be US intervention there. That is not likely so there is a chance that this time the people will topple the religious regime that is holding them down.

In many ways American ideals—even those now discarded by our own politicians—and culture still inspire those who seek freedom in other nations. Unfortunately our foreign policy has continually botched up our natural appeal by linking us to oppressive regimes. The US continually backed Mubarak as it backed the Shah of Iran, pushing the oppressed people into the arms of the very groups we say we are working against. American interventionist policy is the biggest boost the Islamic radicals have had. I do think the true sentiments of a large percentage of the Muslim world is what we are seeing in these protests. We could quite possibly be in the first stages of multiple revolutions across the Islamic world that will push them toward modern, liberal values.

More Observations on Egypt

When I say "observations, " I mean observations. I like to look closely at photos and film to actually see what is happening, more than listening to talking heads, unless the talking heads have personal experiences to recount. By seeing what is happening one can get some grasp of what is actually happening, using the direct data instead of the predictions of experts, who so often are wrong.

The first observation showed a soldier who was clearly terrified. There was a large angry crowd wanting Mubarak. The soldier saw the crowd coming and panicked. He pulled his gun pointing it at them, backing up, his face frozen in a state of terror. The crowd continued to move forward and he kept backing up. A man behind him patted him on the back and tried to calm him down.

In another film clip the protesters are moving towards a few tanks parked on the road. The soldiers in the tank begin backing away from the crowd. One of the soldier popped up from the tank and gave a salute to the crowd.

Anderson Cooper was walking through the streets reporting on what he was seeing. Over and over people came to him and wanted him to know that American support for Mubarak does anger them. But they also wanted him to know that they are not Islamists. A well-spoken protester made it clear that the Egyptian people would not tolerate a government with the Islamic Brotherhood. He said, several times, "We won't let that happen."

A young American couple living in Cairo are interviewed. They intend to fly home, if the US embassy can get its act together. They still walk the streets and also recounted how Egyptians come to them and tell them they simply want Mubarak to go and that they want their rights respected, something the government has not done.

The male member of the couple said that he and another American friend were in a protest march when it started to appear that it would turn ugly. People around them, realizing they were Americans, surrounded them—not in fury, but to protect them from any harm.

This is an image I have seen several times over in recent months. I know the neoconservative types laughed at it, but when Islamic terrorists attacked a Coptic Church, the result of thousands of everyday Egyptians was to surround the churches for Christmas services, to protect them from further attacks. When the the great Cairo museum was in danger of looting hundreds of people flocked to the museum to surround it and try to protect it. I reported already of a soldier who got in a conflict with protesters, he was disarmed and when that happened one public member sat with him, and held him to protect him from any anger.

When a group of soldiers faced the protesters issues started to escalate. One man quickly ran into the "no man's land" between the soldiers and the crowd. He held his arms to calm everyone done. And it seemed to work.

Cooper reported on some looting and asked the American couple about their neighborhood. They said that every night dozens of Egyptians gather on the street and form a private militia to protect businesses and people from any possible attacks. Cooper seemed astounded and reported that this was reported throughout the city, private individuals taking control and protecting one another. I am not surprised, I believe all true solutions come from the bottom up and these are just examples of that.

As for the anger: all the anger I see is directed primarily at Mubarak and everyone holds him responsible for the oppression they feel. Secondly, there is strong resentment that the United States has propped Mubarak up in power for decades. I've seen no mention, so far, of Israel and no indications that the bulk of protesters are concerned about Israel.

Clearly, the US, in the hopes of having a "stable" partner in the Middle East, has supported Mubarak. A protester carried a sign, clearly directly mostly at the US., "Foreign governments stop they hypocrisy support Egyptian's freedom." But stability can't come from oppression, only resentment and anger. And when that anger accumulates it is like gun powder waiting for someone or something to ignite it. Then the stability disappears. But more important, to American interests, when that stability disappears it also ushers in anger toward the US because America stood behind a dictator. Had the US not sent billions to keep Mubarak in power little anger would be directed toward the country.

