McCain Using Bush's Old Playbook

If there was any doubt in anyone's mind about whether or not John McCain's election to president would result in four years of Bush-like policies and failed initiative after failed initiative (based on false intelligence and straight-up lies, no less), the question has been answered. The New York Times is reporting that McCain's campaign is now being headed by former Bush campaign aides from 2004. Obviously there are many problems with this for McCain (only 32% of Americans approve of Bush's job, Barack Obama is no John Kerry, etc.), but McCain is desperate (as we saw recently with his foreign policy adviser continuing to seep garbage from his mouth).

In an America where Bush is one of the least popular presidents, one would think McCain would want to distance himself from him. Not so. While Barack Obama was in the Middle East meeting with key leaders, McCain was in Kennebunkport, ME at the Bush family compound puttsing around in a golf cart with Bush 41. Not exactly the image you want to send to voters who have shown that they are concerned about your age.

As I said earlier, however, this is not 2004 and Bush's strategies will not work. To begin with, Barack Obama is not John Kerry. Obama has held firm stances in his political career (relative to Kerry) and his popularity far exceeds that of Kerry. McCain may try to throw stones in term of Obama's somewhat shady real estate deal with Antoin Rezko, but he is in a glass house - very thin plate glass, not plexiglass - due to his womanizing and the whole Keating Five scandal. McCain's argument, as of late, seems to be that Obama is too popular (more of a complement with the king of all popularity contests - the presidential election - coming up).

McCain also cannot use 9/11 and terror fears as well as Bush did because Americans are not buying into it as much anymore. We have seen where rampant speculation and fear-mongering get us (namely: Iraq) and want nothing more to do with it. McCain's unwavering support of the Iraq War, where it may have helped Bush in 2004 to an extent, can only hurt him in November.

McCain also lacks Bush's charisma. While wildly unpopular, in 2000 Bush was labeled the personable candidate compared to Al Gore; someone who you may not agree with personally, but would kick back a beer or two with. This argument would clearly not work today for Bush, but in 2004 it may have held a little water. McCain on the other hand is seen as a bit grouchy and has a nasty temper.

Additionally, with today's economy and the horrible foreign relations that the Bush Administration has created for us, the voters do not want to hear whining about the other candidate and how he is a celebrity akin to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears (for one, Obama is very intelligent while Hilton and Spears would have to share a brain to get through a Dr. Suess book). We want to hear what the candidate himself would do; how would he fix the economy? How would he patch up America's relationships with foreign powers both in the Middle East and throughout the rest of the world? I couldn't care less how you view Obama's media status or what you think of his celebrity; he's got plenty of people looking after him. Focus on your campaign and stop worrying about the other guy. Peace.

Photos - Bush 41 and McCain (www.nancarrow-webdesk.com), The fall showdown (www.usatoday.com)

Neo-Cons See Obama Scare Tactics Not Working, Turn to Begging

I don't know how many people read Bill Kristol's recent column in the New York Times on July 28 entitled "Be Afraid. Please." I did, and I was scared. My fear was not directed toward Obama or the Democrats or anything like that. My fear emanated from the two main facts I found in the article: 1) Kristol is a foreign policy adviser to McCain's campaign and this was not mentioned anywhere in the online version of the column, and 2) Kristol has been consistently wrong for the past decade or so and he is still given a prestigious soapbox such as a New York Times column.

In terms of the first point, that the column does not mention Kristol's affiliation with the McCain campaign. This is troublesome because some readers may take Kristol's words as that of a spectator of the 2008 presidential election; a relatively objective observer in that only his personal beliefs seep into his columns and not his desire to gain a spot in Washington should a certain candidate win. Kristol's overwhelming bias towards McCain and his anti-Obama-ness seemed a bit much, so I looked him up and found out that he is on McCain's campaign team. Knowing that by reading it in the column (either before or after the column's text as a small disclaimer would have been more than enough) would have put the column in perspective.

