A MESSAGE FROM MR SINISTER!!!!!!!!!

..> ..>

Boy am I exhausted!

So I responded to my ex's petition for custody with a denial, and I contured with my own Petition for custody, along with an ex parte on grounds that I am being refused to see my son. It's been so long that keeping track of days has been hard. It turns out that what she is doing is illegal and wrong so I'm waiting for a response from the judge. I miss so much hearing his voice and seeing that gorgious smile on his little angelic face. I attended my first parenting class Monday night and boy was it hard but very informational. As well I applyed for school hoping to go into Criminal Justice and Family law. I'm hoping the judge will take this into consideration. I went and got my drivers licence reniewed too. I spoke with a lawyer and he said I'm doing the right thing and following all the laws, so I'm hoping and praying this goes through as planned. I am only asking the court to grant joint custody, with visitations of every other week as well as odd birthdays and shared holidays. I miss my lil man's so much and for her to deny me hurts. I never thought she would be so selfish and use my son as a way to hurt me. You know for what ever reason she had for leaving, I got through that. But for her to take away the joy that I helped bring into this world, and helped raise, just seems the lowest any person could ever go. I hope that soon all this will be over and I will have my little mans back into my arms and I can hear those amazing words "Daddy" wispered into my ear. I miss him and love him and would never have asked for such a horriable, hanis, down right despiteful thing for our son to have to go through. I am staying so strong now that inside I have changed. I have accepted that life is never perfect but you have to hold your head up and stay strong, becouse I know there is a special little man out there that is counting on his daddy to show The State of Delaware "Daddy's are importent too!" Thank you for reading Mr Sinister

10:29 AM - 0 Comments - 4 Kudos - Add Comment

Will Wall St. Woes Lead to Recession?

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - The stock market is on a stomach-churning ride, the nation's once high-flying housing market is sinking deeper into gloom, and credit, the lifeblood of the economy, is drying up. If consumers get nervous enough, many economists believe, all of these troubles could become the perfect storm that will plunge the country into a recession.

And the odds seem to be increasing with every new turbulent day on Wall Street. Since setting a record close of 14,000.41 just a month ago, the Dow Jones industrial average has shed 1,154.63 points in a string of triple-digit losing days that have raised anxiety levels not just on Wall Street but on Main Street.

The markets have been pummeled by a rapidly spreading credit crisis that began with rising defaults in subprime mortgages _ home loans made to people with weak credit histories. Now the problems are spreading to other borrowers.

Countrywide Financial Corp., the nation's largest mortgage banker, was forced to borrow $11.5 billion on Thursday so it could keep making home loans. It was a move that rattled investors who have watched a number of smaller mortgage companies go under because of credit problems.

The shockwaves have extended to giant Wall Street investment firms such as Goldman Sachs, which announced earlier this week that it was pumping $2 billion into one of its struggling hedge funds. BNP Paribas, France's largest bank, last week froze three funds that had invested in the troubled U.S. mortgage market.

The Federal Reserve and other central banks, responding to the widening credit problems, have infused the banking system with billions of dollars in an effort to keep short-term interest rates from surging and making credit even more difficult to obtain.

However, those billions have not succeeded in calming investors who are worried about which big hedge fund or mortgage company will be the next to announce serious problems. For that reason, investors have become fearful to supply money through credit markets to companies even if they have strong credit records.

"There is just a lot of fear out there," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York. "Right now people are so scared that we are losing liquidity even on safe securities."

The credit crunch and market turmoil have increased the chances of a recession, many economists believe, from about one in six just a few weeks ago to one in three now.

"The risks of a recession have risen considerably and they will keep rising with each day that financial markets remain in turmoil," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com.

The concern is that not only non-conforming mortgages, those that don't meet the standards set by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, will become hard to obtain but money for regular conventional mortgages will be tough to find as well. And the credit crunch could also spread to other types of consumer loans such as auto loans and credit card debt.

Since consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of the gross domestic product, the economy could quickly loose altitude if consumers find it more difficult to borrow the money they need to buy cars, appliances and clothes.

There is also a fear that the credit crunch could harm business borrowing, forcing companies to scale back on their plans to expand their operations, resulting in job layoffs throughout the economy, not just in the construction industry, which has already been struggling with the slowdown in housing.

