As the Chicago Transit Authority continues to wrangle over a debt-induced fare increase and round of detrimental service cuts, Mayor Daley is going to meet with President Bush to talk Olympics possibilities for 2016. Here's the Tribune with more:
The meeting comes at the request of White House officials, who said Bush wants to be briefed on plans to hold the 2016 Games, a City Hall source said. The White House also wants to know what it can do to help the city's bid, the source said.
Daley says the city needs a new rapid-transit line west of the downtown area. He mentioned Saturday the federal government typically provides support for host cities with transportation, public safety and security.
Daley has been fixated, for awhile now, on a rapid transit service from O'Hare to Downtown for a while now, to help visiting business folks get there and spend money, make money.
That sounds like a good idea and all. But just fixing up the CTA blue Line is expected to cut the trip to 45 minutes, which is great considering Chicago's traffic typically making the current trip almost an hour by train, closer to one hour 15 min in rush hour traffic.
And wouldn't improving the bus system, ultra slow red line, barely existing yellow and purple lines, be a priority if you wanted to cycle people around the Olympics for cheap? Not to mention, keeping the system affordable and rideable for our daily commuters?
If anything is a strong deterrent for the Olympic bid, it's the crumbling mass transit system and bungling of Illinois government. Global visitor are much more attuned to hoping on the train, bus than U.S. folks.
Ok, I admit it. The Surge in Iraq has worked, to some extent. Violence is down and news reports say markets are opening up, Iraqis are trying to rebuild their towns and refugees are starting to consider moving back.
I was always against any prolonged engagement in which the U.S. tried to "democratize" Iraqis. Not only because of the impractical costs in lives and money, but frankly, the whole assertion that the rest of the world needs to be like the U.S. is distancing us from...the rest of the world. You know who else tried to pacify other nations to help their own security? The Romans, and their empire was about twice as long as ours.
Anyhow, stuck with the current situation, the best outcome (and one that I assume is the aim of our government, but I'm not sure) would be that the Islamic and ethnic sects within Iraq reconcile and form a working government. After reading about Sunnis wanting to ask U.S. soldiers to help reconstruction rather than their own Shiite-dominated government, I'm thinking that keeping our troops over there is still not the answer.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki acknowledges the lack of governance, blaming it on Saddam's years of autocratic rule. John Soundbite McCain said there are no Thomas Jeffersons left in Iraq, whereas Bush said all the Nelson Mandelas are dead.
To some extent, they're right. But maybe the Islamic world needs a Martin Luther more than an Uncle Sam with a M-16? The enlightenment, the reformation, and rationality took a long time for the West to develop, and the fruits of these ideological developments haven't entirely blossomed yet. With executive branches not allowing due process, torturing, extraordinary renditioning, and committing treasonous acts, such as outing CIA agents, maybe the West is not the best example?
In Iraq's long-term Interests, the Iraqi government has to reconcile and function. And the Bush Admin. seems to be doing little to promote that. Bush has said, "it's their country." Yes, but it's our troops. Why not offer a stick to go with that carrot of seemingly less violence? Why not set a timetable for withdrawal that says, "Hey, we appologize for invading your country under false pretenses. We can only help out so long. You have to figure out something for the long-term."
Instead, Bush is making photos ops and horribly mispronouncing the names of the leaders of Israel and the West Bank. That deal may not hold much promise either.
And another time-frame continually reverberates in the news. 2008, 2008, 2008. Olmert and Abbas are set to figure out a two-state solution at the end of 2008, Maliki says things will get better in Iraq after he declares a "War on Corruption" 2008, Pakistan is set to have elections in 2008, and after 2008, we'll have another president.
The disruption in Iraq will last much longer than 2008. But in the meantime, can we get a way to stop throwing lives of loved ones over to a conflict that one military cannot solve? It takes a village.
U.S. pentagon officials are considering beefing up funding and recruitment for "tribal" paramilitary forces in Pakistan to fight against Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters, reports the New York Times.
If adopted, the proposal would join elements of a shift in strategy that would also be likely to expand the presence of American military trainers in Pakistan, directly finance a separate tribal paramilitary force that until now has proved largely ineffective and pay militias that agree to fight Al Qaeda and foreign extremists, officials said. The United States now has only about 50 troops in Pakistan, a Pentagon spokesman said, a force that could grow by dozens under the new approach.
The new proposal is modeled in part on a similar effort by American forces in Anbar Province in Iraq that has been hailed as a great success in fighting foreign insurgents there. But it raises the question of whether such partnerships can be forged without a significant American military presence on the ground in Pakistan. And it is unclear whether enough support can be found among the tribes.
Isn't this how Al Qaeda came to prominence in the first place?
Some nuts at the Pentagon thought they could fund Afghan groups to fight the USSR in 1979, and didn't consider the lasting effects of meddling in a culture that they didn't understand. And a pro-west puppet leader fell from control as a more angry elements came to power.
Palestinian camps are putting hand grenades in their kids' hands, so America has to train their kids to be part of the "God's Army." So says Pastor Becky Fischer at her Bible Summer camp, "Kid's on Fire"
"I wanna see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ, as the young people are to the cause of Islam," Fischer says in the documentary "Jesus Camp." She explained that Christian kids should be just as ready as young Muslims to "lay down their lives" for their own creed, rationalizing that "we've got the better message."
Last night was the first time that I saw award-winning documentary. At times it wasn't easy to watch, as kids were being manipulated to hate anything un-Christian, but it really is a must see, a provocative look into a dysfunctional world.
I found the formula for manipulation to be somewhat familiar, as I was often fed the message that I was dirty, needed salvation from my own impurities as a K-12 student at Catholic Schools.
Step 1: Fischer welcomed the kids with a smiley face and caring persona to the camp,
Effect: Makes the kids feel at-ease, in a compassionate environment.
Step 2: Fischer alienated the kids, calling them evil. Example: She said that Harry Potter would have been "stoned to death" for being a warlock. She then implied that they brought unclean souls to the camp (swearing, doing bad just like the other kids), and washed their hands with...Nestle bottled water.
Effect: The children may be bored, ashamed, miserable but Fischer instills in them the idea that they are that way because they are "sinners." And eureka, she has a way to help them! And makes the salvation fun!
Step 3: The path is laid as kids are taught to hold their faith above all else, convulse with the spirit of the lord, and are told that half of the world is pure evil.
Effect: Kids can be alienated from the "sinners," everyone else. They conceptualize their duty to "save" everyone.
Step 4: Fischer and friends reaffirm that the kids are important, will be the future leaders, and need to go out and convert others, oppose homosexuality, abortion rights, support President Bush, the war in Iraq, the conversion of Muslims at all costs.
Results: Kids are wearing camouflage face paint while swinging sticks, praising the "Christian flag" and spreading the word to evil doers.
One kid even said that he got saved at age 5, because he was looking for more in life. (Though he probably didn't think his life was so worthless until people like Fischer told him so) And I can't forget the 10-year-old girl who said she only dances for the Lord, "not for the flesh."
See for yourself:
Fischer justified her actions, saying that kids cannot make choices -good or bad- (not much faith in kids...).
Repeatedly through the film, the "teachers" are praising the way that Christianity can influence kids, that their greatest asset is malleability. Not their creativity, innocence, or intelligence.
Fischer describes the enemy/Muslims as radicals who dogmatize their kids in a violent view of the world, and that it's her job to set them straight. And what are you doing to the kids, Fischer? Honoring their freedom of choice and presenting them with multiple viewpoints?
What's more is that even the evangelical heads are not without "sin"...
In many spots in the film, Fischer is seen primping herself, flaunting openly about how lovely she is. She also places a cardboard cutout of Bush for the kids to praise.
...The 7th deadly sin forbids excessive pride, and that first commandment forbidding the praise of idols before God...
And let's not forget our buddy Ted Haggard, who mad a cameo in the film bashing "the gay lifestyle." He was an adviser for Bush, by the way.
After the film and earlier this year, Haggard was caught with his own "sexual improprieties" and moral quandaries. Such as being caught with a male prostitute and using methamphetamines.
"...let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." -Jesus
But the sin is not homosexuality, or even meth use, but hypocrisy.
Good thing for Haggard, he became a heterosexual once again, and was saved from his gay tendencies. Maybe he feels this was all the result of a meth bender?
After observing all this hypocrisy, it occurs to me that the leaders of this radical, violent, politicized brand of Christianity are unable to deal with their own vices.
Like the children they exploit, perhaps they were once told that they were evil, made to feel dirty, and forced to embrace an ideology that seemed unnatural. The failure to work through sexual insecurities, addiction, violent tendencies (due to the disapproval in the social sphere of Church) had forced these currents to manifest themselves as problems later in life?
But self-loathing is nothing compared to how the extreme Christian right loathes their enemies, be they homosexuals, secularists, Muslims, or liberals.
There seems to be never-ending cycle of self-manipulation, that feeds itself with tax-free donations.
Afgahn presdient Hamid Karzai criticizes lack of coordination between Coalition and NATO forces for the number of civilians killed in the last week by bombings.
Karzai's only, very reasonable, request is that the forces let his government know before any military strike. It is the Afghani's country after all.
As the Bush administration is considering a quicker close to Guantanamo in light of loss of U.S. standing in the world, the loss of Afghan and Iraqi civilians also contributes to the West's credibility gap.
Few leaders do have legitimacy to Afghanis, considering that they are fighting against the Taliban, while they continue to be bombed by outsiders who are supposed to "help" them in that fight.
The result is that "reactionary" forces seem more appealing. If civilians continue to be bombed, the West has helped create another enemy for itself.
Much like after Reagan's use of the Taliban to fight against the Soviets, the vacuum left as the West pulled out created an optimum recruiting environment for al Queda.
This sent to me by historian\cab driver\book writer-seller Allen Ruff
Original source: Counterpunch, June 2007, as noted on the Nasir Khan Blog. (Supplemented by hyperlinks of other sources)
"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election as president in June 2005 has not made dialogue any easier, given his taste for provocative statements, particularly about the Holocaust and Israel. But Iran is a big country rich in history and there is more to it than its president. There is much tension within the government and Ahmadinejad had severe setbacks both in the local elections and in elections to the Assembly of Experts in December 2006. There are substantial challenges, economic and social, and forceful demands for more freedom, especially among women and young people. Iranians refuse to be regimented and the only strong card the regime has to win their loyalty is nationalism, a refusal to accept the kind of foreign interference suffered throughout the 20th century."
However, War monkeys may not get it...
"...the war on Iran has already begun. Many sources confirm that the United States, bent on destabilising the Islamic Republic, has increased its aid to armed movements among the Azeri, Baluchi, Arab and Kurdish ethnic minorities that make up about 40% of the Iranian population. ABC News reported in April that the US had secretly assisted the Baluchi group Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), responsible for a recent attack in which some 20 members of the Revolutionary Guard were killed. According to an American Foundation report (1), US commandos have operated inside Iran since 2004 (Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner)."
Not exactly news, but gives some context to my previous posting.
The New York Times reports a troubling development in Russia-U.S. relations. Even worse than when Cheney and Putin called each other despots.
The marriage between Putin and Bush erupted into relative chaos after disputes over missile defense systems. Basically, Putin said: if you point your missiles at us, we'll point our missiles at your friends.
Apparently, Putin is worried that Bush is a little trigger happy. Who knew?
Bush's quick reaction to Russia's disapprobation could be considered as somewhat surprising given the administration's love of Europe. Perhaps we really want to get the revenue from those missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland. It's probably more cost effective than giant satellite lasers.
A hell of a way to kick off the G8 summit.
I remember the embattled couple in more happy times...
Judith Davidoff over at the Capital Times points out the friction between Medicare part D and Wisconsin's very own SeniorCare.
"They have been out to get rid of all the state plans and we were the last one standing," Doyle said in the article. "This is all about the Bush administration trying to make people believe Medicare Part D is a great program."
Doyle asks for an extension of the popular SeniorCare Program, as the giant Monolith Medicare encroaches on the state.
I can't blame him. Bipartisan health care plans put forth by Wisconsin's own Sen. Feingold and Rep. Baldwin have asked for more state leverage. The idea is that health care is best left to local management rather than a federal mandate.
Studies have shown the state program to be more cost effective. As reported by the Wisconsin State Journal, a 2005 study by the Wisconsin chapter of AARP found that a person with an annual income of about $15,000 and $1,000 in annual prescription drug costs would save $632 each year under SeniorCare compared to Medicare Part D.
SeniorCare also allows seniors to negotiate lower prices by forming a purchasing pool, while Medicare Part D prohibits bargaining pools.
So why do the feds insist on having it their way?
Greater policy autonomy to the states used to be a Republican philosophy, particularly attractive to fiscal conservatives. But it is no more.
The Bush Administration has warped conservatism to his own mold. The Medicare debate follows a series of attempts by feds to spend billions on policy that gives rights to Washington bureaucrats. And Wisconsin rebellion has been mixed.
Last month the New York Times reported on Madison's refusal of federally mandated phonics reading program in favor of local curricula that focus on context, meaning, as well as pronunciation. It cost the Madison Metropolitan school district $2 million in federal aid, but reading scores are better than the national average.
Also, the Administration attempts to ban gay marriage and civil unions failed. Unfortunately, Wisconsin's progressive tradition took a nap as a constitutional ban was voted in last November.
At the federal level, Bush repeatedly blasted big government in 2004 as a way to get reelected. But time and time again he's expanded the government to new levels, even beating FDR. It's no wonder that conservative support is waning, a lame duck as he wanders through the beginning of his seventh year in office.