Secondly, the fact that the Times gave him a column is pretty unbelievable. Kristol has proven himself to be one of the more inept of the neo-cons in today's political scene (and that is saying a lot). Kristol has been known to spout such wisdom as the fact that Iraqi Shia and Sunni Muslims do not get along too well as incorrect "pop sociology." It is also reported that in his book, Kristol said that the Iraq War would only need 75,000 troops in the immediate aftermath of the invasion and tha it would cost only $16 billion a year. The number of troops, according to Kristol, would go down to a few thousand after a year or two. One of the latest counts in a July 16, 2008 USA Today article places the total at 150,000 troops. So five years after the invasion, there are 50 times the amount of troops Kristol predicted would be needed after only 1-2 years (assuming that a "few" thousand means three thousand), and more soldiers have died in Iraq than Kristol predicted would be needed to police the entire country after the war. On top of all of this, Kristol's prediction for the annual cost of post-invasion Iraq ($16 billion) is only slightly larger than what we are actually spending per month ($12 billion). Instead of realizing that this guy has no idea what he's talking about, the Times gave him a column.

In his July 28 column, Kristol says that McCain stands up for winning America's wars, as opposed to Obama whose troop withdrawal Kristol sees as a loss. Personally, I would ask the over 4,000 families of the soldiers killed in Iraq how victorious the Bush Administration and the neo-cons (including Kristol) have been thus far. Their arrogant lack of respect for opposing opinions (or fact, for that matter) leading up to the invasion (opinions that turned out to be correct) forced this country and its brave, all-volunteer armed forces into a war that has unjustly claimed the lives of thousands of Americans and even more Iraqis. That, Mr. Kristol, is not what I call a victory.

Kristol also pulls out the age-old fear tactic in classic Republican-Democrat campaigns: taxes. He implies that if elected president, Obama would take more of people's hard-earned money. As opposed to the lenders and banks with their predatory loans and sketchy debt packages sold to investors (all while Washington looked the other way) or the oil companies who have made record profits as gas prices shoot up due to instability in the Middle East (where did that come from?) and Wall Street speculators. But all of a sudden it's Obama who is the boogeyman and will take your money away.

So on the one hand, one almost feels bad for Kristol. He is literally begging (he should have gone with a "pretty please with sugar on top" for his column title) people to be afraid of Obama. He wants another four years of neo-conservatism in Washington (otherwise, people may see his predictions and musings for what they are: wrong). McCain may complain that the Times wouldn't publish his editorial, but why complain when you have a mouthpiece like Bill Kristol writing every week in one of the more respected dailies in the country, if not the world? The only thing people should be afraid of is more Bill Kristol predictions. Peace.

Photos - Bill Kristol (www.nytimes.com), Empty boots representing American fatalities in Iraq as part of an Iraq War exhibit (minnesota.publicradio.org), Kristol's boss (www.britannica.com)

Harlem Cops Caught Playing with Dolls

In a very odd series of events, NYPD officers in Harlem are being accused of racially insensitive behavior after two white officers were seen driving an unmarked car with the head of a black doll attached to the rear antenna. When a Harlem resident went to take a picture of the doll head in order to report it, the two white officers came out of the restaurant they were in and removed the doll head, placing it into the trunk of the car, while allegedly laughing about the incident.

As the New York Times article today points out, the fact that the doll head was on the car is not in dispute. What is in dispute is how it got there. The NYPD is saying that someone else put it there, while many Harlem residents, probably seeing through a weak excuse like that, ponder whether the cops driving the car put it there as a joke.

I do not know how the head got there, but the NYPD's version of events do not hold water for many reasons. To begin with, I personally do not believe that a Harlem resident would take the time to put a doll head on a cop's car. In an environment where the police and the residents do not get along too well (stop and frisk incidents in the neighborhood run rampant), the wrath of a cop whose car is being messed with is nowhere near worth the risk. I suppose under the realm of "anything's possible," a resident could have put it up there, but it makes little sense.

Looking beyond this, however, is the fact that the cops' report of the incident indicates that the two officers did not notice the head on the back of their car. If this is the case, then these cops probably need to get their eyes checked or need to be more vigilant. If you cannot even keep track of what is on your patrol car, I would have little faith in any report written that mentions the surrounding environment and the placement of objects (something that many police reports require). Additionally, when you drive a vehicle, you are responsible for everything associated with that vehicle. If someone else puts a brick of coke in your car and you get pulled over and say, "That's not mine, officer, someone else must have put it there," do you think that's going to work? Is the officer going to give you the benefit of the doubt? No, it's in your car, which you are operating and thus have custody of, which means you are responsible for everything in it (including attached items on the outside of it). So why is this rule different for cops?