The unemployment rate ticked up a notch to 4.6 percent in July and many economists believe it will hit 5 percent this winter, a figure that could go higher if economic growth suffers more than is now expected.

Rising unemployment would represent another blow to consumer confidence, which is likely to be rattled by the recent troubles on Wall Street. Worried consumers tend to grow more cautious and spend less, yet another blow.

Housing, where all the troubles started, will continue to be the hardest hit sector. The government reported Thursday that new home construction fell in July to the lowest level in a decade. Economists believe that the housing slump, already the worst in 16 years, will deepen in coming months, trimming economic growth further.

The economy, which had rebounded to growth of 3.4 percent in the April-June quarter, is likely to slow to below 2 percent in coming quarters, analysts at Global Insight are forecasting.

Growth at such subpar levels raises the risk that some unforeseen event, such as a further spike in energy prices, or more financial market turbulence, could push the country into a full-blown recession.

By one rule of thumb, a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of declining economic output as measured by the gross domestic product.

While those are the threats economists see, they also believe the government has the power to stave off a downturn. Many believe the Fed should move not just to supply temporary reserves to the banking system, which it is doing now, but to cut interest rates, something Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues have so far been reluctant to do because of concerns about inflation.

However, reports this week showed prices outside of energy at both the wholesale and retail level were well-behaved, an indication that the Fed may now have the leeway to cut rates.

President Bush, whose approval rating for his handling of the economy was at 41 percent in August, according to the latest AP-Ipsos poll, near the low-point for his presidency, tried last week to calm market fears. After meeting with his economic team, Bush told reporters that he believed financial markets would be able to achieve a "soft landing."

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in an interview Thursday in The Wall Street Journal that while the turmoil "will extract a penalty on the growth rate" he believed the country will be able to avoid a recession.

Republicans seeking to hold onto the White House in next year's presidential contest certainly hope that forecast comes true.

"If the country goes into a recession now, it means the economy will still be flat on its back next year before voters go to the polls," said Lyle Gramley, senior adviser at Schwab Washington Research Group. "I don't think the administration wants that."

5:40 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

The news today!

Ok has anybody actually seen the news today? I mean is anything actually occuring in our government? I mean who cares who in hollywood is sleeping with who. I want to know the real deal and why for the past 6 days there has been no real news about the president besides he visited devistation? Well what the fck besides words is he doing? Nothing, yup just blowing smoke to distract from what him and Mr Chainey have planned for us!!!! Anyone with some news feel free to join in!

12:07 AM - 1 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Obama Vows to Hunt Down Terrorists

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted _ an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.

Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."

Thousands of Taliban fighters are based in Pakistan's vast and jagged mountains, where they can pass into Afghanistan, train for suicide operations and find refuge from local tribesmen. Intelligence experts warn that al-Qaida could be rebuilding here to mount another attack on the United States.

Musharraf has been a key ally of Washington in fighting terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but has faced accusations from some quarters in Pakistan of being too closely tied to America.

The Bush administration has supported Musharraf and stressed the need to cooperate with Pakistan, but lately administration officials have suggested the possibility of military strikes to deal with al-Qaida and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

Analysts say an invasion could risk destabilizing Pakistan, breeding more militancy and undermining Musharraf. The Pakistani Foreign Office, protective of its national sovereignty, has warned that U.S. military action would violate international law and be deeply resented.

A military invasion could be risky, given Pakistan's hostile terrain and the suspicion of its warrior-minded tribesmen against uninvited outsiders.

Congress passed legislation Friday that would tie aid from the United States to Islamabad's efforts to stop al-Qaida and the Taliban from operating in its territory. President Bush has yet to sign it.

Obama's speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.

"He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.

He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa.

9:36 AM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Stocks Waver on Continued Credit Worries

NEW YORK - Wall Street stumbled in search of a direction Wednesday as investors grappled with continued worries about U.S. home loans and the credit market and fresh data on housing and manufacturing. Adding to the market's zigzag, oil prices touched new highs following inventory data.

The major indexes' fluctuations in the early going signaled how fractious the market remains after a series of triple-digit swings in the Dow Jones industrials over the past week. On Tuesday, Wall Street gave back a big early gain and resumed the sharp slide it began last week, as concerns about home loan defaults re-emerged when American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. reported troubles with its credit lines.