The solution is simple actually but I doubt it will happen. President Obama should publicly side with the protesters and say that America wants reform and freedom for the Egyptian people and that the US thinks the time has come for Mubarak to retire. That would help diffuse some of the sentiments against the United States. The reality is that continuing to back Mubarak is to back a losing horse. His time is over. Behind the scenes the United States should make it clear that Mr. Mubarak should leave the country. Not only would this move restore some confidence in the United States it would also undercut the Islamic Brotherhood and their ilk.

The fuel that sustains the Islamists is American intervention in the Middle East. It allows them to portray themselves as friends of the people while America is portrayed as the backers of oppressive regimes. But I tell you, those repressive regimes will go one day and it is best that we be on the side of freedom, for a change.

We are only hours away from the massive marches planned for today. This can be the end of Mubarak Hundreds of thousands are gathering. Reports are that from around Cairo people have begun walking to the city, walking because the government has shut down transportation. By morning, our time, it could be all over.

The Egyptian Meltdown

The situation in Egypt is dire indeed. President Mubarak has just addressed the nation and pathetically tried to pretend that the protests are not over himself, but over his government, which he says he is ordering to step down. He then will establish a new government tomorrow.

But the problem is that Egyptian protests are directed at Mubarak in particular, more so than his government.

Protests slowed down during Mubarak's public address but even before he had finished they resumed as protesters realized it was all a charade.

Like every politician seeking power he invoked the poor and needy over and over in his address. He also claimed that all the protests are allowed because of the "reforms" that he established. So everything good came from him, everything bad came from his government, which he was not responsible for.

Mubarak has been in power, as a virtual dictator, since 1981. And he has been cemented in power by billions of dollars in direct aid from the United States. The US gives the Mubarak dictatorship about $1.5 billion per year, most of that in military aid.

This is precisely how US foreign policy encourages the Islamist fundamentalists. Our government, in our name, props up vicious, vile dictators who suppress their people. The only organized force of opposition is found within the mosques because all other forms of civil society are tightly controlled. Within the mosques the Islamists come to dominate as the strongest opponents of the dictatorship. And this forces moderates into an alliance with Islamists to overthrow the government.

We saw this with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the purported Shah of Iran. Pahlavi was a cruel dictator who used torture and terror to impose his will on the people of Iran. Civil society was suppresses and only the mosques were given some liberty. Ayatollah Khomeini was the leading voice of opposition to Pahlavi and when the people finally rose up and overthrew the government it was Khomeini who was able to sweep in and take power. And his anti-American tirades struck a cord with the population precisely because the United States, instead of siding with liberty and freedom, has been supporting the Shah and his military dictatorship.

Iran was one of the most modern Islamic nations at the time in terms of cultural values. There was no widespread support for the Ayatollah's Iranian version of the Moral Majority. What there was, however, was opposition to the Shah. And that is what Khomeini was able to use to take power and that what kick-started the modern Islamist fundamentalist movement that now poses a threat. Jonathan Kwitny once wrote a book, Endless Enemies, which looked at how American foreign policy seemed to create new enemies to combat. Each intervention creates the need for more interventions. And so it goes, endlessly.

This problem was well expressed by Spencer Day in his song Better Way:

Too many soldier marchin off to war

Too many nations tryin to settle a score

When every battle only leads to more

We gotta find a better way.

Of course, it is not just soldiers and battles. American foreign intervention is often done when the US channels billions of taxpayer's wealth to tyrannical dictators. American politicians believe it is their divine right to rule the world, passing laws that they they force weaker governments around the world of enforcing. Our government made US drug policies the policies of the world by pushing other governments into adopting them through a combinaiton of carrot and stick policies.

Just as politicians screw up everything they touch in America, they screw up everything they touch globally. We need non-intervention, not only abroad, but at home as well.

Berkeley city council vs the Patriot Right. Can't they both lose?