Essentially what we have here is two possible scenarios: the cops did not put it on the car but are morons and are unable to take in their immediate surroundings, calling in to question their ability to police a neighborhood or, the cops put the doll head up themselves and are lying (which would not be unprecedented within the ranks of the NYPD).

In addition to all of this, I have seen people saying that they do not see the big deal of putting the head of a black doll on a police car driven by white cops. While the symbolism should be quite obvious, it is lost on some. The way I see it, the black doll head brings up many negative connotations for people of any color, but especially for blacks. To begin with, it brings up images of lynchings under the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups throughout the United States throughout the 19th and early 20th century. The image of these cops cutting a black doll's head off to place on their antenna conjures up past images of lynchings following which participants would cut off various parts of the victim's body for souvenires. Additionally, the scene of a black head with a slender base as a body also parallels a lynch victim's posture following the disgusting act.

Beyond all of this is the one thing that many people who are not minorities can not understand. To be in a largely black neighborhood like Harlem and to be policed by a mostly-white police force, especially given the history of the NYPD and their treatment of minorities, is automatically a bit antagonizing. Plus, in many situations blacks often find themselves the lone member of their racial group in day-to-day life. Next time you're in a room, look around. Chances are if you're white, you're part of the majority of the group and chances are, if you're black, you are the only black person or one of a significantly small number. As someone who has been in the reverse situation many times - in that I was the only white person or among the only white people in a group of non-whites - I can say it is noticeable and you certainly feel as if you are out of place and your actions are scrutinized. Because I am white, however, I do not feel this on a daily basis and am not policed by a group of police officers who are not my race. If I were in the minority and was policed by the majority who bought a doll that was my race, decapitated it and placed it upon their rear antenna as a joke given the history of the treatment of blacks in this country, and then lied about it blatantly when called out on it, I would be pretty upset. Peace.

Photos - Unmarked NYPD vehicles (Dryblood's flickr), A black doll (www.historyandnostalgia.com), One of thousands of black American lynching victims (en.wikipedia.org)

Jesus Freaks Tell Me I am Going to Hell

As I was walking down 6th Avenue today to the 7 train to go home, I was accosted by an older couple declaring their love for Jesus in a very twisted manner. They were standing outside of News Corp's building (not that surprising) with a sign that read something like "Only a true heretic follows the Pope" or something of that nature. It certainly had the word "heretic" and "Pope" and something about following the Vatican. When I saw the older woman - who looked like something out of an FLDS clothing catalog - I laughed to myself and kind of shook my head, as I do whenever I view unbelievable or outrageous things. As I walked by her husband, who was handing out flyers, he told me, "You're going to hell, with the Jews." At this point I began to chuckle a bit, because the statement was so outlandish, chastising me as a single person, along with an entire religion, as I walk down 6th Avenue on my way home from work.

All of this got me thinking, however. If these peoples' God saw them doing this, what would he say to himself? Personally, I think that he would wonder if they were really spending their time as wisely as they could. Before we get more into it, however, I am taking some liberties with what I assume that these people believe. To begin with, I am assuming that they are extremist Christians. I do not know their denomination nor do I really care. I am assuming that they take Jesus Christ as their savior, and that they believe that all of those who do not will spend an eternity in hell (thus the comment about the Jews). Finally, I am also assuming that they are literarist readers of the Bible. These are three assumptions that I am making of these street corner religious fanatics.

So, considering that Jesus seems like he was a man who, more or less, was a champion of the poor and ill (and for the most part the oft-forgotten or unfortunate faction of society) I would think that they could better spend their time volunteering somewhere like a homeless shelter or a medical clinic. Instead, they feel that their time is best spent outside of Rupert Murdoch's "media" empire, judging everyone who comes by and declaring that they are destined for eternal damnation.

On top of all of this, if they were such strict followers of Jesus and the word, then they would realize that what they are doing is wrong (at least according to the Bible). Does not Matthew 7:1-2 say, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Unless their lives are 100% perfect (which, by the very definition of original sin they cannot be), they should not be judging. Additionally, Luke 6:36-37 states, "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." So, by judging and condemning me (and I do not know how many others) they open themselves up to judgement and condemnation, except their judgement and condemnation will come from the same Lord they purport to be promoting.

Again, this is America and these folks have every right to voice their opinion of the way that they think I live my life. I also, under the same amendment that people like this get to yell at strangers, have the same right to portray how I feel about it. What is even more infuriating than their in your face, pushing pamphlets all up on you style (it's bad enough when it's barber shop ads or local massage parlors), is the fact that logic simply escapes these people. Going back to Jefferson's idea of an "informed electorate;" these people simply do not embody that philosophy. Peace.

Photos - The scene of the crime (on the left under the scaffolding) (amblass' flickr), One man dancing with your run-of-the-mill Jesus freaks (danny.hammontree's flickr)

McCain's Ads Expose How Desperate the McCain Campaign Really Is

I don't know if everyone saw the most recent John McCain ads for his presidential run, but the latest two are embarrassingly horrible and unbelievably inaccurate. The first is an ad targeted at Obama that says Obama is to blame for the rising gas prices in the United States. The second ad is a nauseating piece of video work set to Frankie Valli's "Can't Take My Eyes Off of You" that alleges a love affair between the mainstream media and Barack Obama.

Let's pick apart the gasoline prices one first. To begin with, one of Obama's critics' biggest talking points is that he lacks experience and the know-how to get things done. If Obama lacks all of this experience and ability to accomplish things in Washington, how is he able to make the gas prices reach record highs? Is he manipulating the price of the barrels of oil?

"Pump"


Secondly, McCain decries Obama's lack of wanting to help the average American by refusing to open up drilling in America's oil reserves off-shore. The facts, of course, are not fully explained by the McCain camp. If McCain were to lift offshore drilling prohibitions as president (which Bush has recently done), there is still a federal law banning the type of drilling that McCain wants to do. So unless Congress overturns the law or the Supreme Court decides that the law is unconstitutional, it is really more of a symbolic gesture than anything else.

More on the oil drilling: Americans are drunk on gasoline. No other country has as many flagrantly large SUVs and gas-guzzling luxury cars as this one. We are addicted to foreign oil; that much is not debatable. Let me make a parallel here. If your friend were a drunk and you had two choices to help him, either give him more booze and allow him to continue the way that he is or cut him off from booze, help him through the shakes and recovery and allow him to lead a better life, which would you pick? Drilling into our oil reserves is giving Americans more of what they're addicted to. Making Americans deal with the gas prices the way they are, which will be tough at first, will force this country to adapt to the ways things have changed and will lead to more independence from foreign oil and a more sustainable economy. This is rock bottom, and you can thank the Bush Administration for acting as the pusher.

"Obama Love"


Now onto the second ad. Looking beyond the absurd immaturity of the video and McCain's former musical numbers (Bomb Iran, anyone?), the video itself is made up of piecemeal clips with 10 second sound bytes with absolutely no context. John McCain may be trying to point out bias in the media, but he is using mainstream media tactics to do it. Fast-paced, out of context, small sound bytes are what's wrong with the media today, and the irony of all of this is lost on McCain.

Additionally, McCain has complained that Obama is getting more coverage as he tours the Middle East. Be careful what you wish for, John, as your camp is one of the main proponents of "Barack has no foreign affairs experience and does not understand Iraq." Is it only natural for the media to report intensively on what you have painted as Obama's main weak point? If Barack had gone over there and made gaffe after gaffe and the media skewered him, would you complain that the media was reporting on him? My guess is no. But Obama went over there and had a seamless trip and the media reported on this, and that pissed you off.

If McCain really wants more campaign coverage, he should be ready for all of those skeletons to come out of the closet. We had enough of Reverend Wright and Trinity Church to last us for a long time. How about some Keating Five and alleged cover ups about swindling charities to feed drug addictions? I doubt McCain would want those things splashed across the front page.

It's been a long time since people have been this excited about a presidential candidate (Gore and Kerry weren't exactly "Jump out of your seat and cheer" people and Bush is/was/will be a disaster). McCain has little public personality and a serious temper on top of that. Obama is just an exciting person and has energized a previously apathetic youth of the country. McCain seems to be angry that these kids are on his lawn. But seriously, good job making a substantive advertisement about the issues and the precarious position our nation is in. If you continue to spend money on garbage ads like these, your wife is gonna go broke between the InBev deal and financing ridiculous campaign ad spots. Peace.