One area of possible unease Wednesday was a report from The Wall Street Journal, which cited anonymous sources in reporting that Bear Stearns Cos. _ which riled the markets weeks ago when it shut two hedge funds that bet on risky home loans _ now faces big losses in a third fund with about $900 million in mortgage investments. Bear fell $3.62, or 3 percent, to $117.60.

Wall Street digested a midmorning report from the National Association of Realtors that found pending sales of existing homes rose 5 percent in June from a month earlier. It was the largest monthly gain in more than three years. In addition, the Institute for Supply Management said its manufacturing index rose to 53.8 in July from 56.0 in June. The reading, while showing an improvement in the manufacturing sector, was weaker than the 55.0 analysts expected.

"The economic data were a modest negative but I don't think that economic data has been driving the markets as much as changes in perceptions in risk in private equity and mortgage-related investments," said Alan Levenson, chief economist at T. Rowe Price.

In late morning trading, the Dow rose 7.96, or 0.06 percent, to 13,219.95 after being up as much as 75 points earlier.

Heading into Wednesday's session, the Dow was 5.6 percent below the record close it reached in early July. Investors in recent sessions have succumbed to concerns about the credit markets that have dogged them for months. Stocks plunged at the end of last week amid such worries, taking the Dow Jones industrials down 585 points over Thursday and Friday.

Broader stock indicators moved lower. The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 1.24, or 0.09 percent, to 1,454.03, and the Nasdaq composite index fell 13.10, or 0.51 percent, to 2,533.17.

Bonds showed little movement. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note remained flat at 4.75 percent from late Tuesday.

Besides the housing slump and souring home loan market, investors are facing concerns over the threat of inflation due to record-high crude oil prices.

Light, sweet crude traded up 18 cents at $78.39 per barrel after rising to a new all-time high on the New York Mercantile Exchange. On Tuesday crude had its first record close in more than a year. Oil continued to climb Wednesday after the government said crude inventories fell last week.

The dollar was mixed against other major currencies, while gold prices fell.

In corporate news, Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, confirmed it has agreed to be bought by Rupert Murdoch's media conglomerate News Corp. for $5 billion. Dow Jones rose 78 cents to $58.16, while News Corp. rose 5 cents to $22.71.

Corporate earnings reports offered investors a mixed picture on Wednesday.

Whole Foods Market Inc. rose $2.39, or 6.5 percent, to $39.43 after reporting a smaller but better-than-expected fiscal third quarter.

Kraft Foods Inc., maker of product including Nabisco cookies and Oscar Mayer lunch meats, said second-quarter profit rose 4 percent. The company slipped 16 cents to $32.59.

Arcelor Mittal, the world's largest steelmaker, posted a $2.72 billion profit in the second quarter. That compares with earnings of $1.82 billion a year ago, based on the combined results of the company's predecessors, Mittal Steel Co. NV and Arcelor SA. Although Mittal expects to complete its takeover later this year, the companies largely operate as a combined entity. The stock rose $2.88, or 4.7 percent, to $63.90.

Declining issues outnumbered advancers by nearly 3 to 1 on the New York Stock Exchange, where volume came to 843.1 million shares.

The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies fell 4.98, or 0.64 percent, to 771.14.

Worries about U.S. home loan defaults haven't affected only the U.S. markets; they have been rippling through the world markets, too.

In Asian trading, Japan's Nikkei stock average fell 2.2 percent, Hong Kong's Hang Seng index dropped 3.2 percent, and China's Shanghai Composite Index dipped 3.8 percent.

In Europe's afternoon trading, Britain's FTSE 100 fell 1.52 percent, Germany's DAX index fell 1.27 percent, and France's CAC-40 fell 1.53 percent.

9:35 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Rumsfeld Defends Himself in Tillman Case

WASHINGTON - Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld defended himself and took no personal responsibility Wednesday for the military's bungled response to Army Ranger Pat Tillman's friendly-fire death in Afghanistan.

Rumsfeld, in his first public appearance on Capitol Hill since President Bush replaced him with Robert Gates late last year, reiterated previous testimony to investigators that he didn't have early knowledge that Tillman was cut down by fellow Rangers, not by enemy militia, as was initially claimed.

He told a House committee hearing that he'd always impressed upon Pentagon underlings the importance of telling the truth.

