Jimmy Carter and Hamas

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) -- Defying U.S. and Israeli warnings, former President Carter met again Saturday with the exiled leader of the militant Hamas group, the leader's deputy said.

The two Palestinians are considered terrorists by the U.S. government, and Israel accuses them of masterminding attacks that have killed hundreds of civilians. Both governments have sharply criticized Carter's overtures to the militant group.

Carter met Mashaal and his deputy, Moussa Abu Marzouk, for about an hour Saturday morning, after more than four hours of talks the night before.

Carter, who is on what he has called a personal peace mission, is the most prominent American to hold talks with Mashaal, whose group claimed new legitimacy from the meetings with the Nobel laureate.

On Saturday, Marzouk said Carter and Mashaal discussed a possible prisoner exchange with Israel, as well as how to lift a siege imposed by the Jewish state in Hamas-controlled Gaza. Carter, who brokered the 1978 Israeli-Egyptian peace, is trying to secure the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

But underscoring the impression that Carter did not win any concessions, Hamas said Friday that Shalit would "not see the light" until Palestinian prisoners are also released in an exchange.

Carter's meetings in Syria were closed to media and held under tight security, and he was not available for comment. He flew later Saturday to Saudi Arabia, where he met with King Abdullah at the start of a two-day visit, the official Saudi Press Agency reported. No details were immediately available about their meeting.

Echoing criticism from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice before the trip, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack suggested Friday that Carter had opened himself up to "exploitation" by both Hamas and the Syrian government. Carter also met with Syrian President Bashar Assad.

The U.S. government has had no contact with Hamas since designating it a terrorist organization in 1995.

Although long shunned by diplomats, Hamas thrust itself onto the international stage by winning the 2006 Palestinian parliament elections. The group forcibly seized control of Gaza from Fatah in June and set up a regime that rivals President Mahmoud Abbas' West Bank government.

An internationally backed Israeli boycott of Hamas -- partly an attempt to bolster Abbas' faction -- has put a stranglehold on Gaza, deepening the poverty of its 1.4 million residents.

I personally think that Carter's decision to meet with Hamas is a good thing. It may not be good for the Bush administration or its level of credibility/legitimacy, but what's left of that anyway? haha.

I know that it's our country's policy to never negotiate with terrorists, but if the alternative is cutting off communication with them and suffering consequences as a result (or having others suffer conquences as a rewult), then keeping an open dialogue should be essential to making peace in the Middle East.

Everyone knows the old adage, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Isn't there some truth to this? Cutting off communication with Hamas, much like the severance of diplomatic ties with Iran and North Korea, will never lead to any effective communication between the United States and its adversaries around the world. Without effective communication, how can it be expected that we improve relations with them? If we're not even willing to talk to Hamas as a country, it can't be expected for us to truly make any progress in meeting our policy goals in the Middle East and further keeping our own nation safe from terrorism.

Maybe I'm just biased since I met Jimmy Carter when he came to UCI, but I say all power to him!

Delegate Counter Game

Maybe I'm the only one that thinks this is really cool, but CNN.com has this Delegate Counter Game where you can assign hypothetical outcomes to all of the delegates from the remaining states (and territories) in the Presidential Primary. Here's the link in case you're interested:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html

Unless the superdelegates take a huge swing over toward the Clinton camp, it looks mathematically almost impossible for her to pull off a win at this point. Even if Hillary wins every remaining state by a 10-point margin and takes all of Puerto Rico (which is winner-take-all) AND even if she wins the remaining superdelegates by 55-45, she'll still be at least five delegates behind Barack Obama.

I can see why people would prefer Hillary over Barack, but her decision to stay in the race at this point is only serving to further damage the Democratic party and provide more fuel for the "Straight Talk Express." At this point, if the Democrats lose the general election in the fall, I really think it'll be a result of their own doing. We'll just have to wait and see though.

Really, Mitt Romney?

Romney takes swipes at 'elitist' Obama
Posted: 05:00 PM ET

Romney had some sharp words for Obama.
(CNN) — In a sign he's comfortable playing the attack dog for John McCain's presidential campaign, Mitt Romney issued stinging criticisms of Barack Obama Friday, calling the Illinois senator a "quintessential politician."

