Here is an interesting video from MobLogic about a gay rights activist from Iran:

Click here to watch

I almost missed this one from the April 16th democratic debate:

OLBERMANN: Can you clarify…which hypothetical Middle East conflicts would incur massive retaliation by this country and what constitutes massive retaliation?

CLINTON: What we were talking about was the potential for a nuclear attack by Iran. If Iran does achieve what appears to be a continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons. And I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times. We used it very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world. And what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

I always knew Hillary was a Zionist, but it seems she’s even more willing to start World War III than Israel itself. And how many average citizens living in Israel truly feel the way she does? What would even warrant an Iranian attack on Israel? Are we forgetting that a nuclear disaster for Israel is also a nuclear disaster for the Palestinians, the very people Iran has sworn to defend?

It seems in Hillary’s efforts to please the Devil, she’s lost all reasoning ability. It’s amazing that she’s so eager to perpetuate the bigoted depiction of middle eastern people (and nations) as mindless ogres who would attack and kill anyone if given the chance.

Meanwhile, Iran has accomplished more calculated strategic victories in the past four years than any country with interest in the region. Senator Clinton, if you insist on bullying a smaller country and labeling them an enemy threat, at least take the time to know your enemy.

“[My energy policy] will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East,” said republican presidential candidate John McCain.

The “again” implies that it has been done before, and the fact that it is his energy policy that will prevent it indicates that it was done in order to get oil. It doesn’t take a genius to put two and two together.

I’m sorry, but what did Rev. Jeremiah Wright say that was so wrong? The only reason Americans are upset is because he spoke the truth. He aired America’s dirty laundry, and the US media saw an opening to attack Sen. Obama.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

Amen, brother. Amen.

As Islam continues to flourish despite the misguided efforts of people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she continues to throw salt in our game (hating to see us succeed and do good in the world). She will fail. From the IIC:

“Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Dutch critic of Islam, will publish a fictional children’s book about a twelve-year-old Muslim boy who faces many difficulties after befriending a Jewish girl. It is unclear as to what her motivation is for advocating such false and bigoted views that Muslims are opposed to Jews, when it is clearly stated in the Quran that Muslims and Jews come from the same “Family of the Book”. The Quran also speaks highly of Abraham and Moses, insisting that they were righteous Prophets of God.”

She can spread hatred as much as she wants. We must continue to spread love.

Thursday’s episode of Democracy Now is something everyone should watch. There were two very important issues covered:

The first was about the United states’ role in Haiti’s food riots:

“As people around the world continue to protest the soaring prices of basic food items, the World Food Program has described the crisis as a silent tsunami. The head of the Food and Agriculture Organization blamed the current global food crisis on “inappropriate” policy decisions over the past two decades. Nowhere is this more clear than in Haiti, where hungry people are rioting in the streets because they cannot afford to buy rice. Haiti imports most of its rice from the United States, which in turn remains heavily subsidized. We speak with human rights lawyer, Bill Quigley.”

The other dealt with the UN Forum on Indigenous Issues and climate change:

“Representatives of the world’s 370 million indigenous people are
gathered at the United Nations this week to demand that their voices be
included in future talks on climate change. Over 3,000 delegates are
attending the seventh session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous
Issues. We speak with Casey Camp-Horinek, a member of the Ponca Nation
of Oklahoma”

We are governed by a political system that is increasingly manipulated by multinational corporations and special interest organizations with significant financial influence over politicians. We live in a time when a president can face impeachment for sexually lewd acts and another can be rewarded with a second term after plunging his country into a dismal war that has caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. Despite all of this, another pending election has once again given the people of the United States hope.

Hope for what? Is their hope misguided? Will the democratic process once again fail us as it did in 2000 when thousands of black voters were disenfranchised and the withering Al Gore laid his own head on the chopping block? Perhaps, but the glimmer of hope in democracy is that people have the power to make changes. The question, however, is whether or not simply casting a ballot is actually enough to effect reasonable change.

Must all of us become CEOs of major corporations in order to have our voices heard? History would argue that when people come together for a common cause, no dictatorial regime or corporate driven machine can stand in their way. The problem that exists now is that so many Americans are still satisfied with the current situation or at least not dissatisfied enough.

Americans get upset on cue. It is as if automatic triggers are set in our brains. The Chinese have been subjugating the people of Tibet for decades, but suddenly it has become an issue. The same people who have found a new cause in Tibet would turn a blind eye to the oppression faced by the Palestinians in the occupied territories. The suffering of the people in Darfur no longer seems so relevant. Add Somalia and nearly the rest of Africa to that list, and it just seems peculiar that some have chosen to protest China’s occupation of Tibet. Do they protest the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan?