"Early in my tenure as secretary of defense, I wrote a memo for the men and women of the Department of Defense," Rumsfeld told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "You will note that principle number one _ the very first _ was: 'Do nothing that could raise questions about the credibility of DOD.' "

Rumsfeld gave the committee a copy of that memo.

Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., charged that unanswered questions surrounding Tillman's death reach into the highest ranks of the Pentagon and beyond.

"The concealment of Corp. Tillman's fratricide caused millions of Americans to question the integrity of our government, yet no one will tell us when and how the White House learned the truth," said Waxman.

Tillman's mother, Mary Tillman, and other family members watched from the back row.

Before the hearing started, Rumsfeld entered smiling and shook hands with retired Gen. Richard Myers, former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and retired Gen. John P. Abizaid, former commander of the U.S. Central Command.

Both joined him at the witness table.

Two activists held signs reading "war criminal."

"Are you not ashamed?" one said. Rumsfeld didn't react.

"This is not a rally or demonstration, let's keep that in mind," Waxman chided, before delivering his opening statement.

The congressional inquiry comes a day after the Army laid most of the blame for the response to Tillman's death on Philip Kensinger, a retired three-star general who led Army special operations forces after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Army censured Kensinger for "a failure of leadership" and accused him of lying to investigators probing the aftermath of Tillman's death. For five weeks the Army knew Tillman was cut down by his fellow Army Rangers, but told the public and Tillman's own family that he died in a fire fight with enemy militia.

Army Secretary Pete Geren insisted, however, that there was no intentional Pentagon cover-up, and he rejected a suggestion that Rumsfeld knew the circumstances of Tillman's death before that information became public.

"I have no knowledge of any evidence to that end," Geren told a Pentagon briefing Tuesday after announcing Kensinger's censure.

A review panel made up of four-star generals will decide whether Kensinger should have his rank reduced. Geren also announced lesser punishments of seven other officers.

That wasn't good enough for Democrats, who along with Tillman's family suspect a cover-up that goes all the way to the White House.

The punishments "do nothing to lift the appearance of cover-up that continues to envelop the Pat Tillman story," said Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif., who represents Tillman's hometown of San Jose.

"It is inconceivable that numerous top-ranking generals ... were aware of the true circumstances of Pat's death, but did not inform their civilian superiors _ President Bush and then-Secretary Rumsfeld," said Honda, promising to "hold these commanders' feet to the fire" at Wednesday's hearing.

Waxman wanted to hear from Kensinger, and the committee issued a subpoena Monday for his testimony. As the hearing began U.S. marshals still hadn't been able to deliver it.

Kensinger's attorney, Charles W. Gittins, said Tuesday night that Kensinger was away on business travel.

"He declined the committee invitation to testify two weeks ago, so it was no surprise to the committee that he had no intent to participate in a hearing that is all about show and no substance," Gittins said in an e-mail message to The Associated Press.

Gittins said his client "had no reason to lie" and had told investigators "everything he knows" about the case. In May, in a rebuttal letter to the general who reviewed the matter, Kensinger firmly rejected all accusations that he had lied.

Gittins also dismissed accusations that Kensinger should have told the Tillman family about the possibility of friendly fire, saying the retired general "was not the release authority for the information." That "release authority," Gittins said, was Gen. John Abizaid, then the head of the U.S. Central Command.

Tillman's death received worldwide attention because he had walked away from a huge contract with the National Football League's Arizona Cardinals to enlist in the Army after 9/11.

Among possible evidence of White House knowledge, lawmakers have cited a memo written by a top general seven days after Tillman's death warning it was "highly possible" the Army Ranger was killed by his own comrades and making clear his warning should be conveyed to the president.

President Bush made no reference to the way Tillman died in a speech delivered two days after the memo was written.

A White House spokesman has said there's no indication Bush received the warning in the memo written April 29, 2004, by then-Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal to Abizaid.

Abizaid was on the witness list for Wednesday's hearing.

McChrystal was spared punishment in the investigation report released Tuesday. The investigation concluded McChrystal behaved reasonably in assuming the supporting material for Tillman's Silver Star recommendation was accurate, and in conveying the message about the likelihood of friendly fire in Tillman's death.

