The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) just released their report on the effect the Global War on Terror governments across the globe.  The ICJ held hearings in 16 countries, covered over 40 countries, creating the most detailed accounting of legal and institutional attitudes about the exercise of state power.

The outcome of the study was not heartening.  If the US bends the rules, others will too.  Most countries have grown more violent and the world has seen wide spread restriction of free speech and increased state torture.

Terrorism sows terror, and many States have fallen into a trap set by the terrorists. Ignoring lessons from the past, they have allowed themselves to be rushed into hasty responses, introducing an array of measures which undermine cherished values as well as the international legal framework carefully developed since the Second World War. These measures have resulted in human rights violations, including torture, enforced disappearances, secret and arbitrary detentions, and unfair trials. ere has been little accountability for these abuses or justice for their victims.

The report understands that terrorism is a real, long term threat but thinks that the international human rights framework has the capacity to deal with the problem.  IF the global community takes an opportunity to re-examined the threat and our response to it.

So far we have reacted in a violent, non-sensical manner than threatens the existing international order.  We are open the door for states to assum more power over us.  Ultimately, our response to terrorism is a bigger threat to our safety than anything else.

Factcheck .org says that many Republican claims about stimulus pork are completely bunk.  Republican claims of buying golf carts, office furniture and trains to Disneyland are fabrications.  Not exaggerations, but fabrications.

Media Matters reported that only 6% of the Sunday Morning TV experts who discussed the stimulus were actually economist. Most of the experts were simply over-paid talking heads providing opinions that are not much more valuable than yours or mine.

A Media Matters for America review of the Sunday talk shows and 12 cable news programs from January 25 through February 15 found that during 203 hours of programming on Sunday mornings and weekday afternoons and evenings, of 722 total guest appearances in discussions about the economic recovery legislation and debate in Congress, only 41 were made by economists — a mere 6 percent.

Our economic challenges are huge but neither the Republican Party nor the US media seem concerned about addressing the problem.  Since 1980, the government has been borrowing money from our future to afford tax cuts for the rich. Yet all the Republicans can offer is more tax cuts. The media happily amplifies their entertaining lies about how this swindle will set us free.

Neither the political opposition nor the fourth estate are doing their job. The questions they need to ask are simple – the answers are impossibly difficult – but the questions are simple:

1. How will we get the credit flowing again? We are spending much more supporting the banks, than we are on the stimulus.  And NO stimulus will ever make any difference if credit doesn’t start flowing again.  This is not news.  We all know this but and the Republicans could be developing their solution.  Instead, they spend all their time creating stimulus ‘ideas’, which only amount to more tax cuts.  The media should focus most of their time on this critical issue.  Is that what they do for us? Hardly.
2. How are we going to reform the system?  The regulation of our markets used to provide the stability that made us the most attractive investment environment on the planet.  That security has been destroyed.  Who will ever trust these Manoffs again until we know what is in the cookie jar and how can take it out? The Republican could show real leadership by developing a workable framework to regulate future investment markets.  Instead they make up fake stories about golf carts and rides to Disney world.  Does the professional media ridicule these pathetic diversions? Nope, they say nothing.

Elliot Abrams, Deputy National Security Advisor for the Bush Administration, suggested in the Weekly Standard that the US follow the Bush Administration’s 2002 plan to create a two state solution to the Palestine – Israel struggle.

He calls the plan “realistic” – and proceeds to let Israel off the hook for every act of aggression they have unleashed upon Palestine. The plan called for Palestinians to give up terrorism without asking anything of Israel. Israel didn’t have to take down road blocks, move settlements or stop rolling tanks through the West Bank.

Mr. Abrams says the Bush Administration’s late push for a two state solution caused the plan to fail. But the plan was doomed from the start  because it did not treat the Palestinian and Israeli peoples as equal.

Whatever chance it may have had died when the Bush Administration pushed for elections and then rejected the results.  What Palestinian would trust anything they said after that?  The President could have pushed for a two solution or free ice cream and no one would listen.

The Bush Administration remained firmly entrenched on one side of the war and was unable to live up to their much touted democratic ideals – that is what doomed Mr. Abram’s realistic plan.

A policy built on workable realism would insist BOTH sides refrain from violence and also have the guts to live up to its own ideals.

The face of real recovery You live in a cardboard box. It’s fairly spacious, a nice refrigerator crate. A step up from the computer boxes you used to rent from an escaped psychotic named Lou.Right now, you’re standing on the corner. You’re cold. Starbucks is staring you in the face. You want to buy a cup of coffee. You’ve only got 10-cents in your pocket. The coffee scent hits you each time the door is opened. People with those cups pass by, smiling, energized. You wish you were them.

You’re an addict. You’re addicted to Starbucks. And today, you’re fucked.

Until, he came along. He had an air of wealth. Blue suit, yellow tie, hair slicked back. He walked with vintage Michael Douglas swagger.

He sees you staring. He sees the change in your hand. He looks at the change, then turns back to the Starbucks, then meets your eye. This is a man who knows the price of a cup of coffee.

“Need some money?”

You explain you’re homeless. You’re cold. You need some Starbucks. You’re addicted. It’s a terrible thing, and you’ll get help one day, swear to god, but today you just need your fix. Look at my hands shaking. You feel sick.

Read the rest of this entry »

The last two days form a great example of the deep US media bias against Iran – and by default – in favor of conflict.

CNN, FOX, NBC and the New York Times all reported on Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement that Iran is Israel’s biggest threat and the UN report that Iran has more enriched uranium than we thought.

None of the reports mention that the US removed Israel’s previous most serious threat – Saddam Hussein.  The media presents Iran as a burgeoning menace rather than a decrease in the number of threats.

Netanyahu did not directly address the issue of stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, nor did he mention the US-backed two-state solution.

The new leader of Israel spoke only about a coming conflict, ignoring the present war.  This conflict bias was happily picked up and repeated by the US media.

Iran has under reported the amount of uranium, which is a serious problem.  But we fail to realize that the inspectors found out about it, a very positive sign.  And this uranium is NOT weapons grade.

The material would have to undergo further enrichment if it was to be used as fuel for a bomb and that atomic inspectors had found no signs that Iran was making such preparations.

Obviously, Iran’s nuclear advancement is not great news but the negative, portrayal in the US media is one the catalyst fueling conflict between our countries.

To clarify this bias, here are some of the recent events in Iran the US media has NOT reported:

Radio Free Europe reported:

Iran and Tajikistan are discussing the creation of a Tajik-Afghan-Iranian TV network with Iran providing the equipment, Afghanistan providing the air time, and Tajikistan providing the studios

The Jerusalem Post reported that:

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer says he can envision Iran playing a role one day in helping to stabilize Afghanistan.

De Hoop Scheffer says a broader regional approach is needed to help put down the insurgency in Afghanistan.

The US media could discuss Iran as a source for help and stability in Afghanistan.  We could discuss how helpful and hurtful Iran has been in Iraq and we should speculate on why Iran wants nuclear weapons.

Instead we pursue a reactionary, irrational argument that Iran is developing nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. That is the extent of the US media’s strategic thinking on the issue.  It is amazing flimsy reasoning yet we rant and rave it all over the air waves.

This is amounts to pro-war bias that spreads across Republicans and Democrats. This is one of the real biases affecting our media and it is time that we change. Don’t let the wind bags spout on.  Write them, call them, shout them down. We don’t need another war. There is much more going on than we are being told and it is time for us to start thinking.

Reuters reported yesterday that Israel is running covert operations inside Iran in an attempt to slow down their nuclear program. Today the Times of London reported that Israel is assassinating scientists as part of this war.

Meanwhile, Radio Free Europe reported that Iran has agreed to stop shelling Iraqi Kurdish areas where US-backed Kurdish militants have been launching offensives into Iran.

Which country is our ally?  The one assassinating scientists or the one trying to create, stable cross-border security relationships?

Add in the consideration that  Iran just opened a new, shorter, safer land route to Afghanistan, isn’t time we re-examined our enmity with this country?

In an NYT article today, David Sanger wonders if the ‘Obama Factor’ is equal to the global economic ‘Meltdown Factor’.  I wonder if the US media is equal to the either?  The country can’t just rely on the President – any President – to solve our problems.

We all need to be involved, including our opinion makers. They should offer us fresh insight into – and directions out of – this mess. To be fair, Mr. Sanger does say that our economic need to borrow money will limit (and has been limiting) our political options.

But his thinking on Iran and Afghanistan follows the prevailing narratives:

• Iran is only about nuclear weapons and can be seen in isolation.
• Afghanistan is primarily about the number of troops.

Honestly, his argument about Afghanistan is more nuanced.  He rightly says that the US now (finally) admits that the border between Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan is meaningless and we are treating them as a single problem.  But of course, Europe prefers to avoid this politically sensitive mess.

Yet the obvious question never gets asked.  Can Iran help in Afghanistan?

Mr. Sanger analyzes problems in neighboring countries without putting them together. Iranians are culturally, linguistically and geographically close to both countries and have abiding interests in the region -  interests that line up well with ours.

Europe doesn’t really matter in Afghanistan.  We don’t want them opposing us and a few extra  troops would be nice. But their presence will never make much difference. They are both too weak and too smart to make a large investment in blowing up rocks so far from home.

Why are we doing it anyway?  The United States could truly expend its global leadership in power, money and political will in those mountains.  Are we really that afraid of a few radicals, when the fight itself could cost us so much?

If our effort collapses, who steps into the power vacuum? If our leadership collapses, who or what fills the void?  We may not be thinking about it, but the rest of the world is. Germany, for one, seems to understand. They work with Iran because they see Iran as a crucial buffer state between the -stans, Russia and ultimately China.

So why are we doing all the fighting in these rocks so far from home? It needs to be done, but do we have to do it all?  We should find real partners, but who?  Europe is not up to it.  India might but that would ignite Pakistan. Russia won’t go near it and China is waiting to for everyone else to kill each other off.

So again, who is close by, has motivation, speaks the language and knows the culture?

Iran.

Why are not at least talking about it?  Especially, when viewed from this angle, we may even want Iran to have the bomb. Iran has offered such partnerships in the past. Why the silence on this end?

Is Israel’s hold over us really that big? Israel has a right to exist and we should continue supporting them but shouldn’t that support provide us more political room, not less?

We are in trouble. There is a lot at stake and we have huge problem to solve, yet the NYT can’t even discuss the possible benefits of a new strategic, political alignment. This is why I wonder if the US media is up to the challenge of the global economic meltdown.

Most of our pros are just collecting paychecks at the moment. They take standard potshots at the guy in charge – and pretend the US will always chug along in charge.

But we may not. And probably will not without some fresh thinking.  It is time for the US media to step up and offer us something new.

The National Review said that Wall Street’s poor performance this week indicates that Obama’s recovery plan needs adjustment. With all due respect, no conclusion should be drawn from Wall Street’s performance until we know more about WHY the numbers dropped.  Unfortunately,  your article offers little insight on this why.

• Did Geithner’s lack of detail somehow weaken faith in the market?
• Geithner plan of a plan was really just a stall tactic. Is Wall Street that impatient?
• Was it because Geithner promised to keep bailing out the big boys?
• Or was it because he was not specific about how much?
• Was it that the increased reporting in the plan means it will be harder to hide?

We need to know what Wall Street didn’t like in order to evaluate the plan and its reaction.  Similarly, the success of the stimulus plan – any stimulus – depends on getting credit moving again. We were all right to questions the detail of the stimulus plan (although we could have been much more thorough and constructive).

Read the rest of this entry »

I watched the first half of Secretary Geithner’s testimony to the Senate Banking Committee and my overall impression is that both sides of the committee are working well together. The media spouts that by-partisanship in 2009 died an early death but it was alive in these hearings.

The senators were respectful of the witness, each other, their time limits and the subject matter. It was one of the more informative and substantive committee hearings that I have watched. After 8 years of wimpy Senate questions and non-existent answers from the Administration, this made me feel better our Senate and my government.

Geithner’s plan does lack specificity and seems to be buying the Administration some time to make hammer out the details but I was pleased by some of the principles the Secretary outlined.

• Try to work with existing money
• Conduct a thorough analysis of the existing assets
• Work with a public / private fund (s) to create a market around these them.
• Tell the country what is happening with all the money we are spending
• Banks will have to prove that any new loans will actually help them loan money

The Treasury Department is also starting to report on the first $700 million and lettings us know who has it, how it was spent and the returns we are getting. New loans will have more reporting requirements with banks making regular, public reports on how funds are being used. This was some of the most welcome news coming out of Washington in a long time.

Read the rest of this entry »

The media really doesn’t get America. Far too many journalists persist in thinking that we care about their partisan agendas. We want to solve the huge challenges that we face, yet most of the paid professionals spend their time promoting a preferred team in the next election.

Mona Charen’s post in the National Review yesterday is a case in point. She wrote that the Obama Administration’s diplomatic efforts with Iran will not do anything new.

Her evidence? The fact that the Bush Administration actually made many diplomatic efforts. She ignores that fact the Bush Administration placed such heavy preconditions on the talks that they KNEW the talks would be rejected.

Their efforts amounted to foolish posturing, yet Ms. Charen asks us  to believe that simply because the Bush Administration made them, Obama can’t possibly do anything different.

Her simplistic view offers no analysis of the strengths or weaknesses of either Administration’s approach. No discussion of what we need to accomplish or how to do it. No method for monitoring progress or changing tactics.

I wrote to her suggesting the following  short list of strategic mistakes that I think the Bush Administration made towards Iran. They form some of the standards against which I measure Obama’s actions.

The Bush Administration:

• treated Iraq, Afghanistan and nuclear weapons as separate issues and missed a great opportunity to devise a clear and consistent approach to both the country and the region
• kept the MEK running in Iraq, irritating Iran yet failing to make strategic use of them.
• listened to self-interested Iraqi ex-Pats who said Iran would not be a problem in post-invasion Iraq
• listened to self-interested Iranian ex-Pats who fed our false hopes for ‘regime change from the outside
• ignored Iran and its nuclear program for far too long making it very hard to play catch up.
• took far too long to acknowledge that Iran was both working against us and WITH us in Iraq
• mis-understood the changes taking place in Iran and true nature of its populist, ground up military threat.
• too often fell victim to Iran & Israel’s war of words and in the process extended to much influence to both countries.
• never got near playing Saudi Arabia and Iran off each other. A dangerous game for sure, but one that could remove the target off our back and create great room to maneuver.

Read the rest of this entry »