Associated Press / guardian.co.uk
Iraq's cabinet today approved a security pact with the United States that will allow American forces to stay in Iraq for three years after their UN mandate expires at the end of this year.
The decision followed months of difficult negotiations and, pending parliamentary approval, will remove a major point of contention between the two allies.
A government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said all but one of the 28 cabinet ministers present at today's meeting, in addition to the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, voted in favour of the pact by a show of hands.
The cabinet has 37 members and it was not immediately clear why some ministers were not present. Several of them were believed to be abroad.
"This is an important and positive step," said a US embassy spokesman, Adam Ereli.
Dabbagh said the agreement would be submitted to parliament later today, but did not say when the 275-member legislature will vote on the document.
Parliament is scheduled to go into recess at the end of the month or in early December because of the Muslim Eid al-Adha holiday, when scores of lawmakers travel to Saudi Arabia to perform the annual pilgrimage.
Dabbagh said he was "optimistic" the deal would be passed by parliament, but added: "You cannot guarantee 100 percent the approval of anything."
Iran has bitterly opposed the pact on grounds that it enshrines the US military presence in Iraq and threatens its security and regional influence.
Nonetheless, Iranian state television today described the deal as "a victory for the al-Maliki government, which was able to apply its own viewpoints".
Followers of Iraq's Shia leader, Muqtada al-Sadr, have objected to the pact.
"This agreement hands Iraq over (to the US) on a golden platter and for an indefinite period," said Ahmed al-Massoudi, spokesman for the 30-seat Sadrist bloc in parliament.
Sadr, whose militiamen have fought US forces in three uprisings since 2003, has threatened to resume attacks on American troops if they don't immediately begin to withdraw from Iraq.
The final draft of the agreement, reached after months of negotiations, is designed to meet Iraqi concerns over its sovereignty and its security needs as it continues to grapple with a diminished but persistent insurgency.
It provides for the departure of US forces from Iraq by the end of 2011 and gives Iraq the right to try American soldiers and defence contractors in the case of serious crimes committed off-duty and off-base. It also prohibits the US from using Iraqi territory to attack Iraq's neighbors, like Syria and Iran
.
Iraqi government supporters of the pact, including Maliki's interior and defence ministers, say a continued US military presence is needed until Iraq's nascent security forces are capable of taking charge of security in the war-devastated nation.
By Robert Parry - Consortium News
In his trademark goofy way, George W. Bush explained why he supported a bailout of the U.S. financial markets, saying he was “a free-market person, until you're told that if you don't take decisive measures then it's conceivable that our country could go into a depression greater than the Great Depression.”
So, with a smirk on his face, President Bush explained the predicament that the United States and the world face after eight years of his incompetence and mismanagement – teetering on the edge of a catastrophe “greater than the Great Depression.”
Yet what is remarkable about American news coverage of this extraordinary moment – and Bush’s strangely light-hearted comment at the end of the Nov. 15 global economic summit – is how little blame is being laid specifically at Bush’s door.
In a pattern typical of the preceding eight years, major U.S. journalists are focusing on almost everything else – from Sarah Palin’s political future to what President-elect Barack Obama should do after he’s inaugurated in two months – not the lessons that should be learned from Bush’s disastrous presidency.
An example was Tom Brokaw’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, which addressed the financial and energy crises with nary a negative word spoken about Bush.
It was as if everyone else was responsible for the nation’s troubles, from unions and auto executives to Congress and Obama (for not providing immediate answers). Just not the person who is still in charge and who was chiefly responsible for taking the United States from an era of peace, prosperity and budget surpluses to the precipice of endless war, economic devastation and national bankruptcy.
Part of that may be that Brokaw and some of his fellow pundits, such as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, were major enablers of Bush’s most harmful decisions. Brokaw and Friedman were among the leading journalists in 2002-03 who didn’t ask tough questions about the Iraq invasion and indeed cheered the war on.
Brokaw, Friedman and company also didn’t recognize the obvious danger to the United States that Bush represented in 2000 when he and his Republican allies ran a down-and-dirty campaign against Al Gore and then blocked the counting of Florida’s votes so Bush could slip into the White House.
The big-name pundits almost all bought into the myth that Bush’s strange ascension to the White House -- as the first popular-vote loser in more than a century -- was a good idea, pushing out Bill Clinton’s crowd and putting “the adults back in charge.”
Beyond the affront that Bush’s “election” represented to American democracy, there also was the troubling fact that Bush had a long history of messing up whatever he touched and then “failing upward,” pulled out of trouble by his father’s rich friends.
However, when this well-born wastrel was elevated to the highest office on earth, there was really no way that daddy or daddy’s friends could either control him or save him from himself. It may be that not even all the central banks in all the world can undo the damage that George W. Bush has done.
That big-name American journalists failed to recognize this danger back in Campaign 2000 represented another example of their professional limitations and moral deficiencies. At the time, it was easier to go with the flow.
But the inadequacies of George W. Bush were well-known during Campaign 2000, although readers often had to search out the facts on the Internet or in a few small-circulation liberal magazines. Bush’s ominous history of business failures -- his reverse Midas touch -- drew far less attention than the bogus stories about “Lyin’ Al” Gore and his “exaggerations.” (continue reading)
By TARA SIEGEL BERNARD and JENNY ANDERSON - The New York Times
The economy’s deep troubles are pushing a growing number of already struggling consumers into bankruptcy, often with far more debt than those who filed in previous downturns.
Plummeting home values, dwindling incomes and the near disappearance of credit have proved a potent mixture. While all the usual reasons that distressed borrowers seek bankruptcy — job loss, medical bills, divorce — play significant roles, new economic forces are changing the calculus of who can ride out the tough times and who cannot.
The number of personal bankruptcy filings jumped nearly 8 percent in October from September, after marching steadily upward for the last two years, said Mike Bickford, president of Automated Access to Court Electronic Records, a bankruptcy data and management company.
Filings totaled 108,595, surpassing 100,000 for the first time since a law that made it more difficult — and often twice as expensive — to file for bankruptcy took effect in 2005. That translated to an average of 4,936 bankruptcies filed each business day last month, up nearly 34 percent from October 2007.
Robert M. Lawless, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law, pointed to the tightening of credit by banks as a significant factor in the increase in October. As banks have pulled back on lending, he said, consumers have been finding it more difficult, and in many cases impossible, to use credit cards, refinance their home mortgages or fall back on their home equity lines to get them through a rough period.
“A credit crunch can drive people into bankruptcy today rather than later as sources of lending dry up,” Professor Lawless said. “With the consumer credit tightening and the economy in a nosedive, this pop could just be the beginning of a long-term rise in the bankruptcy filing rate to levels that are even higher than we had before the 2005 bankruptcy law.” (continue reading)
by Harvey Wasserman - Common Dreams
Bail out General Motors? The people who murdered our mass transit system?
First let them remake what they destroyed.
GM responded to the 1970s gas crisis by handing over the American market to energy-efficient Toyota and Honda.
GM met the rise of the hybrids with "light trucks."
GM built a small electric car, leased a pilot fleet to consumers who loved it, and then forcibly confiscated and trashed them all.
GM now wants to market a $40,000 electric Volt that looks like a cross between a Hummer and a Cadillac and will do nothing to meet the Solartopian needs of a green-powered Earth.
For this alone, GM's managers should never be allowed to make another car, let alone take our tax money to stay in business.
But there is also a trillion-dollar skeleton in GM's closet.
This is the company that murdered our mass transit system.
The assertion comes from Bradford Snell, a government researcher whose definitive report damning GM has been a vehicular lightening rod since its 1974 debut. Its attackers and defenders are legion. But some facts are irrefutable:
In a 1922 memo that will live in infamy, GM President Alfred P. Sloan established a unit aimed at dumping electrified mass transit in favor of gas-burning cars, trucks and buses.
Just one American family in 10 then owned an automobile. Instead, we loved our 44,000 miles of passenger rail routes managed by 1,200 companies employing 300,000 Americans who ran 15 billion annual trips generating an income of $1 billion. According to Snell, "virtually every city and town in America of more than 2,500 people had its own electric rail system."
But GM lost $65 million in 1921. So Sloan enlisted Standard Oil (now Exxon), Philips Petroleum, glass and rubber companies and an army of financiers and politicians to kill mass transit.
The campaigns varied, as did the economic and technical health of many of the systems themselves. Some now argue that buses would have transcended many of the rail lines anyway. More likely, they would have hybridized and complemented each other.
But with a varied arsenal of political and financial subterfuges, GM helped gut the core of America's train and trolley systems. It was the murder of our rail systems that made our "love affair" with the car a tragedy of necessity.
In 1949 a complex federal prosecution for related crimes resulted in an anti-trust fine against GM of a whopping $5000. For years thereafter GM continued to bury electric rail systems by "bustituting" gas-fired vehicles.
Then came the interstates. After driving his Allied forces into Berlin on Hitler's Autobahn, Dwight Eisenhower brought home a passion for America's biggest public works project. Some 40,000 miles of vital eco-systems were eventually paved under.
In habitat destruction, oil addiction, global warming, outright traffic deaths (some 40,000/year and more), ancillary ailments and wars for oil, the automobile embodies the worst ecological catastrophe in human history.
Should current General Motors management be made to pay for the ancient sins of Alfred Sloan?
Since the 1880s, American corporations have claimed human rights under the law. Tasking one now with human responsibilities could set a great precedent.
GM has certainly proved itself unable to make cars that can compete while healing a global-warmed planet.
So let's convert the company's infrastructure to churn out trolley cars, monorails, passenger trains, truly green buses.
FDR forced Detroit to manufacture the tanks, planes and guns that won World War 2 (try buying a 1944 Chevrolet!). Now let a reinvented GM make the "weapons" to win the climate war and energy independence.
It demands re-tooling and re-training. But GM's special role in history must now evolve into using its infrastructure to restore the mass transit system---and ecological balance---it has helped destroy.
By Walter Pincus - Washington Post Staff Writer
But Hayden Says Al-Qaeda Remains Greatest Threat to U.S.
CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said yesterday that al-Qaeda remains the single greatest threat to the United States but that Iraq is no longer the central front in the broader war on terrorism.
"Today, the flow of money, weapons and foreign fighters into Iraq is greatly diminished and al-Qaeda senior leaders no longer point to it as the central battlefield," Hayden told an audience at the Atlantic Council, a bipartisan group that deals with international affairs. But he warned that al-Qaeda remains "a determined, adaptive enemy" that is resilient and operating "from its safe haven in Pakistan's tribal areas."
"If there is a major strike on this country, it will bear the fingerprints of al-Qaeda," he said. While law enforcement and diplomacy have their place, Hayden said, "this war -- and no one should mistake it as anything else -- is far from over."
Hayden said there has not been any noticeable increase in terrorist chatter that would indicate al-Qaeda is preparing to take advantage of a presidential transition period as they did in attacking the World Trade Center in 1993 shortly after President Clinton took office, or again in 2001, as the Bush administration was settling in. "No real or artificial spike [in intercepted terrorist communications] has been caused by the transition," he said.
As for his own plans, Hayden said that he and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell recognize that "we serve at the pleasure of the president." He added that they understand "there has to be a personal relationship" between the president and his top intelligence directors and would "fully understand" if either or both were replaced.
He said if asked to stay, "we would stay for a period," repeating almost verbatim what McConnell had said at an awards ceremony yesterday. "If they ask us to stay for some reason, for a period of time, we would stay and assist them in the transition," McConnell said.
Hayden expressed ambivalence about his future during an interview Wednesday with radio station WDVE in his hometown, Pittsburgh, saying he liked his job but was taking things "one day at a time." He said, "I'd be honored if the president-elect would ask me, but, you know, that is something that would have to be discussed between him and me."
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, called yesterday for new intelligence leadership that will "work aggressively to ensure the safety and security of Americans without undermining our laws and Constitution." In going public, Feingold echoed the views of several other senators and House members on the intelligence panels who believe McConnell and Hayden gave excessive public support to Bush administration programs of enhanced interrogation for terrorism suspects.
In his remarks yesterday, Hayden said the hunt for bin Laden is "very much at the top of CIA's priority list" and that "his death or capture clearly would have a significant impact on the confidence of his followers." There is some doubt whether bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, "could maintain unity in the ranks," he said.
"The truth is," Hayden said, "we simply don't know what would happen if bin Laden is killed or captured, but I'm willing to bet that it would work in our favor."
Staff writer Joby Warrick contributed to this report.
By Robert Scheer, Truthdig / Alternet
Why are Obama's closest advisers inveterate hawks who needlessly provoked tension with the Russians during the Cold War?
So, Vladimir Putin was right: It was Georgia that started the war with Russia, and once again it was President Bush who got caught in a lie. As the New York Times reported last week, "Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the long-standing Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression."
The Bush White House knew -- but kept from the American public -- facts concerning provocation by Georgia's U.S.-trained forces, which killed civilians in the capital of South Ossetia before Russian troops crossed the border. The provocation has also been documented in a BBC investigative report and by a growing consensus of other reliable sources.
No surprise, but it is a reminder of just how eager some are for a new Cold War and how indifferent they are to the truth of the matter. The career hawks are influential in both political parties, as was evidenced by the knee-jerk response of both presidential candidates, who claimed that the Russians had launched a totally unprovoked attack.
Sen. John McCain, whose top foreign policy adviser had been a paid lobbyist for Georgia, was most eager to confront the Russians, while Sen. Barack Obama was a bit more cautious. But as recently as in his Oct. 29 infomercial, Obama promised to "curb Russian aggression," which hardly suggests the change we need from the unilateral belligerence of the Bush foreign policy.
The result of that policy has been increased estrangement from the one country whose cooperation is totally indispensable in the effort to control the spread of nuclear weapons, given that Russia possesses roughly half of the world's nuclear arsenal and the ready means to build more nuclear arms. Yet instead of putting up a common front against nuclear proliferation, and even before the Georgia fracas, the Bush administration insisted on placing missiles on Russia's borders in a deal-breaker with Putin, whom President George W. Bush had previously embraced.
Improved relations with Russia are critical to the change toward a more peaceful world that Obama has promised, but it is disquieting in the extreme that some of his closest advisers are inveterate hawks with a history of needlessly provoking tension with the Russians during the Cold War days. Key among them is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who, as President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, engineered the U.S. involvement on the side of Islamic fanatics in Afghanistan.
Of course, the official story line at the time was that the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan to support their ally, which happened to be the governing power in Kabul, against the fanatic mujahedeen rebels, whom President Ronald Reagan would later officially embrace as "freedom fighters." Those freedom fighters came to be united by our CIA with the likes of Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks.
It was decades later that the truth came out that the Soviets invaded only after being deliberately provoked by U.S. hawks. One of them was Robert Gates, who worked for Brzezinski in the Carter administration and who is currently the secretary of defense; President-elect Obama is now reported to be considering retaining Gates in that position. A 1996 press release promoting Gates' memoir promised the revelation of "Carter's never-before-revealed covert support to Afghan mujahedeen -- six months before the Soviets invaded."
The Gates revelation prompted an interviewer for the French publication, Le Nouvel Observateur, to ask Brzezinski in a 1998 interview whether he regretted "having given arms and advice to future terrorists," and Brzezinski replied: "Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? ... What is most important to the history of the world? ... Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?"
That was three years before those "stirred-up Muslims" attacked us on 9/11, but Brzezinski has not lost his nerve for escalating wars. While advising Obama, he gave interviews hyping the Russian "invasion" of Georgia as the occasion for a new global conflict, telling journalist Nathan Gardels that Putin's action "was ominously similar to Stalin's and Hitler's in the late 1930s."
I know, Obama is not yet in office. I voted for him with enthusiasm in part because he does seem to have transcended the preoccupations of the Cold War. But as a buyer, I have to beware of those unrepentant Democratic hawks now hovering.
Say What?
London Times report conveniently links alleged terror cells to Obama’s number one target - Pakistan
The notion that terrorists will attack America shortly after Barack Obama takes office is again being vigorously pushed by the corporate media as well as shadowy intelligence sources, and has reached the same crescendo that preceded 9/11, a disturbing sign that the public is being prepared for a newly manufactured mass casualty event.
The London Times today reports, “Barack Obama is being given ominous advice from leaders on both sides of the Atlantic to brace himself for an early assault from terrorists.”
“Lord West of Spithead, the (UK) Home Office Security Minister, spoke recently of a “huge threat”, saying: “There is another great plot building up again and we are monitoring this.”
The report links the activity to so-called Al-Qaeda cells operating out of Pakistan, which is certainly convenient considering Obama’s stated intention to support and even expand the scope of continued bombing raids on the country in the name of killing terrorists.
Is a new atrocity being planned so as to provide President Obama with the complete justification to attack areas of Pakistan, just as 9/11 provided the pretext for Bush to launch the pre-arranged attack on Afghanistan in the same year that he took office in 2001?
Warnings that Obama will face a crisis shortly after entering office have been voluminous.
Vice-President elect Joe Biden, told an audience in Seattle last month ”We’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”
Biden was vehement in his proclamation, stating that it was a “guarantee” and a “promise” that Obama would face an international crisis and that “tough” and “unpopular” decisions would have to be made to combat it.