9:32 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Cracks in the Iran nuclear stalemate

We have been here before many times, with flickers of hope about an imminent breakthrough in the Iran nuclear standoff, only to be dismayed by subsequent developments extinguishing those hopes. This time it may turn out different.

The positive signs registering on the radars of both sides are as follows: Ali Larijani, Iran's nuclear negotiator, made an encouraging statement last week about interesting proposals on the table, and this was immediately reciprocated by the US's

point man on Iran, Nicholas Burns, who stepped down a couple of notches from his usual stern messages to Iran and encouraged it to be more "positive".

What is more, at a talk at Harvard University, Burns stated that the idea of putting Iran's centrifuges on "standby" had been "influential" with policymakers in Washington, adding, however, that the US was more interested in the "cold standby" as opposed to "hot standby" that would allow the centrifuges to spin dry.

Hot or cold standby? The differences between the two sides may be narrowing to this question, in light of certain hints from Iran that it may be inclined to adopt the "hot standby"
What gives hope about the possibility of a timely breakthrough is precisely the keen attention both sides, Iran and the US and Europe above all, have placed on the standby option. The Swiss government has also put forth a proposal that is virtually identical with the standby option, and irrespective of the US's misgivings about an undue Swiss role, that government has been pursuing that track relentlessly (with some backing by the European Union).

But, that is not all, and there are other intervening factors that tip the balance in favor of hope instead of despair when it comes to Iran's nuclear crisis. On the one hand, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohammad ElBaradei has discounted news from Iran regarding "enrichment on the industrial scale" by stating that the number of Iran's installed centrifuges is in the "hundreds" and not "thousands" as claimed rather boisterously by Tehran. This information lessens the gravity of the crisis and, in turn, allows diplomats to push for a solution without the gun of military action sounding in rehearsal in the background.
Many analysts in Iran have raised the necessity of a more flexible approach by Iran on the nuclear issue, some counseling the inadvisability of ignoring UN Security Council resolutions and the need to find a creative approach whereby Iran would not be in violation of the UN mandates while preserving its rights.

Contrary to appearances, this is not an altogether moot issue, and the language and content of the UN resolutions, 1696 and 1747, particularly with respect to their lack of clarity on the issue of suspension of enrichment, not clarifying the time period, leave room for creative solutions.

There also appears to be a new US appreciation of Iran's security concerns, which ElBaradei and others insist must be addressed for a successful resolution of the crisis. Last month, a former Iranian nuclear official urged the world community to pay attention to Iran's security concerns when dealing with the nuclear issue, and that message appears to be sinking in slowly but surely.

Furthermore, within Iran there is a growing concern about the possibility of a dangerous, and expensive, nuclear arms race in the region resulting from the fear of Iran's nuclear program, prompting Tehran to redouble its efforts, such as through the recent statement of the leader's representative, Hassan Rowhani in Doha, Qatar, regarding Iran's seriousness on security cooperation with the member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
But, no matter how assiduous, or sincere, Iran's confidence-building steps, Arab fears of Iranian nuclear proliferation run rampant and have been driving a greater push by Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others to possess nuclear technology. Of course, concern over the depletion of oil reserves and investment for the future is a source of this drive, but so is the fear of proliferation and the need to not lag behind.

In turn, this raises an important question: What can Iran possibly do to stop this unpredictable and potentially dangerous momentum, when no matter how closely the IAEA inspects its facilities, there is never enough trust by the outside world of Iran's peaceful intentions? Can Iran really ignore the proliferation tendency of its neighbors? How can the cause of non-proliferation in the Middle East be successfully advanced under the unfavorable current circumstances?

Doubtless, there is no simple answer to any of these questions and may never be as long as Israel continues to harbor nuclear weapons and enjoy international immunity. The hypocritical double standards applied to Israel and to other Middle East nations is a root cause of the problem and, yet, there is no prospect of any movement, by the US or the European Union, on that front, as if proliferation in one corner of the volatile region is unrelated to other corners.

And then there is the issue of fear of US power. John Pilger writes in the Guardian of London, "We cannot look from the side as we are led toward a crisis with Iran," urging the Europeans to look beyond their "one-way moral" lenses and to consider Iran's legitimate concerns about the threats posed to Iran by the US military leviathan.