Photos - John McCain (en.wikipedia.org), Barack Obama (news.bbc.co.uk)

Larry King's Death Reaches National Spotlight

The unbelievable murder of a young, gay student at an Oxnard, CA middle school back in February of this year is the subject of the cover of the July 28 Newsweek. The article discusses the murder of Larry at the hands of classmate Brandon McInerney, who shot Larry in the head while their English class was working in a school computer lab. Larry was 15 years old and his killer was only 14.

The Newsweek article seems to focus on who is to blame. Is it Larry for coming out as gay, wearing feminine clothing and taunting (to the point of sexual harassment) his homophobic peers? Is it Brandon, the young teenager from a broken home who was one of the main targets of Larry's affection/tormenting? Is it the school for allowing Larry to dress so provocatively, despite a few complaints from teachers? Naturally, everyone involved is pointing their fingers to other parties. The school says that it is Brandon's fault for doing the act, while both Larry's and Brandon's parents think the school is liable for what happened. What is clear is that Larry is dead and Brandon pulled the trigger.

It seems now that Larry's behavior at school was distracting. Some teachers say that they tried to discuss this with one of the assistant principals, Joy Epstein, an openly gay woman, but that she brushed them off or said that there was nothing she could do. Larry had every right to dress however he wanted, as long as his attire was not distracting to other students, but clearly it was. Many speculate that Larry wore the clothes to get attention and to taunt other boys at the school. If this is the case, the school should have done something about it, because it evidently was causing problems.

It is important to remember that Larry is not the only victim here (though he clearly has suffered the most). Brandon McInerney is also a victim; a victim of a broken social services system in California that allowed him to stay with a meth-addicted mother who ran a dope house and a father who beat his wife and even shot her in the arm with a 45. Where do you think Brandon got the gun? From his dad's house. Brandon's public defender, William Quest, blames the school for not stepping in to ease tensions between the two boys, but that is a hard pill to swallow as no news story has said that Brandon tried to talk to someone at the school to help him deal with Larry and his teasing. Instead, he planned to kill Larry a day in advance (he told one of Larry's friends that she would never see Larry again), brought his dad's piece to school, shot Larry in the head and calmly walked out of the building.

The other victims here are the students who teased Larry for being gay (to which Larry responded by sexually harassing them). They are victims because of their ignorance and hate. They clearly do not grasp the situation of what being gay means (though I don't think anyone does at that age). Their disrespect for Larry continued after his death, as a friend of Brandon's was overheard stating, "That's so gay" as Larry's best friend read a poem about him and his mother cried. To not understand the gravity of a situation like this - a situation of life and death - is a sad thing.

No one in this situation is a winner. Not Larry, who is dead. Not Brandon, who faces 50 to life on first degree murder and weapons charges. Not friends of either boy, nor the parents of either boy. There is little good that can come out of a situation like this, but one thing that can be done is to implement new rules and guidelines to prevent something like this from happening again. Maybe a social worker or two at the school to deal with problems that may arise (some may point to strapped school budgets, but with King's parents on the verge of suing, a $50,000 a year social worker would have been cheaper than a settlement or a costly litigation). In any event, Larry's life should not be forgotten and lessons should be learned from such a tragedy. Nothing can bring Larry back, but it is possible to prevent another senseless death. Peace.

Photos - Lawrence "Larry" King (www.crimerant.com), Brandon McInerney (www.latimes.com), A memorial for King outside of Oxnard's E. O. Green Junior High (www.latimes.com)

9/11 Billboard Creator's Loose Grasp of Reality

A misguided man down in St. Cloud, Florida has somehow amassed a large amount of money to post billboards around the Orlando area with a picture of the Twin Towers as they burn after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, with the words "Please Don't Vote for a Democrat" next to the towers, along with a plug for www.therepublicansong.com, a website where the man, Mike Meehan, hawks a song that he wrote and sings about why the Democrats are so horrible. Naturally, the Democrats have come out and condemned the poster, and the Republican Party has even gone so far as to label the billboard "inappropriate." The real mind-boggling part of all this, however, is how little Meehan understands of the situation.

Meehan claims that 9/11 is Bill Clinton's fault. He says that Clinton had the chance to take down Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda all by himself and refused to do it. He says that had a Republican - seemingly any Republican - been president from '92 to 2000, 9/11 would not have happened. Anyone who has a tangential grasp on what occurred during the Reagan-Bush years of the 1980s understands why Meehan is way off the mark. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda rose from these Republican administrations' mujaheddin - also known as "Freedom Fighters" - during the Soviet-Afghan War of the 1980s. This, of course, is completely lost on Meehan.

Also lost on Meehan is the fact that in the months preceding 9/11, the Bush Administration was served warning after warning regarding Al-Qaeda's plans to commit a large-scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil and ignored them. Hell, the Feds had some of the hijackers on their radar because of their activities, but nothing was done about it. Yet Meehan says that Bush has done a great job in the anti-terror department. Never mind the fact that the Bush administration had Osama pinned down and essentially let him go. Bush may have some successes when it comes to battling terrorism (though the re-emergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan is troubling), but the cost has been enormous. Blatant ignorance of basic constitutional liberties, such as habeas corpus and numerous amendments in the Bill of Rights (namely the Fourth) have eroded our democratic principles.

But politicizing 9/11 is nothing new, and it is hypocritial for the Republicans to come out and say anything remotely similar. It was President Bush who said during the 2006 midterm elections that the terrorists would win and America would lose if the Democrats were granted control of Congress. National security was also an issue in 2004, when the Republicans said that the Democrats were weak on national security and implied that if Kerry won the White House, the country would be less safe.

Getting back to these billboards. Thomas Jefferson said, "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." It appears that Meehan does not fit Jefferson's parameters of who can be trusted with their own government. This country was founded under the assumption that the electorate would be well-informed and educated before going to the polls. Meehan's use of 9/11 as a political attack against Democrats shows that he does not have a firm grasp of what is and is not appropriate, and his comments regarding 9/11 and the past four presidents clearly shows that his grip on political knowledge is minimal. This is America, and he has every right to put a moronic billboard like that up if he can find someone willing to do it (which he somehow found in Beech Outdoor Advertising) because of the First Amendment. Under that same liberty, however, those of us who disagree with his shortsightedness also have a right to point out where and why he is gravely mistaken and correct him. Peace.

Photos - The billboard in question (Pensito Review), Mike Meehan (The Republican Song), Thomas Jefferson, an advocate of the informed electorate (Harvard Square Library)

No Justice for Jayson Tirado

Following up on a story that I have discussed in the past, it appears that the NYPD officer who shot and killed an unarmed motorist in East Harlem back in October of 2007, then disappeared for 19 hours before turning himself in, will not face any criminal charges for his actions. As a quick refresher, Jayson Tirado and Sean Sawyer were driving on FDR Drive when they were diverted to East 116th street due to an accident on the highway. In the course of exiting the highway, Mr. Tirado cut off Sean Sawyer, at which point words were exchanged. They continued driving and caught up to each other at a red light, when more words were exchanged and Mr. Tirado allegedly made a reference to a gun. At this point - and this is where most of the contention in this case lies - Sawyer says that Tirado reached for something on the floor of his car and came up as if he had a gun. It is at this point that Sawyer fired two shots and sped away from the scene. Tirado was able to drive a few blocks before slumping over the steering wheel, dead. Sawyer was MIA until 19 hours later, when he decided to turn himself in. Both parties had been drinking that night.

So rack this up as another killing of an unarmed minority at the hands of the NYPD; a killing that will go unpunished. Civil rights charges will not be brought against Sawyer (nor should they be) because the man was acting as a civilian and was not in the course of his duties as a civil servant. But let's look at the most glaring facts of this case: Sawyer shot twice at a car in the middle of East Harlem and did not report the incident until 19 HOURS later, when he walked to a police station and told a sergeant about what had happened. Sawyer claimed that he did not even know anyone was hit and once he realized someone had been killed, he turned himself in. Does this mean that if he did not hit anyone that he never would have alerted his superiors of his actions?

Manhattan DA Morgenthau has said that Sawyer did not receive preferential treatment because of his status as a cop. So if I thought that someone were pulling a weapon on me, I could shoot and kill that person and wait almost an entire day before getting around to reporting it and I would not be charged with a crime? Something about that seems a bit odd. Additionally, if Sawyer was able to see Tirado place his hands in the car and come up as if he had a gun, wouldn't Sawyer be able to see if Tirado actually had a gun? It seems that Sawyer saw and heard a great amount in detail up until the critical moment of identifying a weapon.

Other points of Sawyer's story seem suspect. Sawyer says that he was cut off by Tirado and that Tirado started an argument with Sawyer. That doesn't even make sense. You mean to tell me that Tirado cut off Sawyer and Sawyer did absolutely nothing and Tirado then berated Sawyer for allowing him to cut Sawyer off? That just doesn't add up. Let's not forget that by fleeing the scene of the "crime" Sawyer did not have to take a Breathalyzer test. Various news outlets have reported that Sawyer was out at a Woodside bar for a good amount of time before killing Tirado, who had also been drinking.

Going back to the basics of this story: a cop killed an unarmed minority in New York City and will face no legal repercussions (yet again). Sawyer will most likely lose his job, but he has been suspended WITH PAY since the incident, so he has had plenty of time to get his act together to find new employment. If the roles were reversed and Tirado had shot Sawyer thinking that Sawyer had a gun, do you think that Tirado would walk away from a grand jury as a free man? I will end this post with two quotes. The first is part of a Big L verse that has more relevance of late: "One [cop] murdered my man like it was OK / For the life he ended, he got suspended with no pay / But if a man woulda took the cop life, he woulda got life / And never again see the street lights and that's trife." The final quote is from Tirado's fiancee's lawyer: "He [Sawyer] didn't even get ticketed for littering for leaving Jayson Tirado's body on the street!" Peace.

Photos - Sean Sawyer (www.nydailynews.com), Jayson Tirado and his daughter (www.nytimes.com), Officers inspecting Tirado's car following the early morning shooting (www.nypost.com)

Next They'll Be Calling Them Freedom Fighters

If you have not read Seymour Hersh's article in the latest New Yorker, do it. If you were alive during the 1980s you may think that Hersh's article is merely a history lesson from the Reagan era, complete with toppling Iranian governments, CIA-funded middle eastern minority factions, and moronic decisions coming from the White House. Alas, Hersh's article is a startling look at America's covert operations in Iran meant to destabilize the ruling government to make an invasion easier on the ground. What is even more worrisome is that Congress's intelligence leaders - a group Hersh calls the Gang of Eight - know little about the program, thus allowing the Bush administration to wield unchecked power (kind of like in late 2002 and early 2003 leading up to the Iraq War).

To begin with, to invade Iran would be a grievous mistake. It would prove that the leaders of the current administration have learned absolutely nothing from the situation in Iraq. One would think that Vietnam would be an indication that America should stop fucking with other parts of the world where it has no business, but if that is not enough, then Iraq should certainly prove to be sufficient evidence. But when you're as thick-headed as Dick Cheney and the rest of the administration, logic is as scarce as cheap gas. Hence, the step-up of covert ops in Iran.

The most mind-boggling part of all of this is the complete and utter resemblance it has to Reagan's mistakes of the 1980s. Where do you think the Taliban and Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda came from? If you think they just popped out of the blue in the early 1990s and came to existence solely to do harm to the United States for no reason, then I truly feel sorry for you. With the millions and millions of dollars pumped through Pakistani intelligence to Afghan mujahideen fighting the Soviets, the Taliban formed, followed by Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda. Washington's logic was that both the United States and the ultra-extremist (and America-hating) "freedom fighters" both wanted the Soviets out of Afghanistan. It's middle school philosophy: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

But 9/11 showed us how flawed Reagan's logic was. Without American help in the Middle East, Bin Laden and company would not have existed. Bin Laden has been kicked out of every country in the Middle East; only the Taliban (formed with American help) would accept this wealthy outcast. So he sets up shop in the tunnels of Tora Bora (again, with American help) and plots his revenge on America (who left him and his new country in ruins once the Soviets were defeated).

So what do we do in 2008? We pump money into minority factions, just like Reagan did in the 1980s, in order to fight a common enemy using the same philosophy, even after it proved tragically wrong on 9/11. The funny thing is, the 2008 case is almost a carbon copy of the 1980s. Instead of Khomeini spouting anti-American rhetoric to stir the masses, we have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (both figures were inspired to rail against America due to CIA reasons - Khomeini because of revelations that the CIA and Israeli intelligence helped form and fund the oppresive, brutal secret police of the Shah [SAVAK] and now Ahmadinejad due to covert American ops in Iran's borders). Replace the mujahideen, Reagan's "freedom fighters," with new minority groups like the Kurds and the Mujahideen-e-Khalq. Replace the setting of Afghanistan's mountains to the deserts of Iran. Brilliant.

Let's look at one of the factions we are funding: the Kurds. The Kurds are a significant minority spread throughout northern Iraq, western Iran, and southern Turkey. The Kurds probably do not like America too much due to our dealings with Turkey allowing Turkish forces to enter soveriegn Iraqi land to attack Kurdish extremists (some of whom we are now currently funding). Just like the mujahideen, the Kurds are not America's biggest fans. When all is over and the proverbial dust settles, the Kurds will want America to set up a Kurdistan, just like Britain set up Israel for the Jews. However, America will not set up a Kurdistan because it will bring more instability to the region, just like Israel did. Turkey will be pissed, as will Iraq (though by then we will have set up a puppet government to do whatever Washington wanted) and Iran will be in pieces and won't have time to deal with the headache. We'll be there for decades trying to sort shit out, or we'll leave after stirring the shit beyond recognition and wait 12-15 years for a major terrorist attack to happen on American soil to realize we made a huge mistake. Either scenario is unacceptable.

If Cheney, Rove, and company are not going to be put in jail, they should at least be forced to read a history book. Of course, Bush's legacy will be forever stained by the leeches he surrounded himself with. Bush is not bright enough to come up with all of this (look at his one piece of legislation - No Child Left Behind - that was his pet project). Of course, what can you expect when you surround yourself with Nixon-era crooks (Cheney and Rumsfeld in particular). To end this post I will quote Immortal Technique on a song from his new mixtape: "The government pimped 9/11 to go to Iraq / And now history repeats itself right on track / Cuz it's a tragedy and then the comedy begins / Because it's funny motherfuckers don't see it come around again." Peace.

Photos - Two men making a huge mistake (Time), Bin Laden, whose power is arguably a product of disastrous American foreign policy during the Reagan/Bush era (Encyclopedia Britannica), Neo-Cons, a major threat to American security (Writing Shop)

A Quick Note...

I forgot to address this when I implemented it on the site, but I figured better late than never. As some of you may have noticed, there is a new icon at the end of each post that looks like this:It's not there to bookmark the page in your favorites, you would have to go through your browser to do that. It's some kind of widget that allows you to share the particular post that it is under with various other websites like Facebook or Digg. All you have to do is click on it and a large list of these types of websites pop up, you click on the one you want to share the post with, and it redirects you to the website you chose. Peace.

U.S. Officials Recognize the Fight Against South African Apartheid Was Just - 70 Years Later

Bring up the word "apartheid" and people will cringe. Images of horrible racial oppression, brutal African colonization, and violent struggles of black South Africans come to mind. You will be hard-pressed to find a semi-educated person advocating for apartheid. Yet before today if you were a member of the African National Congress you were on a terrorist watch list in America. You were in the same group of people as Osama bin Laden and about 800,000 other folks deemed undesirable by the United States government.

The news today is reporting that Nelson Mandela and his fellow members of the African National Congress (at least those who are still alive) were finally removed from the terrorist watch list. This country waited until the figurehead of a righteous movement against brutal racial oppression at the hands of unjust African colonizers was 90 years old to remove him from this list. Mr. Mandel can now enter and leave America without the mounds of paperwork and clearance that he needed before.

Of course the symbolism of the act is more important than anything else. Mandela would have been able to come to this country whenever he wanted to. No U.S. official would deny him a visa to enter the country; his legacy is extraordinary. But think about this: if Nelson Mandela can be labeled a terrorist by this government for decades, what does that say about the individual who may fight a just cause (like battling racial oppression) but does not reach the stature of a figure like Mandela? And don't think that Congress and the Bush Administration did this out of the kindness of their hearts. If they truly cared about it, it would have taken less than 2 months to get done (the fact that Mandela was even on the list was published on April 30, 2008 in USA Today). If the story had not come to light, Mandela would most likely have died a lowly terrorist in the eyes of Washington officials. What does that say for the average person? Peace.

Photos - Nelson Mandela, no longer a terrorist (Wikipedia), 12 year old Hector Pieterson, one of the first fatalities of the Soweto uprising, being carried by Mbuyisa Makhubo on June 16, 1976 (Fu Jen University)