The city of Berkeley, California is back in the news. There is no doubt that if Berkeley leaned further to the Left it would float out to sea. This is the sort of town where Michael Moore is seen as a conservative. The town was taken over years ago by a cadre of Far Left activists. And it shows. I was recently in Berkeley to have a manuscript bound into a book. And I remembered how Telegraph Avenue used to be a wonderful place to go hunting for old books.

I was hoofing it that day so I walked down Dwight Way and turned onto Telegraph. The number of panhandlers was a bit disconcerting. And it is clear that some of them are loony as they come -- any crazier and they could get elected to the city council. Telegraph Avenue itself was a major disappointment. It was dirty and shoddy. There were vacant stores and many that were operating were as unkempt and unattractive as the street in general. The massive Cody’s Books was done. All that remained was a large empty building.

If you wanted junk shops and crap there was plenty on sale. I walked through the old business area for several blocks and and decided to head back to the BART station and leave. I assumed I do several buying trips but the shops and Berkeley that I remembered are now all ghosts.

The city council is notoriously anti-property owner and antibusiness. And they the condition of their business district shows they have succeeded. I read a comment somewhere about how “Berkeley’s redevelopment plan has worked spectacularly -- for Emeryville.” I have been shopping in Emeryville and would go back, and plan to. But Berkeley is off my list. The city council has run the community into the ground.

These comments introduce my main topic -- the controversy in Berkeley over the city council voting to tell the recruiting office for the U.S. Marines that are not welcome in the city. Antiwar demonstrators, some rather far to the Left, have been camped out in front of the recruiting office. Periodically an equally disgusting group of “patriots” show up to mouth the sort of mindless slogans but with a Right-wing bent.

When it got out that the city council voted to tell the Marines they were not welcome, the “patriots” went gaga! They fussed and fumed and immediately started looking for ways to punish Berkeley. Third-rate conservative politicians and brainless conservative pundits began suggesting various laws to strip the city of any federal or state funds which it receives.

When the pro-war Right starts huffing and puffing I realize just how disgusting they can be. On the other hand the city council of Berkeley is such a repulsive lot. But one has to pick a side, doesn’t one? Either you think Berkeley is wrong or not. Either you think it should be punished or not. You can think it wrong and deserving punishing. And you can think them wrong but not deserving punishment. Or you can think them right and undeserving punishment. I supposed for some incomprehensible reason you can think them right but deserving punishment as well.

So where do I come down on this.

First, whether they are right or wrong, I am dismayed at this use of threats against the city council. What tax funds are taken ought to stay at the local level. I don’t believe taxes should ever be taking to a higher level of government so that the politicians there can use the funds to reward their friends or punish their enemies at the local government. It’s bad enough your money is stolen from you but to then have it used a leverage to force you to toe the line of some more powerful level of government is disgusting.

I find this sort of action contrary to the basic principles of good government. Such threats violate the principles of federalism that many conservatives were known to love -- or to fake it very well. Using such funds to punish a town, or to reward special interests such as through earmarks, is an example of the sort of rot and corruption that infests power politics. On those grounds I don’t think Berkeley should be punished. And I find these calls to punish the city to be cheap theatrics.

But is the city council wrong to do what it did? They did not pass a law. They passed a resolution saying the Marines are not welcome in Berkeley. And with these Lefties on one side and with Patriots on the side I was tempted to sit it out and hope they beat the shit out of each other. It couldn’t happen to two more deserving groups. I didn’t particularly want to side with either of them. And as disgusting as I find the pro-war Right I find the sort of Lefties who run Berkeley as stomach churning.

Today I finally made up my mind. What did it for me was another issue which I have written about many times here: the abuse imposed on the public by rabid cops, drunk on their power.

I am appalled on a regular basis by the way America’s “finest” are trampling on people and ignoring Constitutional rights. I have long ago concluded that the police in America are a threat to decency and to limited government. They act more like thugs than like peace officers. Yet, they can provide a legitimate service -- the protection of life, liberty and property. Unfortunately they no longer act exclusively to protect rights and far too frequently they are a threat to peaceful people everywhere. Even though there is a justified reason to have law enforcement (the protection of rights) I have not exempted the police from the criticism they deserve because they no longer act as guardians of the peace but as those disturbing it.

But what is a national military force but police meant to protect the life, liberty and property of American citizens from foreign attack. The moral justification of a military is the same justification used for a local police force. As long as they are defending the United States they have a legitimate function.

But they are not defending the United States as much as acting as the armed gang of Washington politicians. They are invading nations and making offensive wars, not defending our beaches from hoards of invaders. They are the enforcers of America’s interventionist foreign policy. And that means they have moved from defending liberty to violating it.

If they acted as agents for a defensive policy I would not side with the city council of Berkeley. But our military is not defending American, they are helping implement a neoconservative world empire. And in my view, that makes the Marines into a criminally-inclined organization, much the many cops today are criminals. Now let me clarify what I mean by criminal. I don’t mean someone who merely violates the law. I specifically and exclusively mean someone who violates the rights of others.

Most criminal acts that we think of, when the word crime is mention, are those sorts of violations of life, liberty or property. It is rape, theft, murder and the variations thereof. Just as the American police today systematically commit crimes at the local level the U.S. military engages in crime at the international level. Both have legitimate functions of defending rights but both have neglected those functions to go on the offensive.

Just as rogue cops should be chucked off the police force I have no problem in the city of Berkeley taking on the U.S. military for its systematical violation of rights. Admittedly I’d believe them a bit more if they identified the enemy as the federal government full stop. The military only implements the policy but the entire bureaucracy is responsible for it. I would have gone farther. I would have used local law to prevent the recruiting of anyone in a criminal organization and I would include the U.S. Marines in that category -- I say that reluctantly since my father was a Marine.

The sad fact is that an interventionist foreign policy means our armed forces are no long peace keepers protecting our rights. They are criminals violating the rights of others around the world at the bidding of the Washington political classes.

I don’t like siding with the Berkeley city council especially after seeing how they have ruined Berkeley. And while I think they are right in their motion I don’t think they have the vaguest idea why they are right. These are not people who understand the moral imperative of limiting government powers to that of protecting rights only. They are right in this issue entirely by accident. The Marines and their defenders are wrong. The city council is right but for they have no idea why they are right. And the principles that would vindicate them in this case are principles they don’t understand or practice. But given a choose between the two groups I would have to side with the city council -- with qualifications as explained here.

Let's Bomb Iran

The complex life and death of Pat Tillman.

Sometimes people say that after someone was born that the mold was broken. And broken molds are what comes to mind as I try to grapple with the issues surrounding the killing of Pat Tillman. In Tillman’s case he was the one who broke the mold. Everything I learn about him defies conventional stereotypes.

First, here was a man who was a football star. The stereotype for that is a dumb jock. But Tillman was nobody’s fool. He read widely and was interested in the world of ideas. He had an academic grade point average of just under 4.0 -- almost perfect. He also challenged others about negative attitudes toward gay people. Again, not the typical sports player.

Tillman played football and played it well. His last season of professional football earned him over $500,000. But the religious fanatics on 9/11 changed the course Tillman would take. Appalled at what he saw that day he decided to enlist in the US military. His country was under attack.

He finished the season as he was obligated to do. He was offered a new contract worth $3.6 million. He told his agent “Don’t worry about me. I’m thinking about doing something else.” He had a higher loyalty. The team understood this since he had shown them the same loyalty. Previously the St. Louis Rams approached Tillman to play for them and had offered him $9 million. He refused the offer to stay with the Phoenix Cardinals instead. But after the attacks he felt his loyalty to country had to come first.

Together, with his brother Kevin, who had turned down a chance to play professional baseball, Pat enlisted. The sport’s network ESPN wanted to give the Arthur Ashe Courage Award to the brothers. Neither of them chose to attend to accept it. Younger brother Richard appeared to tell the audience: “Pat and Kevin don’t think they are better than anyone else.”

Even in death Tillman defied conventional thinking. For decades the believers have comforted themselves with the claim that there are no atheists in foxholes. Tillman died, as he lived, an unbeliever.

A military chaplain spread the story of the last moments of Tillman’s life but he exaggerated the facts to make the atheist look cruel and mean. The chaplain, who was not there, claimed that Tillman insulted a fellow soldier for being religious. According to the chaplain’s story Tillman told a praying soldier to “shut your fucking mouth” and told the man he was “sniveling”. The soldier involved said this is untrue. He says he was praying and Tillman said: “Hey, O’Neal, why are you praying? God can’t help us now.”

The soldier, Bryan O’Neil, says that “more or less put my mind straight about what was going on.” That is nothing like the smear spread by the chaplain. Apparently Tillman’s non theistic beliefs bother the military, as we shall see shortly.

In this attack Tillman was killed. The US military told the world that he died under attack from evil terrorists. It was lie. Worse yet, the military knew it. Tillman was killed by someone in the US military.

But Tillman was the poster boy for the Pentagon. He was the sports player who turned down millions to join the army. He was photogenic, smart and successful. And the military hoped that they could dupe lots of young kids into thinking the same sort of glamour will apply to them if they enlist. And now he was dead. And worse yet he was killed by the US military not by any enemy combatant.

So they invented an attack that didn’t take place. Their goal was to turn the Tillman funeral into a military recruiting bonanza. And these men, including people at the highest levels of the military, lied to the Tillman family about what happened.

But Tillman’s family weren’t buying what the government was selling. And they noticed discrepancies in the official myth invented by the brass. So they asked questions and got more lies in return. The web of deceit woven by the spinmeisters of the government started to unravel bit by bit. So the government went on the offensive. One military investigator started attacking the family.

This vile investigator, Lt. Col Ralph Kauzlarich, didn’t want to do his job and investigate the facts. He wanted to sweep them under the rug. He bitched that investigators would have dropped the case long ago except Tillman was a celebrity and his parents refused to let the matter go. He says the whole incident was “an unfortunate accident” but that the family won’t drop the case “because of their religious beliefs.”

What he means is their non-religious beliefs. Kauzlarich was on the warpath because the Tillman’s weren’t Christians. He discovered that when Tillman’s body was being brought back to the US that Tillman’s brother, and fellow soldier, objected when a chaplain was brought in to pray. That bothered Kauzlarich. And he was now convinced that the Tillman’s were trouble makers merely because they were not Christians. He told ESPN:

When you die, I mean, there is supposedly a better life, right? Well, if you are an atheist and you don't believe in anything, if you die, what is there to go to? Nothing. You are worm dirt. So for their son to die for nothing, and now he is no more — that is pretty hard to get your head around that. So I don't know how an atheist thinks. I can only imagine that that would be pretty tough.

He said the Tillman’s lack faith including “trust in the system” so he didn’t “think anything will make them happy... because they can’t bring their son back.”

Pat’s mother, Mary, was offended. “Oh, it has nothing to do with the facts that this whole thing is shady. But it is because we are not Christians.” She said, “Pat may not have been what you call a Christian. He was about the best person I ever knew. I mean, he was just a good guy. He didn’t lie. He was very honest. He was very generous. He was very humble. I mean, he had an ego, but it was a healthy ego. It is like, everything those (people) are, he wasn’t.”

Kauzlarich basically admitted that he doesn’t want to know who killed Pat Tillman. He said they probably could have discovered who had but he said: “I don’t think it really matters.” He told reporters: “I had no issue on not finding a specific person responsible for doing it.”

Precisely what happened is unclear. There was bad planning, poorly trained soldiers, and mismanagement. There may have been more but we may never know. Certainly Tillman had concluded that the US government had lied about the war. He had become an opponent of the Iraqi invasion.

Here was a man with the integrity to question professional football coaches about whether they harbored any antigay sentiments. He was not afraid to speak out. Did he? Did someone, perhaps offended by his opposition to the war, his atheism, or his social tolerance, decide that the incident was a perfect time to settle a score? Perhaps? But that is only conjecture. We don’t know because men like Kauzlarich decided it was best not to know.

Immediately after the killing, the cover up began. We discovered that someone destroyed Tillman’s personal journal. Why would they do that? Was there something in the journal that they didn’t want out? This would have been a cherished memento for the Tillman family. Instead it was destroyed. His uniform was destroyed as well. Investigations were not done and the military invented a false story to promote the glory of their war.

Three days after the killing, the soldiers who were there had a meeting. Immediately everyone was looking for excuses, not causes. They talked about panic. And many of them immediately tried to blame Tillman for his own death. This only stopped when Bryan O’Neal spoke up. A witness that evening says O’Neal was barely holding back tears and was emotionally shook up. He told the others, “The only reason I am standing here is because Pat Tillman saved my life.”

So far we don’t know exactly what happened. All we know is what didn’t happen and that’s the original, official story released by the US government. The cover up has been shameless and blatant.

Mary Tillman told the media that both the Left and the Right have tried to use Pat Tillman’s death for their own purposes. She dismisses both sides saying Pat’s thoughts were far more complex than either of those movements can understand. She said one couldn’t put his views in a box. Tillman appeared to be a paradox in so many ways. But the more I learn the more I have to admire him. The complexities of life don’t fit the Left-Right mold. Since Pat Tillman didn’t seem to fit anyone’s mould I think we should realize Mary Tillman is correct when she say’s Pat wasn’t someone who couldn't be so easily stereotyped. And I admire that.

Foreign Policy & Civil Liberties

This one hour lecture by author Jim Bovard can be watched at our sister site: TV Liberty. There are seven parts in total for about 60 minutes worth of material. All the parts can be found through this one link. Enjoy.

Bush wants the US military to "stabilize" Africa.

The Imperial Presidency and the New World Empire moves forward. All hail Caesar!

The United States military is setting up a new “command headquarters for Africa” though in Germany. I would bet most Americans never realized that the US was now so militarily interested in Africa that it needed a “command headquarters” for this continent. Germany will only be the temporary headquarters for what is called Africom -- the Empires military strategy center for all military conflicts and invasions in Africa.

King George said: “This new command will strengthen our security cooperation with Africa and create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in Africa. African Command will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy and economic growth in Africa.” Nope but it will further the Bushian vision of world empire building!

Bush, who probably isn’t even sure where Africa is, knows zilch about the continent. I lived there for a dozen years. The Middle East is a rose garden compared to the quagmire in Africa.

Bush can’t even figure out a handful of Islamic sects and tell them apart. Consider Africa in comparison. There are 61 countries and territories. But that doesn’t tell you much. They are not countries like many other countries. The typical resident of France sees himself as a Frenchman. The typical African does not see himself as a national citizen but a tribal one. You can’t understand what is happening in these countries without understanding the tribal politics.

Zimbabwe is dominated by the Shona tribe of dictator Robert Mugabe. The other tribe, the Matabele, have often been the victims of Mugabe’s genocidal attacks. Even South Africa, which is downright Westernized compared to the rest of Africa, has eleven official languages reflecting the dominate tribes in that one country alone. The African National Congress was dominated by the Xhosa while the Inkatha Freedom Party is dominated by the Zulu.

Africa is riddled with hundreds and hundreds of languages and dialects. Consider a few countries. There are 18 languages in Algeria and 31 in Angola. Zimbabwe has 19 languages while Zambia has 43. Kenya has 61 while Chad has 132 and the Democratic Republic of the Congo has 218. There are so many languages in Africa that no one is really sure how many there are. Estimates range from 1,000 to 2,000.

With these thousands of languages are thousands of tribes who inconveniently don’t just happen to live within the same countries. Nation states in Africa were a colonial invention and the colonial powers didn’t necessarily draw borders that made sense for the tribal/language groups under their control. Often groups that identified with each other were divided into different nations while groups that hated one another were merged into one nation. This formula guaranteed conflict for decades, if not centuries after.

Burundi, for instance, is 85% Hutu and 14% Tutsi. Rwanda has similar numbers. So the Tutsi were a minority everywhere. One result was that over one million Tutsi were slaughtered by the Hutu in the Rwandan Genocide.

Here is a president who has trouble keeping straight as to who is Sunni and who is Shiite and who probably thinks the Kurds have something to do with what Miss Muffet was eating. And we expect him to understand that one reason Zimbabwe is a dictatorship is so the Shona can suppress the Matabele and to realize that the minority status of Tutsi in both Rwanda and Burundi is a reason for the genocide. Is the Congo a center of civil conflict and war because it is a nation with 218 languages and about 200 tribes! Some four million people have died in the conflicts in the D.R.C. alone.

That the neocon Imperialists are now casting lustful eyes toward Africa ought to scare the bejesus out of people. Spiegel reports they are doing this because they are “keen to foster stability on the continent with an eye to Africa’s oil reserves...” Foster stability! Oh, the way the US stabilized Iraq for instance! Or perhaps the way the US has brought stability and peace to the Isreali-Palestinian conflict.

According to Spiegel the new command post for African incursions will only be in Germany for two or three years and then it “is expected to move to an as yet undetermined location in Africa.” US military bases in Africa.

Bush has problems. That is clear. Something is muddling his thinking. Yet he has the faith of a fundamentalists and can’t recognize that he has fucked up the world and is destroying his own country. I use those words intentionally to express the gravity of the situation. As he put it “I’m the decider.” No Mr. Bush you aren’t. You are supposed to be a servant of the American people. And the people want out of Iraq and I bet you’d be hard pressed to find 10% wanting US military bases in Africa.

Bush is not learning because his brain is incapable of learning. His past use of cocaine may have done some serious damage to his ability to think critically -- or to think at all. Empire building is disastrous. It is disastrous to those under the thumb of the empire and it is disastrous to the nation where the empire is founded. All empires collapse! And the bigger the empire the bigger the collapse.

America has become an imperial state run by a man with imperial ambitions. There are certainly threats in the world but I don’t see Empire as the solution. In fact American empire building feeds those threats and makes them more powerful. There will be, for some time, the unorganized, diffused threat of radical Islamists. But because they are diffused and unorganized (and not centralized in any organization) Empire building can’t stop that threat. It needs to be dealt with in other ways.

American expansion into Africa will only push more Muslims toward radical Islamist thinking. There are over 400 million Muslims in Africa and the Islamists are relatively weak there. American intervention will only inspire Africans to adopt a more radical Islamic faith. US intervention in Iraq unleashed the theocratic forces of Islam there. And it will do the same in Africa.

Recent polls showed that Bush now has an approval rating of 28%. He is only 4 points away from the all-time low of Richard Nixon. And still he pushes on. He won’t be happy until empire is established. I am convinced that Bush is fundamentally the most anti-American threat around. He is doing more to destroy the historic principle of American government than anyone. Fiscal sanity has been destroyed for empire. Constitutional rights shredded for empire. Limited government destroyed for empire.

Osama bin Laden and his tiny group of followers killed a couple of thousand Americans in a horrific attack. But he had no power to destroy habeas corpus, no power to eavesdrop on Americans, no power to impose internal passports in the form a national ID, no power to break the budget, no power to engulf America in foreign conflicts around the globe. Bin Laden had a limited power to kill but already the victims of Bush’s response exceed the numbers killed on 9/11. And that is only counting the American war dead not the tens of thousands killed while being “liberated” nor the tens of thousands killed by the civil war ignited by the US invasion.

The worst bin Laden was capable of doing he has done. The enemy without is always a danger. But when Constitutional government is thrown away to fight that enemy then the enemy within becomes the bigger threat. George Bush is public enemy number one. Bin Laden is a poor second compared to him. The biggest threat to American values is not Islamist radicalism but imperialism.