Arguing that just like the Iraq War, a coming war with Iran would be over oil and not weapons of mass destruction, Pilger rationalizes an alleged Iranian quest for nuclear weapons - as a deterrent shield against the US threat.

But, this argument, repeated ad infinitum by so many other pundits in the East and West, leaves a lot to be desired. Yes, Iran has neighbors, Pakistan and Russia, that have the bomb, but neither poses the kind of challenge to Iran that, in the foreseeable future, mandates a nuclear counter-strategy. Pakistan is indefinitely locked in with India, and Russia's vast arsenals have never directly or indirectly posed a threat to Iran.

Israel would pose a greater danger to Iran if Iran possessed the bomb and then became fully integrated in the Arab-Israeli security calculus in which, for the moment, Iran is only marginally involved, principally through its support for Hezbollah. But this would change overnight with the onset of an Iran-Israeli nuclear arms race.

As for the US's role in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in Iran's vicinity, there are important facts to consider: Iran has benefited from Saddam Hussein's downfall and the rise of a Shi'ite-led government in Baghdad, as well as from the demise of the Taliban and the Tehran-friendly government in Kabul today.

Pilger and others overlook an important difference between Iraq under Saddam and Iran, namely, the fact that the Ba'athist regime had twice invaded its neighbors and had committed serious mass atrocities which made it a ripe candidate for overthrow from the without. This in contrast to Iran, which has good relations with all of its neighbors, and which has not invaded anyone during the past 250 years. The US has, as a result, no legitimate reason to attack Iran, particularly since its gambit in Iraq has not paid off and turned into a lengthy quagmire.

Instead of proliferation, Iran has a number of alternatives, such as joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and thus bolstering its national security through closer cooperation with China and Russia. These countries persistently evade the radar of pundits who shed crocodile tears about Iran's "national security predicament" and try to find a rationale for its alleged bomb-making ambitions. The fact that such commentaries appear in the right-wing, pro-Israel press in the US and Europe speaks for itself.
The Iraq crisis has priority
What concerns Tehran more than anything else at present is not the threat of a US or Israeli military strike or proliferation risks, but rather the dangerous quagmire in Iraq reflected in the spate of attacks on Shi'ites, not just in Baghdad but also in the hitherto relatively peaceful cities of Najaf and Karbala.

The explosions inside the Iraqi Parliament and near the holy shrine of Imam Hussein in Karbala have sent strong messages to Tehran that the Shi'ite power house in post-Saddam Iraq may collapse like a house of cards and serious efforts are needed on all fronts to prevent that scenario.

The coming Iraq security summit in Cairo in early May presents an excellent opportunity for the US and Iran to discuss directly the Iraq crisis, the nuclear crisis, and other outstanding issues. Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has stated that he may not participate if the five Iranians in US custody in Iraq are not released.

But, the stakes are too high to eschew this golden opportunity for direct US-Iran dialogue, and the forum itself can be utilized to reach an agreement on the "Iran hostages" issue. After all, Iran has always insisted on "talks without preconditions" and should not contradict itself at this critical juncture.

The US has upped the ante against Iran regarding its subversive military role in Iraq by claiming that Iran funnels arms not just to Shi'ite groups but also to extremist Sunni groups, a charge strongly denied by Tehran.

The US must realize that Iran will continue to play the politics of leverage in Iraq in its nuclear diplomacy, and the two issues are not unrelated. This is all the more reason for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to tackle both issues when and if she meets Mottaki three weeks from now on the sideline of the Iraq summit.

Rice's deputy, Burns, has sounded conciliatory and the conceptual narrowing of gaps on the standby option is a good omen that now needs to be seized on by all sides, as part of a comprehensive approach geared toward hitherto elusive US-Iran rapprochement.

3:46 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Free Market Thinking: Not Applicable
Current mood: creative

In a world of left and right, libertarians should fit nicely somewhere in-between or – even better – in a neither-nor position. But still libertarians tend to identify much more with the right wing in politics rather than with the left wing. How is this so?.

Perhaps it is the rightists' common talk of free market economics and the right to do as one pleases with one's income that is attractive, while the leftists' eagerness to regulate, tax, prohibit and redistribute hard-earned income is rather intimidating. But at the same time, the rightists often strive to regulate, tax, and prohibit certain moralities, lifestyles and social interactions – while leftists have a rather laissez faire view of private life. Neither side seems to make sense politically or morally.