"He, in the debate, made a number of promises that he cannot possibly deliver — populist approaches that sound good to the public but that are counter to the growth and strength of our economy and the well-being of our nation," Romney, who abandoned his own presidential bid in February, told the National Journal.

In an apparent reference to Obama's recent comments calling some small town Americans "bitter," Romney also said the Democratic presidential candidate has "subscribed fully to the kind of elitist view of America that has long characterized those of the most liberal persuasion in our country."

"So I think what's happening is that people are getting a better sense about Barack Obama," Romney continued. "They didn't know who he was… but now we're getting a better view of Barack Obama as the — not just the liberal, but the political liberal that he is."

Romney was a fierce critic of John McCain when the two were primary rivals, though he has since repeatedly praised McCain and indicated his willingness to serve as the Arizona senator's running mate.


I know Obama has taken alot of heat recently about the comments he made about working-class Americans being "bitter", but I really don't think Mitt Romney should be one to talk. Mitt Romney probably represents one of the most elitist backgrounds any recent presidential candidate has ever had. The guy's worth hundreds of millions of dollars. In addition to that, he invested tens of millions of dollars in advertising in many states where other top contenders put in only a fraction of that amount. Romney essentially tried to buy votes by using his own personal economic advantages. If that isn't elitist, then I really don't know what is.

Romney probably couldn't possibly be more out of touch with the American people. He's lived the life of a wealthy businessman and a wealthy politician. I almost wish he were in the race long enough to see him do something stupid like George Bush's stunned reaction to the grocery scanner, apparently having never seen one in his life before. Or Gerald Ford's kosher nightmare in New York when campaigning for re-election in 1976.

While I do acknowledge that this whole fiasco was a big slip-up on Obama's part, it's almost worse what the Republicans are doing by trying to throw the "elitist" label off of themselves and onto Obama. I guess the Republican leaders would never know that trickle-down economics or "Reaganomics" never worked for the lower class, since they were never a part of that class.

Wow, all of my posts sound so bitter. Unfortunately, I must say that the present state of things with this primary has driven me to this attitude.

Socialization of Women

We watched this video clip in one of my classes the other day, and I thought it was pretty interesting. I don't think we fully realize the impact of advertising in our society. It's everywhere we go, and we really can't escape from it even if we try. When it comes to forming and reinforcing stereotypes about gender and looks, it's sad that the image that's put in people's heads is so unrealistic and atypical of what's possible or ideal for the average person in society. How many women with eating disorders has been a result of advertising? Even for those who haven't experienced any kind of true disorder, what kind of mental image and mindset do we assume as a direct result of advertising? Surely it is not a healthy one, neither mentally nor physically.

McCain: I'll Cut Deficits Like Reagan (Who Tripled The Deficit)

April 9, 2008, 7:34 pm
Asked About the Deficit, McCain Cites Reagan’s Example
By Michael Cooper

WESTPORT, Conn. – When Senator John McCain was asked here this afternoon how he plans to balance the budget, he said that he hoped to do so by stimulating economic growth – and approvingly cited the example of President Ronald Reagan.
There was one thing he did not mention during his response: the deficit nearly tripled during the Reagan presidency, partly due to tax cuts and increases in military spending.
The exchange occurred at a town-hall-style meeting held in a tent outside Bridgewater Associates, an investment firm. A member of the audience stood up and asked Mr. McCain, who has called for balanced budgets, how he plans to do it.
“Basically, which is it?” the man asked Mr. McCain. “Straight talk: Do you want to raise taxes, cut entitlement spending, cut defense spending, or have a deficit?”
Mr. McCain did not explain how he plans to balance the budget, but spoke generally about hoping to stimulate the economy – and cited President Reagan.

“I don’t believe in a static economy,’’ Mr. McCain said. “I believe that when there’s stimulus for growth, when there’s opportunity, when people keep more of their money — and the government is the least efficient way to spend your money — that economies improve.’’
“When Ronald Reagan came to office,’’ he said, noting that few in the audience were old enough to remember, “we had 10 percent unemployment, 20 percent interest rates, and 10 percent inflation, if I’ve got those numbers right. That was when Ronald Reagan came to office in 1980. And so what did we do? We didn’t raise taxes, and we didn’t cut entitlements. What we did was we cut taxes and we put in governmental reductions in regulations, stimulus to the economy, and by the way, Jack Kennedy also did that as well – and so my answer to it is a growing economy. And I think you best grow the economy by the most efficient use of the tax dollar.’’
Mr. McCain – who has said that he wants to balance the budget while making the Bush tax cuts permanent, cutting additional taxes, and keeping troops in Iraq – said: “I believe we can grow this economy, and reduce this deficit.’’
He said that he expected expense in Iraq to decline as the Iraqis shoulder more of the burden, and he also hinted at some cuts in federal programs.
He noted his opposition to the expensive Medicare prescription drug benefit, which he voted against. “Now you are paying for my prescription drugs,’’ he said. “Why should that be? Why should that be? Why should that be?”
But he said he thinks the problems can be solved. “Is it going to be tough? Yes. It’s going to be very, very tough.’’
Earlier, when he was asked if he plans to resign from the Senate this summer to make it easier for a Republican to win the election to succeed him, Mr. McCain said: “No, I will not. I have every confidence that there are a number of Republicans who would be elected. I do not envision a scenario of resigning my seat.’’
But then, on reflection, he seemed to open the door to the idea at least a bit. “But I would go back and think about it, and think about the scenario that you just described,’’ he said. “Right now my intentions are to remain in the United States Senate. ‘’

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/asked-about-the-economy-mccain-cites-reagans-example/


There are many reasons why many people respect Ronald Reagan as a president, which I will not go into here. However, if you're going to cite Reagan and treat him like he did no wrong, you should at least know your facts. I don't know if it's just because the Republicans feel like Reagan is their only guy to be proud of over the last 30 years or what, but I feel like maybe this mistake will get people to actually research their candidates or at least pay attenetion to the news. But perhaps that's asking too much...

Patriotism

Main Entry: pa·tri·ot·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈpā-trē-ə-ˌti-zəm, chiefly British ˈpa-\
Function: noun
Date: circa 1726
: love for or devotion to one's country

Over the past few weeks/months, there has been a decent amount of chatter about Obama's patriotism. He doesn't always wear an American flag pin. He forgot to put his hand over his heart during the Star-Spangled Banner, or something to that effect. His wife made some comments that were misconstrued and made her seem unpatriotic.

If patriotism means "love for or devotion to one's country", I don't see how anybody can question Obama's patriotism, or any of the major presidential candidates for that matter. Obama has two young children who he's had to miss out on a great portion of being a father because of his service as a state Senator in Illinois and his time in the U.S. Senate. This campaign has been no different. If a person is willing to put their entire life on hold and sacrifice so much because they want to do all that they can to make this country better, how could you possibly call into question his patriotism?

Anyone can wave an American flag or slap a "Support the Troops" sticker on their car, but how patriotic is this really? If one is to make the accusation that Obama is unpatriotic, I can only say that they must foster a very shallow, superficial definition of patriotism. Wearing pins and displaying flags is one thing, but this seems like the bare minimum for most of us. If you've shown such a high level of commitment and a long record of service to this country, I don't think you need an American flag pin to show that you're patriotic. Anyone who is willing to run for office and take so much criticism and put so much on the line seems like they're showing some love for their country. But maybe that's just me.

Chris Matthews on Ellen

If Ellen wasn't a lesbian and Chris Matthews wasn't Chris Matthews, this would probably seem more wrong. I'd like to see them give a shot at Dancing With the Stars.

Insight from a UCI Professor...

March 19, 2003

Don't Look for Democracy
Predictions About the Iraq War
By CHUCK O'CONNELL

Back in 1999 after looking at the sanctions program against Iraq and the NATO war against Yugoslavia, I made a few predictions to my students which I have reiterated each subsequent year. Those predictions were as follows:

1. The U.S. would invade Iraq.

2. The U.S. would project military power into the Caspian - Central Asia region.

3. The European Union would seek to dissociate itself from U.S. foreign policy and chart its own course.

Why did I make these predictions and why have they come true?