Colin Powell made similar statements when he endorsed Obama on Meet the Press, saying “There’s going to be a crisis which will come along on the 21st, 22nd of January that we don’t even know about right now.”
Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright also told CNN’s John Roberts, “It’s just a statement of fact…something unexpected, you always have to be prepared for that.”
Top Obama advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski also told CNN that Obama will face “imminent problems” immediately upon taking office.
The confidence with which top globalists are forecasting a crisis that will unfold at some point next year is staggering and it strongly hints that a new manufactured horror is in the works to get the country behind Obama and mandate him to make the “unpopular decisions” that he is already preparing.
And that's why ABC is including the right-wing hate talker in a primetime special of the year's most fascinating people.
Because naturally, in a year when the country turned blue ABC should definitely celebrate the success of right-wing radio radio, right?
Of course this is how the how media elites have treated Limbaugh for years; he's not a hate merchant, he's an engaging entertainer. He's not hack, he's influential. Y'know, the way he was able to rally conservatives last winter to reject John McCain as their party's nominee and the way Limbaugh's non-stop attacks on Barack Obama were able to turn the tide of the general election.
Okay, those were complete failures and only highlighted Limbaugh's growing political irrelevance. But for celebrity journalists like Walters, the Limbaugh script was written long ago--he's fascinating. Anxious for his right-wing seal of approval (and spooked by his liberal bias charges), the mainstream press corps has for years treated Limbaugh with undeserved respect, worked to soften his radical edges, and presented him as simply a partisan pundit.
That's why Time's Mark Halperin has labeled Limbaugh an "American iconic" figure, while NBC News anchor Brian Williams fretted that Limbaugh doesn't "get the credit he is due" as a broadcaster.
Do you think there was any other reason the New York Times showered Limbaugh with attention this summer, with a laudatory Sunday magazine cover story (penned by a professional dittohead) that painted him as the brains of the GOP; "a polemicist and public intellectual."
To the 'liberal' New York Times, Limbaugh's a "funny," "public intellectual" who produces "fluent, often clever political talk" and who also "instructs" and "teaches."
And now Babs agrees.
Here's a friendly wager. I'll donate $5 (hey, we're in an economic crisis) to Walters' charity of choice for each of the following questions shes asks Limbaugh in primetime:
* Do you still think that' "what's good for Al Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party in this country today"?
* Can you explain how Obama "loathes America"?
* Do Democrats really "hate this country"?
* What makes you think "Democrats will bend over, grab the ankles, and say, 'Have your way with me' " to African-Americans and gays"?
* What makes you think philanthropist George Soros is a "self-hating Jew"?
* Why did you call Sen. Tom Daschle "an Al Qaeda sympathizer"?
* Are you gong to continue to refer to president Obama as a "Halfrican American"? Or the "little black man child"?
* Do you still think Obama is "not black" and that "he's Arab"?
* Were you able to find any proof that "Islamofascists are actually campaigning for the election of Democrats"?
If Walters ever got up the nerve to confront Limbaugh about his hate speech, now that would be fascinating.
Crossposted at County Fair, a Media Matters for America blog.
David Sirota - SF Gate
It wouldn't be the George W. Bush we all know if our shamed president didn't spend his remaining White House days in a final fit of polarization.
That's what Bush's moves this week are clearly about: dividing - not uniting. The New York Times reported that during his first meeting with President-elect Barack Obama, the outgoing president suggested he might support Democrats' economic stimulus package and aid to struggling automakers if party leaders "drop their opposition to a free-trade agreement with Colombia." While Bush later denied an overt quid pro quo, one was obviously implied.
Strange behavior? Yes and no.
Bush is the Texas Hold 'Em addict who raised on the largest tax cuts in contemporary history, re-raised on two wars and went all-in with an attempt to privatize Social Security. So yes, from a brinkmanship standpoint, it seems bizarre that in exchange for a massive legislative effort to right the entire economy, the cowboy president may insist on a tiny trade deal that - at best - promises a boost of "less than seven-hundredths of 1 percent to U.S. gross domestic product," according to the Brookings Institution.
But, then, Bush is the protege of Karl Rove and the son of President George H. W. Bush. So no, his Colombia demand isn't weird at all - nor is it as small a wager as it appears.