I tend to think libertarians "feel" they belong to the right wing because of a decades-old alliance created to balance out very successful leftist propaganda and political influence during the 20^th Century. Many libertarians, including myself, were therefore brought up politically with rightists, even in rightist clubs and parties, and that could generate a feeling of loyalty towards the right. I have a number of radical libertarian friends who used to belong to organizations of the "right" and they still consider voting for the conservative party even though they really have nothing in common with their platform or philosophy.

Such common history of rightists and libertarians is interesting, but I don't think it sufficiently explains why libertarians believe they are "rightists" rather than "leftists" (when, in fact, they should perhaps be neither – at least in terms of party politics). The reason for aligning with the right is also, I believe, a seemingly common ground in use of language, especially regarding economic understanding and the market.

But this common ground is nothing but an illusion. Yes, the "right" speaks of the free market and the need for deregulation and providing favorable conditions for a strong and healthy business community. They speak of free market economics and use free market logic while arguing that low wages and poor working conditions are not problems – people with such jobs chose these jobs voluntarily.

So far, the language and arguments are strikingly similar (if not the same) to the ones many libertarians use. I've heard many libertarians agree with conservatives and other right wing politicians on economic issues – joining forces against the "left." I too argue low wages and poor working conditions are not necessarily problematic – in the free market. The wording is the same, but the argument is quite different.

Those small words, in the free market, are most important because without them, the argument fails and is utterly false. Can it really be "voluntary" to choose only from shitty jobs in a regulated economy where most work options have been made unavailable and a job is necessary to generate monetary income to pay taxes? I say it is not. Even if you make the choices yourself, it cannot be considered a voluntary choice to pick a least bad option from the options remaining within a suffocating framework of coercive measures.

Of course, the choice itself is voluntary and in that sense the rationalist logic seems applicable. But the choice is still made in an environment where most choices have been coercively done away with and where the chooser is restricted from making the choices he or she should have made were it a free market. It is like saying you have free speech – only you cannot speak of X, Y, Z or A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J and K. That is not free speech – it is regulated speech, and what you choose to speak of necessarily depends on what you aren't allowed to speak of.

Free market arguments are simply not applicable to the real world as it is. They are only applicable as arguments for the superior functions and mechanisms of the free market. And the free market itself is a great standard to which the real economy can and should be assessed – to make clear its inefficiencies and injustices as well as providing an outstanding alternative. You cannot, however, make your own mix of the two; using free market logic to argue for low salaries and bad working conditions in contemporary state economy is simply a mistake.

Free market thinking is not applicable on the unfree market – it is a powerful critique of the current state of affairs. Just as libertarianism does not go well with either the right or the left, but is a powerful critique of both.

10:51 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Why Is There a War on Drugs?
Current mood: creative

Why Is There a War on Drugs?

by Wilton D. Alston

10:29 AM - 2 Comments - 6 Kudos - Add Comment

UK: No More 'War on Terror'

LONDON - The British government has stopped using the phrase "war on terror" to refer to the struggle against political and religious violence, according to a Cabinet minister's prepared remarks for a Monday speech.

International Development Secretary Hilary Benn, a rising star of the governing Labour Party, says in a speech prepared for delivery in New York that the expression popularized by President Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks strengthens terrorists by making them feel part of a bigger struggle.

Extracts from Benn's speech at New York University's Center on International Cooperation were released by his office.

"We do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone, and because this isn't us against one organized enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives," Benn said.

"It is the vast majority of the people in the world _ of all nationalities and faiths _ against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common apart from their identification with others who share their distorted view of the world and their idea of being part of something bigger."

Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said he was unsure when Blair had last used the phrase.

"We all use our own phraseology, and we talk about terrorism, we talk about the fight against terrorism, but we also talk about trying to find political solutions to political problems," he said on condition of anonymity, in line with government policy.

According to the advance text, Benn urged Americans to use the "soft power" of values and ideas as well as military strength to defeat extremism.

Benn's comments were at least partly directed at his own Labour Party, which is uneasy about Blair's close alliance with Bush and overwhelmingly opposed to Britain's participation in the Iraq war.

Benn currently is the bookies' favorite to become Labour's deputy leader in a party election once Blair steps down as premier later this year.

9:18 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment