Greenpeace warns of the danger faced by two ecosystems:
The Amazon
The "Zero Forest" bill (PL 6424/2005) currently before the Brazilian Congress would substantially weaken Brazil's Forest Code. Currently, privately owned land must maintain at least 80% of the original vegetation. Zero Forest would reduce that to 50%. (You can sign the petition against Zero Forest here.) Business interests are also attempting to remove protections for areas that have more stringent protections, areas like mountaintops and the rivers themselves. And business interests are trying to have the states instead of the federal government regulate deforestation. As the states make their income from taxing these businesses, the states have more of an incentive to be lax with deforestation regulations.
Deforestation would be emphysema to the "World's Lungs," destroying the most biodiverse region on the planet and releasing stored greenhouse gases. Important species, possibly including medicinal plants, have yet to be discovered. And the problem is more than a simple environmental one. Tribes native to the region depend on the forest, and 85% of slaves in Brazil are found in deforested regions of the Amazon.
The Bering Sea
The Bering's pollock fishery is in danger of collapse, losing 50% of its population in just one year. The population drop is so significant that seals and sea lions are washing up on Alaskan shores, dead from starvation. And again, the problems are more than environmental. Destroying the pollock fishery is obviously not in the long-term interest of the fishing industry or the Alaskan coastal towns that depend on it.
But there is no need for a tragedy of the commons scenario. The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council can set fishing limits. (You can write to the Council here.) However, the Council met last week and reduced the 2009 pollock catch limit by only 18.5%; Greenpeace denounced the reduction as a "half-measure," having urged a 55% reduction.
What You Can Do
Besides writing and petitioning through the links provided above, you can donate to Greenpeace here.
Ah, it's that time of Olympiad. The time when a lame-duck president issues pardons with little political fallout. So who is and who isn't getting a pardon?
Donald Rumsfeld
After a bipartisan Senate report unanimously concluded that Rumsfeld and other Administration officials were directly responsible for abuses committed at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, Amnesty International was afraid Bush would grant them a blanket pardon:
After eight years of defiling America's reputation and renouncing our founding principles, the Bush administration wants to jet off into the sunset without answering to the American public...One of our three main objectives during President-elect Obama's 100 days is to ensure an independent commission investigates abuses committed the U.S. government in its "war on terror". Pardoning key officials, or even worse, issuing a blanket pardon, would undermine this critical goal towards restoring our commitment to human rights.
But White House officials have said that such pardons are unnecessary; that would imply that what those officials did was wrong and illegal. You gotta love these guys.
Especially Keith Urbahn, a Rumsfeld spokesman. (Someone still likes Rumsfeld enough to work for him?) Said Urbahn of the Senate report, "It's regrettable that Senator Levin has decided to use the committee's time and taxpayer dollars to make unfounded allegations against those who have served our nation." Yeah, right, it was a political hit job. That's why all twelve of the Republicans on the committee went along with it.
Isaac Robert Toussie
Toussie was a real estate scammer who helped a hundred people illegally qualify for HUD-sponsored mortgages. His father donated $28,500 to the Republican National Committee. And on Christmas Eve it was announced that he would be receiving a presidential pardon.
Presidential pardons, once granted, are irrevocable. But Toussie's pardon had not yet been executed. And due to popular opposition, President Bush directed the Pardon Attorney not to execute it.
Don't get me wrong. Liberal/progressivebloggers immediately pushed back against this notion. And the Meachem article is hardly convincing:
The two Arthur Schlesingers, father and son, believed American history was cyclical, with periods, as they saw it, of liberal action followed by conservative reaction. There is much to commend this construct, though history and politics, like so much else in life, do not lend themselves to easy categorization.
History and politics do not lend themselves to easy categorization, you say? And yet you're perfectly comfortable categorizing the U.S. as just right of center?
Nonetheless, it got me thinking: Is the U.S. really entering a liberal era?
The Basic Argument
Main Idea: Conservatives screwed up: The economy is in shambles due to Republican-led deregulation and we're involved in two wars thanks to gung-ho neoconservatives. The Republican coalition is fracturing, while leftists are adopting a more united front.
The Demographic Argument
Main Idea: The McGovern coalition--students; minorities; and upper-middle-class, college-educated professionals (doctors and lawyers, as opposed to mid-level managers)--failed to elect a Democrat in 1972. But this section of the American populace has grown since '72, and this coalition can now be a winning one. Furthermore, elements of the coalition are now even more likely to vote Democratic due to the decreased salience of issues that favored Republicans, e.g. crime and high taxes.
Pause
Main Idea: But then Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss is re-elected in a runoff in Georgia, and a recent poll shows that "a plurality of voters (49 to 42 percent) are more concerned that the Democratic Congress will be too much of a rubber stamp than they are that Congress will prevent Obama from enacting the changes he thinks are needed." Said poll also concludes that "a large portion of the public is waiting to decide whether Obama is doing a good job." And how likely is it that Obama will save the economy, restore the Big Three to profitability, withdraw from a stable Iraq, secure Afghanistan, end global warming, and so on?
So?
The Schlesinger view is the correct one. Liberals are put in power due to the public's disgust with conservative excesses, liberals go too far, then the public puts conservatives in power, conservatives go too far, etc. Meachem may be right that the U.S. is more conservative than Europe, but it's also more liberal than Saudi Arabia. But who cares? That's not the point we're arguing. 'Liberal' and 'conservative' are relative terms; the context in which they are used is always relevant. And what we're discussing is not how the U.S. of today compares to the Europe of today but how the U.S. of today compares to the U.S. of years past.
The answer to that question is a difficult one. The U.S. could be entering a new liberal era, but I think that depends on the success of Obama's first term. If Obama makes significant headway against today's problems, or if he's able to paint failures as the fault of Republicans, it is probable that 2008 will be remembered as the liberals' 1980. The bottom line is that the (in-)significance of 2008 will probably not be known until at least 2012.
Reuters and the Associated Press just recently released articles about a leukemia patient in Germany, also HIV positive, who received a bone marrow transplant from a donor that had an immunity towards HIV. Now, two years later, doctors cannot detect any signs of HIV and the patient appears to be HIV negative. The patient has been off of antiretroviral medications for this two year period. However, the procedure is not at all sufficient to be used as a cure for AIDS at this stage. Below are excerpts from the Associated Press' article.
This isn't the first time marrow transplants have been attempted for treating AIDS or HIV infection. In 1999, an article in the journal Medical Hypotheses reviewed the results of 32 attempts reported between 1982 and 1996. In two cases, HIV was apparently eradicated, the review reported...
As Huetter [physician treating patient for leukemia] — who is a hematologist, not an HIV specialist — prepared to treat the patient's leukemia with a bone marrow transplant, he recalled that some people carry a genetic mutation that seems to make them resistant to HIV infection. If the mutation, called Delta 32, is inherited from both parents, it prevents HIV from attaching itself to cells by blocking CCR5, a receptor that acts as a kind of gateway...
Roughly one in 1,000 Europeans and Americans have inherited the mutation from both parents, and Huetter set out to find one such person among donors that matched the patient's marrow type. Out of a pool of 80 suitable donors, the 61st person tested carried the proper mutation.
Before the transplant, the patient endured powerful drugs and radiation to kill off his own infected bone marrow cells and disable his immune system — a treatment fatal to between 20 and 30 percent of recipients.
He was also taken off the potent drugs used to treat his AIDS. Huetter's team feared that the drugs might interfere with the new marrow cells' survival. They risked lowering his defenses in the hopes that the new, mutated cells would reject the virus on their own.
Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases in the U.S., said the procedure was too costly and too dangerous to employ as a firstline cure. But he said it could inspire researchers to pursue gene therapy as a means to block or suppress HIV.
"It helps prove the concept that if somehow you can block the expression of CCR5, maybe by gene therapy, you might be able to inhibit the ability of the virus to replicate," Fauci said.
So, while not a cure for HIV/AIDS all together, these developments do offer hope that a cure is possible with more research and trials.
For the full article from the Associated Press, please click here.
On Friday, the BBC reported that refugee camps in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo had been forcibly evacuated, looted, and burned. 50,000 people were displaced by the destruction, and a million people are estimated to be have displaced by the general conflict. Lootings, murders, and rapes were reported, mostly perpetrated by Congolese troops (although both sides have their hands dirty).
The area has been unstable since the Rwandan genocide in 1994. General Laurent Nkunda leads the rebel faction and has said that he is trying to protect his Tutsi community from Hutu rebels. (The Hutus killed 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in the genocide.) Nkunda is very likely receiving support from the Rwandan government under Tutsi president Paul Kagame. Rwanda has denied allegations of supporting Nkunda, but has overtly invaded DR Congo twice, including once in a five-year war that also brought in Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe, and Uganda.
Other complicating factors are the ethnic diversity of the area, which is home to at least six ethnic groups, and its mineral wealth. The region has gold and coltan, which is used to make cell phones, and Nkunda is unhappy with a $5 billion deal between China and the Congolese government granting the Chinese access to the region.
A cease-fire in the civil war was signed in January, but the Congolese government was either unable or unwilling to prevent a third Hutu faction from using its territory, and the conflict reignited in August.
A Humanitarian Crisis
In the past ten years, five million people have died and another one million have been displaced. Food and water are scarce, and aid agencies' handouts have caused stampedes. A UN aid convoy was able to pass from Goma through Congolese and rebel lines to Rutshuru to deliver medical supplies and water purification tablets to refugees. However, many have fled into the forest, where aid cannot reach them.
Secretary General Ban ki-Moon will travel to East Africa to help resolve the crisis. Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has called for an increase in the size and the power of the UN peacekeeping force in the Congo. The Mission de l'Organisation des Nations Unies en RD Congo (MONUC) has 17,000 peacekeepers in the region and is the UN's largest peacekeeping mission.
...The Anchorage Daily News, Alaska's largest newspaper, endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Sunday after declaring Gov. Sarah Palin "too risky" to be one step away from the Oval Office.
"Like picking (Republican presidential candidate John) McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time," The Daily News said.
The newspaper said Obama "brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand."
The Daily News said since the economic crisis has emerged, McCain has "stumbled and fumbled badly" in dealing with it...
Are tensions rising between Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign? Maybe.
First, Ben Smith reports that Palin is "going rogue," disregarding the advice of McCain advisers, going off-message, and even trying to talk to the media. Funny story:
Palin strolled over to a local television crew in Colorado Springs. "Get Tracey," a staffer called out, according to The New York Times, summoning spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt, who reportedly "tried several times to cut it off with a terse 'Thank you!' in between questions, to no avail."
It's telling and sad that Palin's handlers freak out if she tries to talk to the media.
Palin's rogue status has been cheered by a camp of Republicans who see Palin as a fresh face that could revitalize the Grand Ole Party. The "Palin camp" is disgruntled with McCain, particularly with his campaign's handling of their savior, and is afraid that a McCain loss will be blamed on Palin.
Smith's report was based on four anonymous Republican sources. In response to the story, Tracey Schimdt retorted, "Unnamed sources with their own agenda will say what they want. But from Governor Palin down we have one agenda, and that's to win on Election Day."
And after that, a McCain advisor called Palin "a diva. She takes no advice from anyone. She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else."
Regardless of where total truth ends and exaggeration begins, one thing is clear: things are not going well in McCainLand.
So right after declaring herself clear of any wrongdoing in Alaska's "Tasergate," an AP investigation discovered this about Palin:
AP INVESTIGATION: Alaska funded Palin kids' travel
...The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel...
...In all, Palin has charged the state $21,012 for her three daughters' 64 one-way and 12 round-trip commercial flights since she took office in December 2006. In some other cases, she has charged the state for hotel rooms for the girls...
For the entire article about Sarah Palin's expenses (and waste of taxpayer money), click here.
First, as J-Mad mentioned in passing, Barack Obama raised an astonishing $150 million in September. Astonishing because it broke the previous monthly fundraising record of $66 million, which Obama himself set in August.
Second, Obama received an endorsement from probably the most respected member of the Bush Administration, former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Powell is the highest-ranked Republican to endorse Obama, counterbalancing Joe Lieberman's support for John McCain nicely. The endorsement is notable not only for obvious reasons but also for his declaration that Republicans' condemnation of Obama as Muslim is shameful both because it is a lie and because 'Muslim!' should not be a tacit insult. Watch it:
So perhaps there is a movement by the presidential campaigns to make their respective candidates appear more human by being funny and able to laugh at themselves. Or, maybe people have finally realized the ridiculousness of the current American political campaign system and are choosing to laugh to keep from crying. I don't know.
Last week, we had the Presidential candidates roasting each other (click here), and last night, GOP VP pick Sarah Palin was on SNL. It was actually funny and probably the only good thing she has done since joining the campaign. However, her SNL involvement was far less than when other candidates, like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, were on the show. Personally, I think Tina Fey makes a better "Sarah Palin" than Sarah Palin (at least we know that Tina Fey knows the truth about dinosaurs).Take a look at the videos below and see for yourself.
Some people may think that Palin being able to laugh at herself or John McCain taking a joke during the presidential roast might have a positive effect for their campaign. Well, Obama is still raking it in ("Obama Raises Stunning $150 million in September").
This first one is the opening sketch.
The second sketch is the one of Sarah Palin on Weekend Update with Seth and Amy.
Last night, at a dinner hosted by the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation in New York, Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama took turns laughing at themselves and roasting each other. Both candidates were quite funny (yeah, even John McCain got some laughs) and the jovial tone of the evening made John McCain look like pre-2004 McCain (as in, not a jerk).
Take a look and judge for yourself which one is funnier.
Below is the footage from last night's third and final presidential debate. It was by far the best debate of the election. Barack Obama, while strong all throughout the debate, was particularly strong on his health care, pro-choice, tax policy, and education plans. John McCain provided the entertainment of the night, whether it be a grimace or two when Obama referenced Fox News' criticisms of the McCain campaign or when McCain introduced "Joe the Plumber" and then proceeded to mention Joe over 20 times throughout the evening and change the analogy.
The most interesting question of the night though was this: "Both of you run or have run negative campaign ads. Senator Obama, you have called him 'out of touch' and 'unfit to lead.' Senator McCain, you have called him a 'terrorist,' 'pals around with terrorists,' and 'liar.' My question to both of you is would you say what you said in your ads to each other's faces? Senator McCain, you are first." While neither one came out and called each other those exact phrases, John McCain discussed his "hurt feelings" while Obama said that he did not care if he would be attacked for the next three weeks and that the voters do not care about the candidates' hurt feelings; they care about the issues. Obama also told John McCain that the one instance McCain referenced, the Obama campaign had nothing to do with it and issued a statement saying it was inappropriate and the senator that made the comment apologized and redacted the statement, while people at Palin/McCain rallies scream "Terrorist!" and "Kill Him!" and neither Governor Sarah Palin nor Senator John McCain request the crowd to stop and tell them that their actions are inappropriate. In my opinion, there is absolutely no comparison to what McCain was griping about and the fact that his campaign does not denounce supporters' calls for Obama's assassination as totally inappropriate. Grow up, McCain, and lose like an adult.
Another interesting question was asked about the vice presidential candidates. The question was, "why do you think that your vice presidential candidate is better than your opponent's?" I don't think that John McCain answered with nearly as many "mavericks" as "Joe the Plumber" references.
By the way, apparently "Joe the Plumber" really does exist. And he's kind of a stingy guy when it comes to tax policy for the richest 5% of Americans. Take a look at both videos and see what you think. Enjoy!
Last month, the British Treasury released the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. Some findings:
"The benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting." The annual cost of not acting will likely be 5% of global GDP and could reach 20%. In comparison, meaningful actions need only cost 1%.
"The most vulnerable – the poorest countries and populations – will suffer earliest and most, even though they have contributed least to the causes of climate change."
Stabilizing greenhouse gas levels below 550 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent (ppm CO2e) would alleviate most risks. Current atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases are at 430 ppm CO2e and are increasing by 2 ppm CO2e per year.
Governments around the world, especially the United States, must take action soon to avoid irreversible damage. A global framework like the Kyoto Protocol should be established. Cap-and-trade systems should be instituted; international carbon markets would be more effective, as they will allow third-world countries to develop while still limiting overall emissions. Countries should make a serious commitment to combat deforestation.
The Stern Review warns that economic disruption caused by global warming could be on the scale of that caused by the Great Depression or World War II. Whatever specific actions are taken, one thing is clear; those actions must be taken immediately.
I couldn't help but snicker reading this editorial in the Michigan Daily. In it, Alex Prasad laments the opportunities Palin missed at the vice-presidential debate:
For example, Biden, speaking of Vice President Dick Cheney, said, “The idea (Cheney) doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the executive branch.”
Palin easily could have retorted, “Actually Joe, Article I of the Constitution discussed legislative power. Ya know, it’s disappointing that a sitting senator doesn’t even know the Constitution he’s sworn to protect. The American people need somebody who is intimately familiar with the Constitution.”
Seriously? Do you really think Sarah Palin is "intimately familiar with the Constitution"? Do you think someone who can't even remember what publications she reads knows which article of the constitution refers to what? Does it seem like Palin would say anything in that above statement besides "Actually Joe" and "Ya know"? Prasad continues:
The moderator, Gwen Ifill, asked Biden if Americans have the stomach for all the intervention he has proposed over the years, citing his calls for intervention in Bosnia, Iraq, Pakistan and Sudan. Biden responded, “I think the American public has the stomach for success. My recommendations on Bosnia … saved tens of thousands of lives … (and) the end result was it worked.”
[....Palin] should have answered as follows: “Ya know, let’s talk about success senator. Certainly, I can’t match your long record in the realm of foreign policy. But, I don’t think the American people — those Main Streeters — just want experience. They want good Main Street judgment. You cite Bosnia as a success, yet 13 years after the initial conflict, we still have 10,000 troops there. You were one of the few opposed the first Gulf War, saying thousands of U.S. soldiers would die. In fact, only 293 did in an overwhelming victory. Your maverick opposition was irresponsible.
In addition to the fact that Palin again probably does not know these things, I fail to see how these points will help her win the debate. How can you criticize Biden for supporting something that resulted in 10,000 troops staying in Bosnia for 13 years when McCain wants troops to stay in Iraq for 100 years?* If our victory in the first Gulf War was so overwhelming, why was it necessary to go to war with Iraq again just 12 years later? And you're really going to criticize someone who is not John McCain for being an irresponsible maverick? Yeah, that's a good idea.
Despite the hopes of the Obama campaign and many liberals, electoral defeat may just be the thing that reignites the conservative base. Democrats better hope that Republicans don’t find the second coming of Ronald Reagan by 2012, or conservatives will again unite behind a presidential candidate.
Wow. Are conservatives really that relentlessly optimistic/out of touch with reality? Maybe I'm wrong here, maybe I'm the one being overly optimistic, but it seems to me that we're in the middle of a paradigm shift. The pendulum is swinging leftward. Americans are tired of the excesses of conservatism and the Bush administration: deregulation, wars without provocation, living without a safety net, ignoring our civil liberties, corruption, etc. This is not to say that liberals cannot be guilty of their own excesses; indeed, Americans upset with Great Society, Vietnam, the Chicago protests, race riots, and the Iranian hostage crisis deserted Johnson, Humphrey, and Carter and turned to Nixon and then Reagan. We've been living in a conservative age ever since. Until now.
*NOTE: McCain does not want to see American troops fighting in Iraq for a century like the Obama campaign might want you to think. McCain wants the U.S. to establish a peacetime presence there as in Germany or South Korea or Bosnia. Permanent bases in Iraq are still a bad idea, though.
Here is the CSPAN footage from the second presidential debate. The moderator was Tom Brokaw and the style was that of a Town Hall debate. All in all, both candidates did far better than the previous presidential debate, with Barack Obama making great improvements and doing an excellent job of differentiating between his and McCain's policies. McCain, on the other hand, often times sounded condescending and quick to levy false accusations. Both candidates, however, were constantly harassed by Tom Brokaw about the time constraints.
For the New York Times' interactive webpage on the debate, please click here.
A new precedent could release more prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, and it only took 7 years to realize that you actually can't carry out a racially and prejudiced policy of holding people indefinitely and without charges, torturing them in the meanwhile. Please check out the article in its entirety from the Associated Press below.
WASHINGTON - A federal judge ordered the Bush administration Tuesday to immediately free 17 Chinese Muslims from Guantanamo Bay into the United States, rebuking the government in a landmark decision that could set the stage for the release of dozens other prisoners in Cuba.
U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina said it would be wrong for the government to continue holding the detainees, known as Uighurs (WEE'-gurz), who have been jailed for nearly seven years, since they are no longer considered enemy combatants. Over the objections of government lawyers who called them a security risk, Urbina ordered their release in Washington D.C. by Friday.
"Because the Constitution prohibits indefinite detentions without cause, the continued detention is unlawful," Urbina said in a ruling that brought cheers and applause from a standing-room only courtroom filled with dozens of Uighurs and human rights activists.
He also ordered a hearing for next week to decide where the Uighurs should be permanently settled. Until then, members of the Uighur community in the D.C. area have offered to take them in and will help care for them.
Justice Department attorney John C. O'Quinn said the government would consider whether to appeal the decision. O'Quinn's request to delay the decision pending a possible appeal was denied Tuesday by Urbina, who said the detainees had waited long enough.
At issue is the scope of a federal judge's power to order the release of a Guantanamo prisoner, who was unlawfully detained by the U.S. but who cannot be sent back to his homeland. The Uighurs, who are Turkic-speaking Muslims in western China, have been cleared for release from Guantanamo since 2004 and ordinarily they would be sent home.
But the Uighurs cannot be sent back to China where they are considered terrorists and could be tortured, and the Bush administration says no country is willing to accept them. Albania accepted five Uighur detainees in 2006 but has since balked on taking others due partly to fears of repercussions with China.
Urbina's decision also has broader implications for the future of the Guantanamo prison, which the Bush administration has said it would like to shut down after "working with other countries to take people back under the right circumstances." A federal judge is set later this month to hold hearings on other Guantanamo prisoners challenging their detention as so-called enemy combatants.
About 20 percent of about 250 detainees who remain at the military prison fear torture or persecution if they return to their home countries, according to the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, raising similar questions as to where they should go if other countries refuse to take them. The U.S. has long maintained they should stay at Guantanamo.
"How many times does the Bush administration need to be told that detainees are entitled to essential rights? All the remaining detainees in Guantanamo Bay must be either charged and tried or released immediately," said Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA.
On Tuesday, the Bush administration argued a federal judge did not have the power to order the release of a foreign-born detainee into the U.S., saying would undercut immigration laws that dictate how foreigners are brought into the country. Until a country accepts the Uighurs, they would stay in special housing that includes TVs, air-conditioning and recreational activities such as soccer, tennis and volleyball, government attorneys said.
O'Quinn also said federal judges had no power to order the detainees' release and should defer to the executive branch, who he said would be in a better position in light of the delicate relations with China. In Beijing Tuesday, before Urbina's ruling, the government demanded that all Uighurs held at Guantanamo be repatriated to China.
"The court should be circumspect because of the potential for interference with foreign relations," O'Quinn said.
Sabin Willett, an attorney for the Uighurs, countered: "I've never heard anyone argue our relations with other nations are a basis for holding someone."
The Uighurs have been at Guantanamo Bay, a naval prison in Cuba, since the U.S. military took custody of them in Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2001.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesmanQin Gang said before Tuesday's court hearing that the Uighurs are suspected of being members of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, which the United States lists as a terrorist organization.
"China has urged the U.S. to repatriate these Chinese terrorist suspects to China on many occasions. We hope the U.S. will take our position seriously and repatriate these persons to China sooner rather than later," he said.
A spokesman at the Chinese Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Urbina's order.
Uighurs are from Xinjiang — an isolated region that borders Afghanistan, Pakistan and six Central Asian nations — and say they have been repressed by the Chinese government. China has long said that insurgents are leading an Islamic separatist movement in Xinjiang.
Rebia Kadeer, president of the World Uighur Congress, called the decision a victory for oppressed Uighurs in China.
"This is our destiny. This our people's win. This concerns our freedom. China accuses us of being terrorists, but we are not," she said through a translator as other Uighurs in the courtroom cried for joy.
____________________
As the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. All in all a great ruling by the federal judge and hopefully, the United States can work out an arrangement where the detainees will no longer face the daily threat and reality of torture at the hands of any country.
The Associated Press reported that Iran ordered an aircraft to land due to invaded airspace and then questioned the plane's passengers. Iran then allowed the plane and its passengers to continue to their destinations.
If this behavior of negative reciprocity continues, there will be escalation and more tension between Iran and the United States, making attempts for genuine diplomacy more difficult. And genuine diplomacy is what is really needed between the United States and Iran. Also affecting the possibilities of real progress and improving relations between the two countries is each country's presidential election (2008 for the United States and 2009 for Iran). Hopefully, the leaders elected in each respective country are more serious and sincere about diplomacy and less inflammatory to one another.
Read the Associated Press article below for more information on the plane situation.
TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian news reports claimed Tuesday that Iran forced down a Western aircraft that accidentally entered its airspace, then allowed the plane to continue to Afghanistan after questioning its passengers.
The state-owned Al-Alam, Iran's official Arabic-language television station, quoted an unidentified senior Iranian military official as saying the plane belonged either to a British or Hungarian relief agency. It said Iran forced the aircraft to land on Sunday and then permitted the passengers and crew to leave the following day.
The U.S. military in Iraq issued a statement noting "media reports that a small, civilian passenger jet was forced to land in Iran. This was not a U.S. aircraft and there were no Americans reported on board. All U.S. aircraft are accounted for and none are missing."
White House spokesmanGordon Johndroe said, "We're looking into the various and conflicting reports coming from the Iranian `news' agencies, but do not have any information at this time that would lead us to believe they are correct."
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hasan Qashqavi said he had no information about the case. Other Iranian officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
The official quoted by Al-Alam said the plane "lost its way" and violated Iranian air space. He said the passengers — who he said included American military personnel — were questioned and that the plane was allowed to continue to Afghanistan.
In Afghanistan, officials with the U.S. military, the American Embassy and the British Embassy said they had no information about a plane being forced down in Iran.
Initially, the semiofficial Fars news agency said the plane was American. Fars reported that the plane was carrying five military officials and three civilians from Turkey to Afghanistan when it "unintentionally" entered Iranian airspace.
According to the Fars report, Iranian fighters guided the plane to an Iranian airport, the passengers were questioned and a day later were released and allowed to continue to their destination.
Fars said the plane was a Falcon, apparently referring to a passenger aircraft manufactured by the French firm Dassault and primarily used by business executives. Dassault Falcon produces five jets with ranges from about 3,250 nautical to more than 4,000 nautical miles, with cabins that typically carry about six passengers and two crew members.
There’s that word again: maverick. In Thursday’s vice-presidential debate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, the Republican candidate, used it to describe herself and her running mate, Senator John McCain, no fewer than six times, at one point calling him “the consummate maverick.”
But to those who know the history of the word, applying it to Mr. McCain is a bit of a stretch — and to one Texas family in particular it is even a bit offensive.
“I’m just enraged that McCain calls himself a maverick,” said Terrellita Maverick, 82, a San Antonio native who proudly carries the name of a family that has been known for its progressive politics since the 1600s, when an early ancestor in Boston got into trouble with the law over his agitation for the rights of indentured servants.
In the 1800s, Samuel Augustus Maverick went to Texas and became known for not branding his cattle. He was more interested in keeping track of the land he owned than the livestock on it, Ms. Maverick said; unbranded cattle, then, were called “Maverick’s.” The name came to mean anyone who didn’t bear another’s brand.
Sam Maverick’s grandson, Fontaine Maury Maverick, was a two-term congressman and a mayor of San Antonio who lost his mayoral re-election bid when conservatives labeled him a Communist. He served in the Roosevelt administration on the Smaller War Plants Corporation and is best known for another coinage. He came up with the term “gobbledygook” in frustration at the convoluted language of bureaucrats.
This Maverick’s son, Maury Jr., was a firebrand civil libertarian and lawyer who defended draft resisters, atheists and others scorned by society. He served in the Texas Legislature during the McCarthy era and wrote fiery columns for The San Antonio Express-News. His final column, published on Feb. 2, 2003, just after he died at 82, was an attack on the coming war in Iraq.
Terrellita Maverick, sister of Maury Jr., is a member emeritus of the board of the San Antonio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.
Considering the family’s long history of association with liberalism and progressive ideals, it should come as no surprise that Ms. Maverick insists that John McCain, who has voted so often with his party, “is in no way a maverick, in uppercase or lowercase.”
“It’s just incredible — the nerve! — to suggest that he’s not part of that Republican herd. Every time we hear it, all my children and I and all my family shrink a little and say, ‘Oh, my God, he said it again.’ ”
As a change of pace from weighty news about the election and the economy, here's a little piece about the University of Wisconsin's marching band. They have been suspended indefinitely for hazing, alcohol abuse, and sexual misconduct. Their behavior, while certainly only a small percentage of the entire band, puts a bad mark on college bands not only in the Big Ten conference, but marching bands across the country.
I feel sorry for the members who had nothing to do with the misconduct, but also for the entire student section watching the games; it might just be me, but there seems to be more energy to the game when the band is present and leading cheers than when, towards the end of the first half, they have to leave to prepare for the half-time show. Now imagine an entire game that lacked that sort of energy...
I'm proud to say that the band I'm a part of frowns heavily upon any sort of hazing or misconduct. The standards are so high that no one would dream of behaving that way; doing so would mean disappointing not only the directors but also your peers. The director emphasizes the fact that we are a family, and we need to take care of each other. Examples - whenever the tuba section goes out together, they take the time to pick a designated driver who will not only drive everyone home, but also make sure that no one does anything stupid. And even through the strenuous practices you go through as a freshman, you can be sure that your section leaders and the drum majors are keeping an eye on you and won't push you past your limits. We can't swear in uniform or even wear our band jackets to any social event involving alcohol. People follow these rules religiously because they understand what would happen if our standards were any lower.
As a member of the band, you have to represent your school in the most positive way, but it's unfortunate that Wisconsin's band doesn't see their position in the same light. Hopefully, they'll get past this unfortunate stage in their history and live up to the high standards that bands need to hold for themselves in order to be respected.
On Thursday, October 2, 2008, the first and only vice presidential candidate debate was held. Below is the article from the Associated Press fact-checking statements made by the candidates. You can also watch the full footage of the debate, courtesy of CSPAN.
WASHINGTON - Republican Sarah Palin criticized a version of a Barack Obamahealth care plan that doesn't exist and Democrat Joe Biden clung to a misleading charge about Republicans and big oil when the two clashed in the vice presidential debate Thursday.
Some examples of facts cast adrift in the debate:
PALIN: Said of Democratic presidential candidate Obama: "94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction."
THE FACTS: The dubious count includes repetitive votes as well as votes to cut taxes for the middle class while raising them on the rich. An analysis by factcheck.org found that 23 of the votes were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all, seven were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, 11 would have increased taxes on only those making more than $1 million a year.
___
BIDEN: Complained about "economic policies of the last eight years" that led to "excessive deregulation."
THE FACTS: Biden voted for 1999 deregulation that liberal groups are blaming for part of the financial crisis today. The law allowed Wall Street investment banks to create the kind of mortgage-related securities at the core of the problem now. The law was widely backed by Republicans as well as by Democratic President Clinton, who argues it has stopped the crisis today from being worse.
___
PALIN: Criticized Obama's "plan to mandate health care coverage and have universal government run program" for health care, and added: "I don't think it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the Feds."
THE FACTS: Wrong on several counts. Obama's plan does not provide for universal coverage, only mandates insurance for children and doesn't turn the system over to the government. Most people would still get private insurance through their work. Obama proposes that the government subsidize the cost of health coverage for millions who have trouble affording it and he'd set up an exchange to negotiate prices and benefits with private insurers — with one option being a government-run plan.
___
BIDEN: Warned that Republican presidential candidate John McCain's $5,000 tax credit to help families buy health coverage "will go straight to the insurance company."
THE FACTS: That's not surprising — the money is meant to pay for health insurance. The Obama campaign tried to capitalize on the candidates' health care exchange by issuing an ad Friday contending that the Republicans can't explain "the McCain health tax."
___
PALIN: "Two years ago, remember, it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures. He sounded that warning bell."
THE FACTS: Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska led an effort in 2005 to tighten regulation on the mortgage underwriters — McCain joined as a co-sponsor a year later. The legislation was never taken up by the full Senate, then under Republican control.
___
BIDEN: Said McCain supports tax breaks for oil companies, and "wants to give them another $4 billion tax cut."
THE FACTS: Biden is repeating a favorite saw of the Obama campaign, and it's misleading. McCain supports a cut in income taxes for all corporations, and doesn't single out any one industry for that benefit.
___
PALIN: Said the United States has reduced its troop level in Iraq to a number below where it was when the troop increase began in early 2007.
THE FACTS: Not correct. The Pentagon says there are currently 152,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, about 17,000 more than there were before the 2007 military buildup began.
___
BIDEN: "As a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for the health care industry — deregulate it and let the free market move — like he did for the banking industry."
THE FACTS: Biden and Obama have been perpetuating this distortion of what McCain wrote in an article for the American Academy of Actuaries. McCain, laying out his health plan, only referred to deregulation when saying people should be allowed to buy health insurance across state lines. In that context, he wrote: "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."
___
PALIN: Said Alaska is "building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline, which is North America's largest and most expensive infrastructure project ever to flow those sources of energy into hungry markets."
THE FACTS: Not quite. Construction is at least six years away. So far the state has only awarded a license to Trans Canada Corp., that comes with $500 million in seed money in exchange for commitments toward a lengthy and costly process to getting a federal certificate. At an August news conference after the state Legislature approved the license, Palin said, "It's not a done deal."
___
PALIN: "Barack Obama even supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year."
BIDEN: "The charge is absolutely not true. Barack Obama did not vote to raise taxes."
THE FACTS: The vote was on a nonbinding budget resolution that assumed that President Bush's tax cuts would expire, as scheduled, in 2011. If that actually happened, it could mean higher taxes for people making as little as about $42,000. But Obama is proposing tax increases only on the wealthy, and would cut taxes for most others.
___
PALIN: Said a McCain-Palin administration "will support Israel," including "building our embassy ... in Jerusalem."
THE FACTS: Moving the U.S. Embassy from its present location in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is a perennial promise of presidential candidates courting the Jewish-American vote. In fact, moving the embassy is actually required by U.S. law. But successive administrations of both parties, including George W. Bush's, have made the same pledge only to find that the realities of Middle East peacemaking have forced them to invoke a waiver to delay it. Jerusalem is claimed as a capital by both Israelis and the Palestinians and Israel's occupation of east Jerusalem is not internationally recognized. The city's status is one of the key issues of disagreement in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
The NYPD lieutenant who ordered the second officer to Taser Inman Morelas was stripped of his badge and gun and assigned to desk duty. Yet another example of persistant problems with NYPD officers' aggression towards minorities.
Lay off the caffine. From the LA Times, "Caffeine intoxication is a recognized clinical syndrome. It is described as nervousness, anxiety, restlessness, insomnia, gastrointestinal upset, tremors, rapid heartbeat, restlessness and pacing. In rare cases, caffeine intoxication can cause death."
From PCMAg.com, "Jammie Thomas, who was ordered to pay $222,000 to a group of music labels for allegedly pirating songs using the Kazaa peer-to-peer service, has been granted a new trial...The key word and definition was 'distribution,' which both the labels and Thomas' lawyers disputed. Both sides agreed that the only copying of files in the case was by MediaSentry, a firm hired by the labels to seek out pirates. The lawyers for Thomas had argued that a copyright holder or its agent, MediaSentry, can not infringe its own copyright."
Oh, please. Give it a rest. The man is 45 years old and his most famous role is a pirate with make-up and the movie is based off of a roller coaster. Time to move on.
Today, the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities announced the finding of a gigantic granite head of Pharaoh Ramses II. Ramses II, "or Ramses the Great, came to power at the age of 25. He is most renowned for building great monuments and warring with the Hittites for 16 years. He had 100 sons and eight 'principle wives.' He may have been the pharaoh of the Exodus. He ruled for 67 years before dying when he was 92" (History Compendium). Check out the article below.
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — Egypt's antiquities council says that archaeologists have unearthed a 3,000-year-old red granite head believed to portray the 19th Dynasty pharaoh Ramses II.
The Supreme Council of Antiquities says the discovery was made recently at Tell Basta, about 50 miles northeast of Cairo.
The council's statement Thursday says the 30-inch high head belonged to a colossal statue of Ramses II that once stood in the area. Its nose is broken and the beard that was once attached to the king's chin is missing.
The site at Tell Basta was dedicated to the cat-goddess Bastet and was an important center from the Old Kingdom until the end of the Roman Period. Archeologists are still digging on the location for the rest of the statue.
CAPE TOWN, South Africa - An anti-apartheid activist was elected South Africa's president on Thursday, assuming what many believe will be a brief caretaker role after Thabo Mbeki was ousted in a power struggle within the ruling party.
South Africa's Parliament, which elects the president from among its members and is dominated by the African National Congress, elected Kgalema Motlanthe with 269 votes to 50 for the main opposition party's nominee.
Jacob Zuma, whose allies engineered Mbeki's ouster, watched from the public gallery. Zuma was not eligible for the presidency because he is not a member of parliament.
Motlanthe is expected to step aside after elections next year, when Zuma was expected to become president.
When the vote results were announced, members of Parliament rose to cheer, and Motlanthe gave a two-thumbs up salute to the gallery. He was sworn in shortly afterward at the presidential office in the Parliament complex.
Later he briefly address the house in measured tones that reflected his reputation as a cool, no-nonsense politician.
"I am deeply humbled and honored by the faith and confidence that the members of this assembly have in me," he said. Motlanthe stood, rocking slightly, as he recited the oath of office, pledging to "do justice to all."
The festive mood at Thursday's parliament session and swearing-in ceremony was in marked contrast to the tumultuous week in South African politics. ANC lawmakers sang anti-apartheid anthems and cheered when Motlanthe cast his vote.
Mbeki did not attend the National Assembly session and Cabinet ministers who have said they were leaving with him also were absent. Among them were the former deputy president, defense minister, intelligence and prisons ministers.
Other members of Mbeki's team have said they would be willing to serve in the next administration.
On Saturday, the ANC ordered Mbeki to quit. Urged on by Zuma's leftist allies, it acted after a judge threw out a corruption case against Zuma on technical grounds and said Zuma may have been a victim of Mbeki's political machinations.
The ANC struggled to reassure South Africa and the world there was no reason to fear instability in Africa's economic and diplomatic powerhouse.
But the situation is fragile, as was clear Tuesday when Mbeki's office announced that 13 ministers and three deputies had resigned from the 28-member Cabinet, among them the highly respected finance minister, Trevor Manuel.
South Africa's stocks and currency reeled. Only later did it become clear that six of those who resigned, including Manuel, had already told the ANC they were willing to serve in a new government. Manuel was expected to be named to a new Cabinet later Thursday.
Zuma is seen as owing his rise to support from labor, the South African Communist Party, and the ANC's increasingly impatient youth wing. But Zuma has said repeatedly he does not plan a major departure from the free market policies of Mbeki and Manuel. South Africa enjoyed unprecedented growth during Mbeki's nine-year tenure, but critics say he did too little to ensure the new wealth trickled down to the black majority.
For all the uncertainty of recent days, some South Africans say the smooth transition was a mark of the maturity of their democracy 14 years after the end of apartheid.
Muzi Sikhakhane, a Johannesburg attorney who was visiting Cape Town and among a handful of people who gathered outside parliament Thursday, said South Africans would "emerge from this stronger."
But he added: "I hope that the new leaders are not just fighting for positions, that they are fighting in order to make our lives better."
South Africans have been anticipating a shift from Mbeki to Zuma at least since December, when Zuma defeated the president in a party election for the ANC's leadership.
Tony Leon, a leading member of the opposition Democratic Alliance, called the ANC ouster of Mbeki in December "brutal, but democratic," and found reason for hope in the events following it that culminated with Thursday's election.
"South Africa's current uncertainty could, over time, lead to far less predictable and far more democratic political outcomes, not immediately, but certainly over time," Leon said in a speech to university students in Cape Town Thursday.
Steve Matomane, an 18-year-old student who also was in the crowd outside Parliament, criticized the way Mbeki was ousted. But he said he did not expect much change in the way his country would be governed.
"As South Africans we don't have to panic," he said. "I think Mr. Zuma will do a wonderful job because he was selected by the ANC and they believe in his ability, his capability."
About 40 people demonstrated in support of Mbeki outside Parliament Thursday. Mzoxolo Sume, a 42-year-old security guard, stood with a sign saying he believed Mbeki had been the victim of a "coup."
"I don't think this is in the interest in the nation," Sume said. "It's about the infighting within the ANC."
Who knows? I've been reading almost every article I've come across and things are still a little fuzzy:
What's going on in Congress? On Monday, there was a tangible fear that a Congress pressured by Bush, Cheney, Treasury Secretary Henry "Hank" Paulson, Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, and SEC Chairman Christopher Cox would hurry up and pass a bill without holding hearings or bothering to think about granting broad new powers to the Treasury Department and expanding next year's deficit to $1 trillion. Newt Gingrich complained that conservative voices were "silent or confused" because this fiscally irresponsible, socialist (We are basically nationalizing the financial industry here.) plan was proposed by Republican leadership.
On Tuesday, Congress woke up. Bernanke, Paulson, and Cox testified before the Senate Banking Committee. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) asked if $150 billion would be enough for now with a promise of more to come later if needed; Paulson said that would be a "grave mistake." However, compromises were made. Paulson agreed to assistance for homeowners facing foreclosure, limits on compensation for participating firms' executives, and congressional oversight of the program. He balked at the idea that the government should receive stock for helping these companies so the taxpayers could recoup their investment, saying that companies would be less likely to participate if this stipulation was made. (Never mind that that was part of the deal with the savings and loan scandal in the '80s.)
The consensus seems to be that Congress will pass a bill, just one significantly different from Paulson's original proposal.
What's happening on Wall Street?
It seems like nobody knows what's happening. On Friday, the Dow rose nearly 369 points on news that a bailout plan was being suggested. On Monday, it fell 372 points supposedly because investors had a weekend to examine the plan and did not like the lack of details. On Tuesday, it fell an additional 161 points supposedly because investors did not like the details Congress was considering. (Today, it remained relatively stable, losing only 29 points.)
How is it affecting the race for president? Hoo boy. A mere yesterday, both Obama and McCain trod softly, reluctant to make the first move. Neither had given any word about how the expensive deal would affect campaign promises. But it was clear that the bailout was becoming increasingly unpopular; by Monday night, 44% opposed the plan compared to 25% supporting. It was less clear, but the economic mess seemed to help Obama in the polls; a WaPo-ABC poll showed Obama with the first statistically significant lead in the general campaign. (Both campaigns found it hard to believe that Obama could gain 11 points on McCain in one week.)
Yesterday night, Obama said the bailout would likely delay implementing his campaign proposals as president.
And if they were reluctant to make the gambit 27 hours ago, the chess pieces are flying tonight. (Perhaps you'd prefer a poker metaphor?) First, McCain said he'd suspend his campaign tomorrow and fly back to Washington. He also asked that Friday's debate be postponed. The two campaigns agreed to issue a "joint statement outlining their shared principles," which turned out not to say much. But Obama said he'd still want to hold the debate:
With respect to the debates, it's my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who in 40 days will be responsible for dealing with this mess. . . . In my mind, actually it's more important than ever that we present ourselves to the American people.
Are these gimmicks? Probably. But the issue could fundamentally alter the presidential race.
Wolverine received his B.S.E. in civil engineering from the University of Michigan in 1950 and was one of the engineers who worked on the Mackinac Bridge. Following its completion in 1957, he immigrated to France and became friends with Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre. Ten years later, he formed the psychedelic rock band Camille Sans Saints, which had a major hit with “Le homard veux me manger.” For more...
J-Mad is the leader of The Federalists. In addition to being the most fly correspondent for WP, J-Mad is co-owner of CSAir, Inc., and senior partner in the infamous Robbem & Runn law firm. Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. and J-Mad are BFFs and were in each other's Five, despite neither one having T-Mobile service. J-Mad will be president someday so watch for the announcement to be made on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Also, FREE TIBET
Clarence Garside is a simple man of simple raising and simple pleasures and...oh heck...he enjoys being part of the mile high club that you only wish you could attend. He is the founder of CSAir and along with J-Mad, they'll rule the airline industry. Eventually, he will get that plane he's always wanted, but for now he must enjoy being a Golden Eagle. By the way...in case of a water landing your Wolverine may be used as a flotation device.