Bush understands what happened in 1993 when his father left an almost-finished North American Free Trade Agreement in the lap of President Bill Clinton's incoming administration. He knows that business interests subsequently pressured Clinton into joining with Republicans to pass the pact over his own party's opposition. His Rove-trained mind gets what the Nation's John Nichols reported: that the payout came with a 1994 election whose NAFTA taint delivered "a dramatic drop in turnout among members of union households," decreased "Democratic support in traditional areas of strength" - and thus birthed the Republican Congress.
Bush wants to replicate this Three Card Monte - and the Colombia trade pact is his ace in the hole.
The deal would reward a right-wing Colombian regime under investigation for links to paramilitary gangs, drug cartels and anti-union brutality. Like NAFTA, it includes few labor protections, meaning it will enrich Bush's corporate donors by forcing Americans into a wage-cutting competition with low-paid foreign workers. And, most important to Bush's legacy, the pact could bust Democrats before they ever have a chance to unify.
NAFTA proved that trade is the most divisive issue inside the Democratic Party. On one side is the party's Wall Street wing that supports free trade. On the other side is its progressive wing that wants our trade policies reformed. Lately, the latter has increased its clout. As globalization became a major campaign theme in the last two elections, the watchdog group Public Citizen reports that free trade critics replaced free trade proponents in 69 House and Senate races. These new populists, along with Democrats' more senior progressive incumbents, comprise a powerful new voting bloc promising to reject deals like the Colombia agreement and protect labor and human rights.
Therefore, if Bush successfully uses the economic emergency to hustle a faction of Wall Street Democrats into supporting the deal, he will have potentially engineered a 1994 redux: Democratic infighting, a demoralized progressive base, and these newly elected fair-trade Democrats humiliated - and thus electorally endangered - by their own party standard-bearers.
Certainly, with the president betting the economy on the Colombia deal, this is a difficult, high-stakes situation for Obama. But amid all the conflicting opinions he's hearing, he has the sound advice of country music's great political sage Kenny Rogers, who counsels that gambling greatness means knowing "when to walk away."
Creators Syndicate Inc. David Sirota is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network - both nonpartisan organizations. To comment, go to his blog at www.credoaction.com/sirota.
by Jaime O'Neill - The Smirking Chimp
Twenty million dollars will buy a great deal of division, hurt, and hatred if you can't think of anything better to do with such a large sum. $20 million is how much the Mormon Church spent to pass Proposition 8 here in California, with a blizzard of last minute TV spots intended to spread the fear that if gay marriage was allowed to stand, then 2nd graders would be exposed to homosexual indoctrination in California's classrooms.
It was all fear-based and dishonest, but as the saying goes, "it pays to advertise." If you don't believe $20 million can buy a lot of hate, here's a sampling of just the prejudices unleashed locally by Mormon moolah. The following sentiments were posted on the Paradise Post "comments" sites just before and just after the votes were cast.
A guy who called himself "Reagans Man" wrote: "The Paradise Center for Tolerence (sic) and Non-Violence is NOT what it's (sic) name implies. It is in fact a homosexual networking club that facilitates "hook-ups" between gay/lesbian/transgender types and serves as a political rallying point for the same people. It has been made clear lately that "tolerence" (sic) is not a two way street. Young homosexuals, by and large, are an angry, Godless, and hateful minority that can shout from behind the safety of the word "tolerence" (sic). Must we tolerate their foolishness?"
Someone going by the name "Billy Billy" was more direct. He wrote: "I hate gays. Vote yes on Proposition 8. "
And a woman calling herself "Pickie Chickie" wrote: "I'm just wondering if any of those gay guys got their high heels stuck in the lawns when trying to remove all those signs 'round town! I'm 50-years-old and can't believe how many gay people there are compared to when I was growing up! What is this country coming to? Next thing you know people into beastiality (sic) will be wanting to marry their favorite partner!"
A man who adopted the nom de plume of "F*** Off" wrote: "You disobey the way God wants things by defending gay marriage. I think of homosexuality as a plague on this earth. I think I speak for all of Godly Paradise when I say that gays are deserving of hatred."
Brian Jones, of DeSabla, wrote: "The two tongue and grove (sic) hags that were the first in Ca. to get married after the corrupt judges threw out the last two votes from the people saying NO are already saying that they are going to go back to the corrupt treasonous judges again and kick and scream until they get their way! Just like the little children liberals do."