Foretelling a U.S. war against Iraq was fairly easy to do. The explanation is that the U.S. backed sanctions program was designed to destroy the country economically and militarily; in effect, it was a form of siege warfare designed to degrade the target (Iraq) making it much easier to conquer. Added to the sanctions program was the imposition of northern and southern "no-fly" zones which not only effectively denied to the Iraqi military the airspace over the country's northern and southern perimeters but also allowed the U.S. and UK air forces to bomb northern and southern Iraq to pieces on a regular basis. The U.S. thus softened up the invasion routes for the conquest of Iraq. In short, the coming war represents a continuation of the ongoing war against Iraq. It will be Phase III. Phase I was Desert Storm - kicking Iraq out of Kuwait. Not knowing how the Iraqi Army would perform on its home soil and not having a suitable replacement for Saddam Hussein, the U.S. began Phase II - siege warfare plus bombing to reduce Iraqi defenses while a replacement could be found for Hussein. This low intensity warfare has finally accomplished its task and now the "necessary" reasons for invasion have been trotted out to justify the war and occupation.

"But why invade Iraq?", the students asked. Answer: The Baath regime (which the U.S. helped come to power in 1963 by assisting its coup against a previous Iraqi government) no longer served as the compliant vassal of U.S. political economic interests in the region. The Baath's eventual leader, Saddam Hussein - like other U.S. protégés before him (Ngo Dinh Diem in Viet Nam, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Manuel Noreiga in Panama) developed illusions of autonomy and began to pursue policies inimical to the visions of Washington. In seeking to expand his role as a grand Arab leader free of U.S. constraints, Hussein "crossed the line". His crimes which heretofore had been ignored were given wide airplay to shift public opinion against him. (When he was seen as an agent of U.S. policy, those crimes were conveniently ignored. One of my favorite pictures on my desk is the 1983 photo of Ronald Reagan's special Middle East envoy, Donald Rumsfeld - yes, that Rumsfeld! - shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad; soon thereafter, the U.S. began supplying biochem weapons to Iraq.) The occupation of Iraq will allow the U.S. to reassert control of the oil fields which had been contracted out to foreign competitors (France, Russia, and China) and also to position itself militarily on the western flank of Iran (the other part of the "axis of evil"). With this move, the U.S. will have Iran almost surrounded: American troops are on Iran's eastern flank in Afghanistan, southern flank with the U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf, and western border in Iraq. With the Iraq "threat" erased after the removal of Hussein, watch the White House and media develop the new "threat": Iran.

This extension of U.S. military might throughout the Middle East/Persian Gulf region into Central Asia (the 'stans) is a process that extends back to the fall of the old American ally, the Shah of Iran, and the subsequent loss of Persian oilfields to U.S. control. Since 1980 the U.S. has built up its airlift and sealift capabilities in the region and developed new bases to preposition itself for war. In 1997 the Army dropped 500 paratroopers into Kazakhstan to test its airlift capabilities for war in Central Asia and in 1999 took Central Asia out of the Pacific Command and put it into the Central Command which oversees the oil rich Middle East. This put the Central Asian countries (which abut the Caspian Sea and Iran) into the sphere of plans for Mideast warfare.

New predictions:

1. The Iraqi oilfields will not be put in the hands of the Iraqi people; they will be privatized and awarded to appropriate corporate investors.

2. The French, Russians, and Chinese will lose their existing contracts to develop the Iraqi oilfields and Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, and British Petroleum will become the major players in Iraq. The rebuilding of the damaged oilfields will go to Vice-President Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton.

3. None of the foregoing will constitute "proof" that the war was for oil profits.It will simply be "coincidence".

4. Democracy will NOT come to Iraq. What will happen is that some very rich exiled Iraqi who has made it clear in the past several months to the State Department and CIA that he is and will be forever and ever in complete agreement with what ever the Americans want in Iraq shall become the new ruler. He will be labeled by the U.S. press as a democratic wonder and indeed may have the trappings of "elections" (just as Hussein had "elections"). But the people of Iraq will be no more "free" than the people of Kuwait are today (even though we "liberated" them 12 years ago).

5. Iraq will not be rebuilt into an affluent middle class nation. Oil profits will flow to a small upper class and the mass of people will be forgotten by the prowar crowd and the government that waged the war to save the Iraqi people from Hussein. Eventually the misery of the Iraqi people will be blamed on the Iraqis themselves.

6.The Kurdish problem will not go away because the Turks (the "allies" Bush tried to buy for 26 billion dollars) will not accept a Kurdish nation.

7. Bush will not solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; on the contrary, it's not unlikely that the Sharon government might use this war for some "population transfer" under the rationale of fighting terrorism.

8. The U.S. war against Iraq will further the efforts of the EU, Russia, and China to develop the political and military strength to check the U.S. This will be a longterm process but they will either do it or become vassals. Their main fear is not that ExxonMobil gets Iraqi oil profits but that the U.S. will have effective military control over the bulk of their oil supplies from Saudi Arabia though Iraq to the new fields of the Caspian. Such control will give the U.S. unprecedented leverage over these nations because the U.S. will dominate a region containing 70% of the world's energy reserves.

9. Watch the White House and the media begin to increase the demonization of Iran. Pressure will be put on Tehran to submit to U.S. demands. If the leadership in Iran fails to comply with U.S. demands, then America will be "forced" to stand up to another threat to world peace.

That's enough for now.


I always thought this was really interesting. While some of these predictions may have been obvious, I think this article shows what a dangerous path we've been put on as a result of the war on terror. Sadly, these predictions are based off of the results of a flawed foreign policy in past dealings with other countries.

Wow, I feel like a pessimist. The next post will be a happier one, I promise.

Gotta love Ron Paul...

You know what, I think the reduced media attention given to Ron Paul is the saddest thing about McCain receiving the Republican nomination. I love the way he defends not returning the campaign contributions from this white supremacist guy...even if he is crazy, I must say he's got a good sense of humor.

Maybe we should just let him participate in the debates between now and November just for fun...

McCain reflects on his mistakes

"We can all be a little late sometimes in doing the right thing."

While I hesitate to start this blog off with a seemingly negative post, I found this video to be of particular interest. First of all, I would like to say that I do not believe John McCain is a bad man. I believe that that he thinks he's doing the right thing for this country. However, I think his own comment about doing the right thing is precisely how McCain seems to contradict himself.

Many of the McCain supporters I know have made the argument that we should put McCain in office because he has more military experience and would thus make a better Commander-in-chief. At the same time, I would venture to guess that a sizeable number of these McCain supporters would readily agree that the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake. This was a decision that McCain had initially supported in the first place, and he seems comfortable with maintaining a long-term commitment there.

Yes, we can all be a little slow in doing the right thing sometimes, but do we really wan't to put someone in office who showed so much confidence in Bush's war in the first place? Sure the American public supported the war at first. So did most policymakers as well, but ignorance should be no excuse. As a policymaker who is supposed to be accountable to the American public, John McCain showed little inclination to split from his party and his president and oppose the war. Even still, he maintains that we will be committed to Iraq in the long-term. Unfortunately, because of mistakes he was partly at fault for, this may be a reality. He ackowledges that mistakes were made, yet he seems prepared to continue the war in much the same way that it has been run over the past couple of years.

If you believe that John McCain is fit to be Commander-in-chief, you are tacitly admitting that you are supporting someone who is "slow in doing the right thing sometimes." Okay, he didn't support MLK day the first time around, that sounds bad. That shouldn't disqualify him for being a good leader, though it does make you wonder about some things. How does this make him a better Commander-in-chief, if he was uncritical of the war in the first place? I am not saying that this is the basis on which either of the democratic candidates have automatically become more qualified leaders, but the logic of the argument for supporting McCain because of his foreign policy credentials seems fallacious.

If anything, because of his experience as a POW I would think thatMcCain should have been even more cautious in showing support for this war that will likely cost us over 3 trillion dollars. Do you know how many generations of American students' college tuitions could be paid off by 3 trillion dollars? How many people could that money have provided medical treatment for? How many hungry children could you have fed? Just some thoughts.

How can somebody who is slow in doing the right thing in our largest foreign policy commitment possibly be well-qualified to be Commander-in-chief? I'm not talking about his relative qualifications to Clinton or Obama, I'm just talking about his own credibility. It wouldn't matter who he was running up against. We are in a period where we went from a burst of worldwide sympathy to a time of global apathy and ambivalence in terms of international attitudes towards the United States. Is John McCain really going to be any better, or will his policies simply carry on the Bush doctrine and leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the international community?