In reality many of the liberal democrats who are displeased with the president’s invasion of Iraq are not upset because it is immoral, unjust, or because of the ulterior motive of establishing a permanent military stronghold on the doorstep of Iran (after all, both Clinton and Obama seem poised to strap bombs to their chests and lead the suicide mission into Iran even after Bush stumbles down from the oval office). No, the democrats’ opposition to the war is not so complex. The reason is simple: we are losing.

When our military was defeating Saddam’s crippled and undernourished army, and the president stood under a banner reading “Mission Accomplished,” few democrats shivered as I and a few others did. Those of us who had opposed the war from the beginning knew what was on the horizon, but those who claimed they “ignorantly” voted for the war were only stating so to cover their own embarrassed rear ends.

Money talks, and as it stands, the black-colored greasy money flowing out of Iran in the form of Euros is so bitter to the American palette that even the most well-informed liberal proudly proclaims that Iran is a “serious threat” that must be stopped. Without a doubt, the corporations, more specifically the oil companies, spun this, and Israel piggybacked their scheme, albeit for different reasons. Controlling the oil flow to and from Iran would grant them full access to the Middle East and all its resources.

Unfortunately, the plan went sour before it ever had a chance to brew. By invading Afghanistan and ousting the Taliban, the US created a new ally for Iran, an Afghan government that is increasingly suspicious of the seven-year sleepover of coalition forces. By invading Iraq, the US solidified Iranian power in the region, installing a regime dominated by the SCIRI (not their original plan, I should note) and the powerful Mahdi Army, both strong allies of Iran. Then, they gave free reign to a corrupt and possibly delusional Musharraf in Pakistan, allowing him to plunder his nation like a pirate and fashion himself as the dictator for life, only to be snubbed by his less-than-willing people. The only marginally powerful ally the US has left in the region is Turkey, which seems to care little about US interests, now that the Kurds have been turned loose on them. They seem more interested in bombing Iraq than even the US themselves.

Instead of surrounding Iran with a wall of military muscle, the corporate regime led by Mr. Bush has handed central Asia to Iran on a silver dish. The best they can hope for now is to make diplomatic ties with Iran, as they once did with China. But even that will take a president and a group of citizens united behind him or her, who are more concerned with peace and safety than with filling the tanks in their SUVs. God help us all.

“There can be no perfect democracy curtailed by color, race, or poverty.  But with all we accomplish all, even peace.”

– W.E.B. DuBois

I find it amazing that western “analysts” keep pounding their heads on their expensive wooden desks because they cannot figure out what is going wrong in Afghanistan. Why is the Taliban still fighting them after all of this time? Why is NATO unable to tame them? Why is al-Qa’idah still entrenched there?

It shows not only an ignorance of the people and culture but also an ignorance of how human beings in general behave. Under occupation, there is always resistance. This is a fact. If a foreign power were to invade the US today, plenty of people would resist, and it would be viewed as completely legitimate.

Until this very day, however, American policy makers (both democrat and republican) have stood by the invasion of Afghanistan under the justification that it somehow vindicated the attacks of September 11, 2001. That in itself is preposterous, but when you also consider that they believe a continued fight against the Taliban, which, as far as we know, had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, is necessary, the picture begins to become even more distorted.

There are several changes that must occur in order to eventually relieve the Afghan people from anymore unnecessary suffering:

1. The occupation forces there must develop an exit plan. (It is ridiculous that so many people are opposed to the occupation of Iraq but mention nothing of Afghanistan, as if they somehow deserve to be occupied).

2. The Afghan government must have full control of the policy making (no puppet-regime tactics).

3. The Afghan government must sit down with the Taliban and make peace, whatever the cost. This is the only way to end a war, aside from everyone on both sides being dead. Both sides must be willing to compromise, but in the end, both sides should share the power.

4. Any illegal immigrants (from Arab countries or elsewhere) must be deported (if they are innocent) or legally tried in court (if they are members of al-Qa’idah). This will be much easier if the Taliban are working in coordination with the government.

5. If #4 is not possible alone, then outside assistance should be sought by the new unified government. Preferably, that outside help should come from friendly neighbors (Pakistan and Iran, but not perceived enemies such as the US).

6. The government should nationalize, even if temporarily, the production of their natural resources in order to strengthen their economy and sever any dependence on foreign money.

7. They should establish strong trade agreements with neighboring nations and rely on the United Nations, Red Crescent, and other “impartial” (and I use the term loosely) organizations when necessary.

8. They should setup micro-finance institutions similar to the ones in Bangladesh.

9. They should coordinate military and police training with Iran and Pakistan instead of western powers.

These are just some of the ideas that will make Afghanistan strong for Afghans, rather than occupiers with only their own interests in mind. If you have any other ideas that should be added or better ideas than the ones I’ve listed, please post them in the comments.