And a guy who posted under the name "Sodomites Loose" wrote: "It's GR8 to be STR8! And no, we don't H8. We just know how to choose a M8. Guys marrying Girls, that's our true F8."
After the election, a man calling himself Joe Mahmuh (get it?) wrote: "Thank God Prop. 8 won. Now the 9th circuit court can take their last unpopular ruling and shove it up their robes... and marriage will remain like it was ORIGINALLY intended, putting this issue to rest. ACLU, go pound sand."
And "Sodomites Loose" checked in again, writing: "All the perverts can go lick each others wounds now, but they can't get married! I love it." Another ridge resident, who seems to spend a suspicious amount of time surfing gay websites warned: "Take a look at the freaks at a any gay pride event. Look at the men dressed in women's ballerina tights. Look at the public nudity. There are no doors concealing these perverse acts. Make sure the kids are not in the room and check it out for yourselves. Google images "gay pride parade."
Still another had this to say to those who had opposed Prop. 8. "You are nothing but hypocrites. You don't want tolerance, you want God to leave you alone so you can enjoy a perverse lifestyle with out any guilt, and without any fear of judgment. And you don't want anyone to remind you that you will face Him, as we all will. People do need to be judged, especially those who force their sin on everyone. Gay marriage has been judged, and found guilty. Now accept your judgement and get back into your closet."
So that's just some of the "Christian love" the Mormons helped bring out into the open with their $20 million bucks, along with an additional $10 million or so kicked in by their allies in the Catholic and evangelical churches, sowing enmity with each sign posted, each ad aired, each dollar spent. The people who spent all that money honestly felt put upon by other people asserting their rights, as though the very existence of gay people who would presume to "marry" one another somehow affronted them.
Joining with the Mormons in expressing their intolerance was, alas, a majority of the black community, almost 70 percent of whom voted for Proposition 8. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and when two historically persecuted minorities joined forces to persecute yet another minority, it was not a glorious day for either.
And, to the great shame of the community they are elected to serve, Tim Titus and Mike Greer, Mormon members of the Paradise School Board, allowed their prejudices to embroil the Board in an issue of public policy that far overreached their authority and sent a message of disdain and discrimination to the children under their supervision. It also empowered the gay bashing that is always present in high schools, where the word "faggot" is first among the most powerful words in the adolescent vocabulary.
So, kids, if you want to act out your insecurities by hassling some kids you suspect might be gay, just go right ahead; you've got your school board's seal of approval.
By Tume Ahemba - Reuters
LAGOS (Reuters) - A Nigerian court said an 84-year-old Islamic preacher with 86 wives should be released from jail after he was held for failing to heed a call by local leaders to divorce all but four of the women, his lawyer said.
The authorities in central Niger state had charged Mohammed Bello with "insulting religious" creed and "unlawful marriages" after local chiefs and Muslim leaders gave him a September 7, 2008 deadline to comply with sharia, Islamic law, which allows a man to have no more than four wives.
He was jailed after he failed to comply.
"The Federal High Court granted Bello unconditional release yesterday," defense lawyer David Ikotun told Reuters by phone from Abuja.
Niger is one of 12 predominantly Islamic northern states that started a stricter enforcement of sharia eight years ago.
Bello, who lives with his wives and about 170 children in the town of Bida, had pleaded not guilty to the charges at an Upper Sharia Court in the state capital Minna. But the judge refused him bail and ordered he be remanded in prison.
Before his detention, the preacher had filed a petition at a Federal High Court in the Nigerian capital Abuja seeking to enforce his rights and to be protected from local chiefs and Muslim leaders who threatened to banish him if he failed to divorce 82 of his wives.
"The judge also ordered that the inspector general of police provide him with adequate protection to ensure that his fundamental human rights are not infringed," Ikotun said, adding that Bello was still in custody.
The Niger state government said it will appeal the judgment, the lawyer said.
The court adjourned Bello's hearing to December 12.
His case has stirred controversy in Africa's most populous country of 140 million people, roughly half of whom are Muslims.
The preacher had received a number of death threats after Nigerian media began reporting on his situation in September, his spokesman said.
(Editing by Randy Fabi and Matthew Jones)
** Save Gas **
** READ A BOOK **
Search by Book Title/Author /Keyword
USA Today NEWS
USA Today SPORTS
USA Today WEATHER
The Other Big Mac, Ipods & More!
USA Today MONEY
USA Today LIFE
USA Today TRAVEL
"FORE...five...six...seven...."
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment