If you tell Congress everything about the world situation, they get hysterical. If you tell them nothing, they go fishing. – Harry Truman

One of two things occurred during the Bush administration (amongst other occurrences which number far beyond two). Either Americans became interested in politics or I noticed that Americans were interested in politics. One side effect of this political interest has been our obsession with the approval rating. We look to these ratings to see what the American people think about an official’s performance in office. While any poll is flawed, this is generally accepted for positions such as the Presidency or on specific issues. If you were to turn on your cable news more recently you’d probably learn that congress has a really depressing approval rating, even compared to the president. Do you know why it’s depressing? It’s depressing because no one ever explains the context of these approval ratings!

The ceiling in a congressional approval rating is not 100% it has never been 100% and it will never be 100%. The closest it has ever gotten to 100% was on September 13th, 2001—it hit 77%. The president hit 92% approval after September 11th. There are only 8% of American’s that would probably never approve of Bush Deux if given the right circumstances (does that make everyone else a bandwagon hater?). When it comes to congress, those same circumstances would leave 23% of American’s unwilling to ride the faketriotism wave.

Why doesn’t congress ever get to reach 100%? There should be something in it for every voter. It’s filled with Democrats, Republicans and even the occasional independent makes an appearance. It would seem that no matter which way the majority leans there should be more willingness to approve than for an executive that is uncompromisingly aligned with a specific party, but quite obviously it doesn’t work like that. Perhaps what American’s see in congress is incomplete power, regardless of the election’s outcome. A Democratic majority is not a powerless Republican party, or even a completely silent Republican party. The Republican senators still have access to the same media as the DEMs and they can utilize it to question the actions of their counterparts.

There is only one president at any one time, and he rarely publicly questions his own actions. Almost as rare is to have a former president question the actions of the current executive. The result being regardless of who steps up to take a swing at the Prez—we can’t take everything they say as complete truth, we understand that only one person knows what it’s like to be in the position of the president so no critique can really burn as much as it does in congress.

Another reason why congress can never get any decent approval ratings is because no member ever campaigns about how great a job the system is doing. People have always hated our “imperfect” system and the guy that claims it’s functioning optimally is probably going to find his political head on a stake. It’s necessary for congressmen and women to always build up their own accomplishments and seek reelection and pawn off their shortcomings on the fact that there are too many undesirables making up the rest of the legislative branch. The system is the perfect scapegoat. The majority of congressmen do not have abysmally low approval ratings, if you were to look at each one, you’d see that they traditionally have ratings much higher than congress as a whole.

It’s just a long running reality that people dislike the congress and approval ratings on the broad body itself have rarely yielded any sort of “approval” to be proud of. Congress is a body that rarely accomplishes anything in broad good-for-all strokes that leave us beaming at the power of the bicameral system. When the president happens upon some good luck or exercises his power we are able to point to him and see what he accomplished while there are too many heads in congress and too many people looking for the credit.

So while it’s tempting to jump on the bandwagon in the news recently about poor congressional performance. The real indicator of their shortcomings will probably be the turnover rate next November and not the approval rating today.

Congress Approval Rating Records

Cedric King writes frequently for his personal blog here. You can e-mail him at LCKv3D@gmail.com or take AIM at LCKv4.

“Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights.” -Christian Friedrich Hebbel

I debated the ways I would commemorate this. Perhaps I should put a blog discussing some other event from the same day with less media attention into the spotlight or send up a piece filled with my memories of the day on Moodspins. I considered a sharply worded column deriding the cable news and the NYTimes for having so many “are we overdoing our remembrance?” articles. Of course you can always post a heartfelt story about someone you know that has died either in the initial attack or the conflicts that followed.

By late morning I still hadn’t given much thought to today until my friend called for my opinion on all the different approaches the networks were taking. The Today Show chose to talk about Britney Spears being fat (then we wonder why young girls have eating disorders—she looked fine), some networks aired their footage from that day, and I’m sure they all showed some sort of gathering of people–remembering. There were other bloggers that took the approach I’d pondered and chose to ignore it…or ignore it by making appoint of saying “I’m ignoring it”.

The separation of having someone ask me what I thought was the right thing to do in this situation was probably what I needed the most. Different people deal with tragedy in different ways and none of them are wrong. I was reminded of the decision to not play NFL games that weekend and the debate that ensued. This is just that same argument we had and will continue to have until we each quietly come to terms with what occurred six years ago.

I heard one person say that they were beginning to cry more frequently as the approaching day became more central in their mind. My mom and I were watching United 93 until the last thirty minutes when she decided she’d rather finish it alone (I’d already seen it). There was talk about whether or not we should make it a national day of remembrance or if we should even continue to publicly remember at all.

I’m not going to cry today when thinking about what happened. I won’t be sullen and unable to smile or laugh. I’ll probably be slightly annoyed by reports about the war or the occasional human interest story I’ll see about children that were born on this day and if I see Ann Coulter crossing the street I’ll probably run her down…

Gradually it’ll become just another day, or maybe just another day off of work, because how many people still cry on the anniversary of Kennedy’s death or the day of the Oklahoma City Bombings? But how many of those same people that lived through and were touched by those tragedies can’t tell you where they were or what they were doing?

The day we eventually stop talking about it or stop fearing whether or not it’s too soon to mention it, forget to mention it, or politicize it will not be the day we’ve stopped caring about those we’ve lost. It’s a tragedy that will be a part of us whether we like it or not and we are hundreds of thousands of lives fewer for it.

Perhaps a good way to remember 9/11 is to remember that different people deal with tragedy in different ways. Different media outlets will think it’s proper to remember one way rather than another and every news station/individual will think they were the one that got it right.

I hope you all continue to remember in your own way.

Cedric King writes frequently for his personal blog here. You can e-mail him at LCKv3D@gmail.com or take AIM at LCKv4.

“Those with real power and influence are those with the most capital. And since the democratic system permits major corporations to back candidates, be they presidential or congressional, there shouldn’t be any cause for astonishment – and there isn’t any – in the Democrat’s failure to stop the war.” –Osama Bin Laden, September-ish of 2007.

With the approaching anniversary of the attacks that took place on September 11th Osama Bin Laden saw fit to release another amateur video directed toward the American people. While I agree that American’s should boycott the video I don’t think it should be done because “the terrorists WANT us to watch it”. Shunning information and relying on third degree reports is silly and for the most part how we got into our current state of affairs to begin with. Take a time out from your cable news sources. Don’t read online summaries of the transcript. Start out by reading the 6 page transcript that has no doubt already been butchered in translation anyway leaving no need to include some talking head’s spoon fed interpretation as well. After you’ve read it yourself, listen to what portions are being emphasized by the media.

This was the first transcript of Bin Laden’s I’ve actually given a read through. He of course discusses the Iraq War and the fact that American’s no longer want to be involved in it. As to the inability of a Democrat majority in congress to pull us from the war, he accuses the DEMs of being controlled by the same corporate lobbyists that he feels have steered the GOP towards war.

In fact Bin Laden’s complaints echo your cliché calls for campaign finance reform—I’d be in agreement with him had he not abandoned that point and demanded mass revolt from the shackles of capitalism. It was here that Bin Laden seemed to be veering towards a more Marxist point of view.

He then weighs in on religious harmony. The big three are all the same. Adherence to the Torah is the key to heaven. Following the teachings of Christ will lead you to salvation. The Qur’an is the last and most pure message from Allah and a failure to turn to him will result in a death outside of the one true religion. I suppose you aren’t deemed a fanatic by sticking to any one sensible point for a considerable amount of time…

I admit that it is fun to play guessing games with his health and try and figure out if he *gasp* dyes his beard. It is rather disconcerting to me that the perpetrator of an event that has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths released a video vowing continued attacks/reasons why he’s pissed and every major news source seems preoccupied with how he looks as if he hasn’t aged a day. Perhaps if Bin Laden really wants to reach the American public he should just stick to voice recordings because his appearance is more of a message hindrance than anything else.

Does he drop clues to what his next course of action will be? No…that’d be stupid… The video is to let you see he’s alive and up to date on world events as well as to lend his opinion as to what should be done to stop the war on terror. He’s also against global warming and thinks the US was arrogant in not signing the Kyoto Protocol (gosh…when will these damned tree huggers let that go?).

What does this video really tell us about Bin Laden? Not much. It just reaffirms his presence and maintains a unifying face for terrorist groups. It is our apparent obsession with analyzing every aspect of the tape (unless of course you’re a government analyst trying to look for clues as to his whereabouts…to you I say analyze away!) for visual items than looking at the actual message or when we do look to the message it’s as if we’re expecting to uncover some secret terror code. There is also the apparent contempt for Bin Laden as a “news hound” as stated by one CNN correspondent. (There is nothing wrong with wanting information.)

Read the transcript. It’s more interesting than what’s being repeated on the networks or in reports.

Cedric King writes frequently for his personal blog here. You can e-mail him at LCKv3D@gmail.com or take AIM at LCKv4.

“…the Armenian massacre was the greatest crime of the war, and the failure to act against Turkey is to condone it … the failure to deal radically with the Turkish horror means that all talk of guaranteeing the future peace of the world is mischievous nonsense.” - President Theodore Roosevelt, a letter to Cleveland Hoadley Dodge.

Like our never forgets of September 11th, I imagine the phrase “never again” didn’t mean much more than a way for us to feel better about what we’d lived through on a human level. If we can convince ourselves that were we fully aware of what was going on in Germany we would have intervened–and that in the future we shall–we can live with ourselves. But in reality our choices were dictated by a higher power, the consideration of us not as Americans but as America.

It’s irrelevant that ethnic cleansings and genocides happened before and since the holocaust. I have come to terms with the world’s injustices but still struggle with the world’s hypocrisies.

How can a state founded in response to human rights violations deny asylum to people fleeing for that very reason? How can a state founded in response to human rights violations deny people their right to even file for the asylum before denying it?

You can go anywhere and read about how what Israel is doing in regard to Darfur refugees is morally wrong. I’m sure there are a lot of people that can tell you why it’s the right thing for Israel to be doing as well.

While I do think it’s wrong, I’m not really a studier of Israel. I can however offer a few reasons I think Israel would send a bunch of refugees back to be allegedly abused in Egypt.

1. Just Trying to Fit In
Israel is of course the odd man out when it comes to the Middle East. It also doesn’t have the best relationship historically with Egypt. Sometimes it helps to play ball with your regions bully. Israel has law on their side in this case; they didn’t do anything illegal, “the deportations were in line with the internationally accepted legal principle of ‘hot return,’ under which infiltrators can be returned to the country from which they crossed the border shortly after they are caught” (Haaretz.com). So the infiltrators were returned. Will it affect the way other countries interact with Israel? Probably not, the United States does it and so does every other first world country. There is minimal backfire in this move and it gives Israel a little more traction with Egypt.

2. It’s the Economy Stupid
There are over 2,500 poor African refugees in Israel right now. Do you know what poor people do to a countries standard of living? Poor immigrants do place some burden on the financial stability of a country. Israel has a wonderful booming economy! Just as we here in America would never have an open border policy and allow a bunch of poor Mexicans to come in to take our jobs, abuse our country’s social services, and steal our girlfriends–the same won’t be allowed in Israel.

3. The Muslim Factor
So which God do these Darfur infiltrators pray to? The majority of Darfur victims are Muslims, so I’ll assume the majority of those fleeing Darfur are Muslim as well. It might not come to anyone’s surprise that Israel has a rather long history of problems with Muslims. Is it really in the best issue of the Arab-Israeli uncertainty to allow Muslim refugees from Darfur to enter? The eternal Holy War in place in this region could receive an even greater skew as the Muslim population grows with people from Darfur entering and deciding to stay.

It is not beyond understanding that Israel would return Muslims fleeing genocide and abuse to hostile Egypt. Perhaps it is in their best interest to act as Israel the country rather than the Jewish state in this situation and look for regional harmony. Much the same way it was in the western world’s best interest to look the other way to the evils of Hitler and embrace the peace of the 1930′s as long as was possible.

There is a degree of separation between state and humanity. It can be depressing to see that separation from the outside looking in or when looking back with decades of hindsight but it is the possibly the most common approach to any international interaction. States act in the interest of states, not with humanity, and not with fairness. That’s how a state created to remind us “never again” becomes a small player in the repetition of history.

My fellow citizens of these United States. I come before you today with a shocking revelation. Let me put aside my petty grumblings on the state of black society for you today and shed light on a truer cause—a more American cause.

We were fortunate enough to be born in a land of opportunity, a land where men and women have died in the name of our liberties. We are in a country where great orators have spoken for the propagation of these liberties unto the masses of this land, this continent and even today in the backward jungles of Iraq they fight for the dissemination of these freedoms amongst our global society.

Our nation is dedicated to the spread of truth where others would produce only lies, the provision of justice where others offer only prejudice, and freedom rather than the great tyrannies that would otherwise prosper abroad.

My Americans, we have failed in our great conquest. I am not speaking of the war on terror, terra, or Tehran. Our peaceful democracy has sullied her great name and failed at home in producing that which we wish to create amongst our future allies. In our struggle to right the wrongs for the few we have ignored the plight of the many.

I am of course speaking of the American judicial system, the greatest crime ever ignored!

60% of all inmates in American Prisons are people of color. Our prison populations have clearly shifted into the control of the non-white American; this is our country’s folly. For every 100,000 people in America it is likely that more than 3,444 of them will go to prison. Of that 3,444 there will be 2,290 Blacks. Of that 3,444 there will be 742 Hispanics. Of those 3,444 American citizens that we will place behind bars a mere 412 of them will be Whites.

The following statistic will reveal without a doubt that our prison system is in need of redress. Because we are a nation that is 81.7% white. Again I say it, we are a nation that is 81.7% white. This means that 18.3% of Americans have run amok. We have taken equality too far—or perhaps not far enough—we have been selfish, we are now guilty of the same crimes perpetrated upon our forefathers by the founders of this great nation.

It is not too late my fellow Americans. We can still turn back the clock. We can still find a means of restoring racial equality to our prisons. After all we are approaching what will surely be one of the most memorable elections of this generation. There is still time for us to take the greatest stride toward the American dream and toward equal racial representation in our prisons.

In November of 2008 we must take the right stand by putting more white faces on the stand. It is imperative that we begin to provide the same higher prosecution ratio for lower melanin holders that we grace our non-white citizens. For white people anything above jay-walking should come with a mandatory two year stay in a federal penitentiary. We need harsher sentences for lesser offenses, this is truly the first step toward prison population parity.

We have taken a great leap towards my plan already. Most recently we have seen a North Carolina District Attorney that nearly sent several Duke Lacrosse players to prison for a rape he knew they hadn’t committed. In return for this action the District Attorney himself will be served with felony charges and perhaps a short stay in prison. It is this kind of equal opportunity indictment that is necessary if we’re ever going to achieve optimal prison demographics.

My honest Americans the road ahead of us is a long one. There are many hurdles we must face before we can begin to right the wrongs of our society. Join me America. Join me and rise up to fulfill the true meaning of this country. A country where every man, woman, and child regardless of religion or creed but with increased regard to race can step up and serve a 3 to 5 year sentence for littering in a public park. Let us create an America where every white person from Paris Hilton to George W. Bush must receive the harshest penalty available for the smallest legal infraction. From here we can build a stronger, greater America.

God bless you reader and God bless America!

www.sentencingproject.org

Cedric King writes frequently for his personal blog here. You can e-mail him at LCKv3D@gmail.com or take AIM at LCKv4.

I’m also currently switching back and forth between Noam Chomsky’s “Interventions” and some guy’s book about presidents under pressure. I’ve never been a Chomsky reader, but Hugo endorsed him so he must be good…

“The United States’ intense and unscrupulous war has prompted not only Cuba, but also the European Union and countries like Canada, Mexico and Argentina, to pass legislation designed to protect their individual sovereignty and independence in the face of extraterritorial decisions adopted by the US Congress.” - Dr. Carlos Lage Davila, at the 55th Session of the United Nations Human Rights commission. Geneva, March 24th, 1999.

Fidel Castro has been the supreme leader of the Cuban government since 1959. That’s ten different US Presidents, six of whom are dead. At 80 years old (81 on August 13th) Cuba’s Comandante en Jefe is the source of more uncertainty than the island nation has faced since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Up for reelection next year many speculate that his younger brother Raul may be taking a permanent seat at the head of the Communist Party of Cuba.

Let’s not kid ourselves though. Raul, while impressive historically (Che Guevera was my homeboy), is no spring chicken himself. At 75 he will not be able to stave off the inevitable much longer than his older brother. So what’s next is the most feared moment in any young government, succession of power.

Unlike the Soviets before them, which were a band of countries that essentially wanted to be considered on par with western nations anyway, Cuba is caught between a rock and a hard place come the day there isn’t a Castro in charge. Soundbite media perception of Cuba is of a country with no political superstars other than Fidel and Raul. While that would make a collapse of the government all the more conceivable, this might just be unwarranted optimism by cable news.

Dr. Carlos Lage Davila is a former VEEP in Cuba. Clocking in at a spry 56 years old this man looks like the most obvious successor to Fidel’s regime. Not only does this young man have the trust of the Castro Family, he’s the little talked about figure in Cuba that’s been given a lot of responsibility from the ailing Fidel.

Davila can be seen meeting with Japanese officials or more commonly hobnobbing with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. Looking back at his career, it is quite the impressive laundry list of accomplishments. It is Carlos who is given much of the credit for bringing post-soviet Cuba to its current global stability. That means increased relations with the EU, overcoming the Sino-Soviet split by strengthening ties with China, and seducing Venezuela’s oil supply.

It may be that Raul is being used as a link to ensure the leadership position is given that smooth transition it needs from Fidel to the next generation Cuban authoritarian and that Carlos Davila is the true heir apparent.

It may just be wishful thinking by the US to assume that Castro hasn’t considered what will become of his country when he fades from mortality and into the annals of history. If we watch who it is making the country’s house calls then from an international relations point of view it is Carlos Davila that gives Cuba the best opportunity for success post-Fidel.

Not that switching from Castro to Carlos comes without risk. It remains to be seen whether or not Davila would be accepted by the people of Cuba. Whereas Raul Castro is not the most charismatic of men in political Cuba, he does have a revolutionary pedigree. It’s not as hard to sell Raul as a man of the people.

Davila is from a revolutionary family but came of age in a firmly Fidel Cuba. He isn’t particularly known as being anymore charismatic as Raul, but his popularity amongst political leaders and reputation for battling corruption within the government has led to his rising star.

While some see his role in the government as too willing to yield to the demands of Castro, it may just be his way of playing politics. Staying productive and in the good graces of El Jefe may allow Davila to step into a position where he can implement the mixed economy that he and many of his peers want so badly.

So it looks like the future of Cuba won’t be more of the same. While on the one hand it is doubtful that we’ll see it sign on as the 51st stat, it’s also unlikely that the next generation of Cuban leader will have much difficulty cutting down some of the red tape (get it, communist…red…) that separates it from more friendly interaction with the United States.

It is however much more likely that should Davila come to power we could see a stronger relationship building between the triumvirate of Hispanic leaders and new strength lent to Hugo and his plan for a stronger South America.

Carlos Lage Davila

Carlos Lage Davila Geneva Speech

Cedric King writes frequently for his personal blog here. You can e-mail him at LCKv3D@gmail.com or take AIM at LCKv4.

“And so, to the end of history, murder shall breed murder, always in the name of right and honor and peace, until the gods are tired of blood and create a race that can understand.” – George Bernard Shaw, “Caesar and Cleopatra”.

Three years ago after Thanksgiving dinner my family piled into a car to try and make it to Circuit City for a family shopping trip of sorts. After finding the store closed my mom pulled out of the shopping center and onto the road, driving for roughly 15 seconds in the wrong direction. First she panicked and then she quickly looked for a parking lot to pull into and turn around. Last month my little sister pulled a similar maneuver while practicing her driving. Neither my mom nor my sister was gunned down by a New York police officer causing their car to careen into another vehicle and burst into flames. Neither my mom nor sister is named Fermin Arzu.

Fermin Arzu was a Honduran immigrant in the Bronx that pulled a similar maneuver before getting shot at five times by an off duty police officer. The officer said he believed that Arzu was reaching for a gun in his glove compartment while fleeing the scene of an accident–when he opened fire with his personal firearm. Arzu was later found to be unarmed.

An unarmed black man shot in New York City, sound familiar? What about an unarmed black father engaged to be married next month? The similarities to the Sean Bell case didn’t go unnoticed; protesters used his Arzu’s funeral as an opportunity to remind the citizens and civil servants of New York that they still remember the March firing of 50 bullets at a Nissan filled with unarmed men. They still remember that morning when Sean Bell’s fiancée was supposed to be joined forever with her high school sweetheart and was instead told that she’d never see him again.

If you’ve ever watched an episode of Cops or High Speed Chases then you might remember that there is never a scene where police officers open fire on a moving vehicle. That’s because they aren’t supposed to. Regardless of whether or not the driver is armed or whatever fears they may have about the situation. It turns out cars are pretty heavy and like in the case of Fermin Arzu, have a tendency to keep going after the driver is dead.

Nicole Paultre Bell recently filed wrongful death charges against the NYPD and five police officers. She is claiming that the police officers in question were poorly trained in their shooting of her unarmed late fiancée.

I don’t know that there’s much that can be done outside of improved training that will end these sorts of incidents. Of course I believe to a degree that they are racially charged. It is not my belief that police officers are being recruited because of their prejudices or being trained to shoot unarmed black men. I do think that these shootings to be indicative of a greater problem. The number of unarmed white men being shot to death by police officers just doesn’t seem to be as high.

I do read these stories trying to have sympathy for the police officers. I take into consideration that these are people that knowingly place themselves in the line of danger on the daily. In these two cases, in the case of Amadou Diallo, and in those that will follow suit I do not see the reasoning.

I want to be angry. I want to hate the police. Mid-July I believe it was two NYPD officers that were gunned down while attempting to stop a stolen SUV, one fatally injured. I wanted to not care. These situations all become too real in the journey from “NYPD Police Officers” to Herman Yan and Russel Timoshenko. It’s hard to think of the officers’ families and then try to focus your frustration on them as perpetrators rather than two men that didn’t make it home that night.

I suppose you really can’t do more than wish the world was a little more perfect. A little more perfect with maximum sentences for all police officers involved in these kinds of cases in order to keep consequences of being trigger happy on the minds of officers. Maybe a better training and a stronger screening process as well.

Hopefully someday we’ll have a society where everyone gets to go home safely at night.

Cedric King writes frequently for his personal blog here. You can e-mail him at LCKv3D@gmail.com or take AIM at LCKv4.

“‘Knowing love I shall allow all things to come and go to be as supple as the wind and take everything that comes with great courage’ – This was my promise to Dennis during our marriage ceremony, knowing the beauty and enormity of the path of our life that lay ahead.” – Elizabeth Harper Kucinich, Wife of Presidential Nominee Dennis Kucinich.

Anyone that took the time to play the ’04 election game Political Machine during the last Presidential election will be familiar with the internet interview. Your candidate, in the course of seeking our nation’s highest office, is occasionally given the opportunity to meet with an internet talk show. During this show the candidate is often asked absurd questions.

A similar program ran on CNN tonight—but due to network reviews managed to produce often strong questions in innovative ways.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-0BPnnvI47Q

I came away from the debate feeling pretty comfortable with the final product. It seemed as though a lot of the questions asked were ones you’d heard before, but they had a different tinge to them when coming from the mouth of a private citizen—or snowmen.

Particularly entertaining was how the candidates reacted to the question of global warming. All the candidates were quick to talk about what needed to be done to address the issue but it was when Anderson Cooper followed up by asking how many of them took private jets to be present at the debate that the candidates looked guilty and slowly raised their hands.

Cooper was very impressive during the debate, trying hard to keep the candidates on topic when they addressed the questions and being able to maintain order on stage. It was Anderson Cooper’s wit that got laughs from me particularly at the end of the debate when the candidates were asked to say something nice about the person to their left.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLYRwEmY09M

The responses were pretty tame. Joe Biden had Dennis Kucinich to his left and quipped that the thing he liked most about Kucinich was his wife, agreed! Of course Dennis then had the opportunity to say something nice about the person to his left, but pointed out that there was no one to his left to compliment. Anderson Cooper shined here, quickly replying “Well we looked, but it’s quite difficult to find somebody to the left of you”. Loved it.

Immediate reports following the debate showed Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton as the top dogs of this YouTube foray and I’d be inclined to agree. While Dennis Kucinich scored some points from me tonight (even though I think he’s crazy) by calling Barack Obama out on his continued demand that he be recognized for his never wanting to enter the Iraq War. Kucinich of course responded with the following…

I introduced a plan four years ago, Anderson, that was a full plan to remove our troops. I’m the only one on this stage – (Barack starts to speak) excuse me — who not only voted against this war, but voted against funding the war.

It is not credible to say you oppose the war from the start when you voted to fund it 100 percent of the time, 70 percent, 5 percent of the time. Let’s get real about this war. Let’s get those troops home and let’s take a stand and do it now. Send a message to Congress now.
-Debate Transcript

Kucinich encouraged watchers to send a text message to P-E-A-C-E and bring our troops home now. I dropped him a line. I want to end the war. I sent a text to 73223. I got a response asking me to head over to www.textkucinich.us and offering me an opportunity to be kept up to date on the Kucinich campaign with regular messages. I felt I needed to pass on this great opportunity. If I get one more e-mail from Barack Obama I will be forced to kill again and I don’t want little Denny Kucinich to be the guy to push me over the edge.

My best friend also saw fit to toss ten bucks to Obama awhile back. Her reward? Every time that blocked number flashes across her screen she feels a hit to her wallet. He’s just so hopeful… You don’t want to disappoint a guy like that!

Not that we haven’t tried to push the poor man’s self esteem down the drain. Commonly believed to be too inexperienced to take office, Barack Obama has also been told he isn’t black enough to be President. He isn’t black enough to be President. The only black guy running for President is not black enough to be President. He gives up serious black points to Senator Edwards, Edwards of course growing up in North Carolina while Barack is himself still able to point out on a map where his ancestors in Africa are from and is therefore not subject to as much discrimination as Senator Clinton. A man with a blacker name than me is not black enough. Does the black vote even matter to the Democrats? I thought they took it for granted anyway.

In the end the biggest winner was Hillary. The biggest winner that doesn’t matter was Richardson. The biggest loser was Senator Obama who continues to look confident but can’t gain the ground needed to force himself into that number one position. The biggest loser that doesn’t matter was Joe Biden who ceded his position as the candidate you wish could win to another smiling face behind a podium.

Winners, losers, and something in between…

Winners

Hillary Clinton-
Hillary came into the debate (as she does every debate) with the lead. She stood in the middle and set the tone. She makes everyone around her look like an amateur. When Anderson Cooper asks her “Do you consider yourself a liberal?” and she responds that she’s a “modern progressive” then has everyone except crazy Mike Gravel and liberal Dennis Kucinich piggy back it–she’s emitting leader rays the likes of which these eyes haven’t seen since…well since that Republican debate when McCain started standing during the town hall portion of the debate and everyone else mimicked him. She walks into these events in control and doesn’t falter. It’s her election to lose and she doesn’t seem to be showing any signs of burning out, she’s the winner.

Bill Richardson-
Richardson was endearing and cocky. He’s been going into these things with this “I’m a racial icon and a former governer!” perspective that I’ve been hesitant to accept. Richardson came away looking like he had a good sense of humor and a little bit of intelligence. Bill won this debate simply because he finally decided to stop losing them, it’s a win compared to what he’s been doing before not an actual win.

Could Go Either Way

John Edwards-
Edwards wants to breakthrough and become the number one candidate and sometimes he does come close. Everytime Edwards says “healthcare” he gets a leader point. Sadly healthcare is a big issue but not the biggest issue and Edwards doesn’t shine on anywhere else. He tends to walk the party line in a bland and forgetable way on every other issue. Actually he likes to stumble around gay marriage rather than taking a position and defending it. He hurts himself as much as he helps himself. Honestly, if he wasn’t my pick for President he’d probably be in the loser section.

Dennis Kucinich-
No one gives this guy a chance. In a decade he’ll be Ralph Nadering it up-maybe sooner than later. It was during this debate that Kucinich was the brightest star in the crazy liberal sky. Dennis was liberal, but approachable. I could see myself voting for him during this debate. This is a big moment for me, I really loath crazy liberals. Kucinich was charming and combatative. Scoring an “ehh” performance is pretty respectable when its Dennis Kucinich.

Losers

Barack Obama-
Barack Obama will not disappear. The average American is aware of two candidates, Hillary and Barack. If you look long enough someone is usually aware of the clean cut white boy from North Carolina. His debate performances are pretty hit or miss. It doesn’t matter if the guy dodges a question as long as he dodges it without making it obvious. He dodged well when crazy Mike Gravel brought up his campaign contributions. If you poke Barack he can poke back. Sadly he doesn’t champion any causes, he doesn’t swing at Edwards or Clinton. He comes out of every debate looking like he’s in over his head when compared to the front runner. I wish he’d waited a term or two before running, hopefully he ends up running as the VEEP so he can make a serious run for the White House in 2016.

Chris Dodd-
Chris Dodd was a ghost during this debate. He was forgetable and the result is that he was forgotten. My college mentor was actually a staffer for Dodd back in the early nineties. Like most senators (in my belief) he’s supposedly a stand up guy.

Joe Biden-
Senator Biden looks to be burning out. He was seriously challenging to break into the top 3 earlier in the year. Now the guy fades as he shows his age during these debates. He can make solid points (though he didn’t have many during this debate) and he can drag weak ones on a little too long (the guy referring to his gun as “baby” was a freak, didn’t need Biden to say it six different ways). He continues to be a candidate that could have run the table if he were a decade younger, or at least could keep up the act.

Mike Gravel-
Gravel is angry, yelling, passionate and confrontational. He doesn’t climb the ladder, he just comes off as crazy. I wish I could say that it was just the way he was being portrayed. The guy makes occasionally solid points with a curmudgeonly edge and they tend to get glossed over while he fumes.

If you missed the debate, it’s available at http://www.youtube.com/debates.

Cedric King writes frequently for his personal blog here. You can e-mail him at LCKv3D@gmail.com or take AIM at LCKv4.

I have always had a fondness for fish tanks. Ever since I was in middle school and my Rainbow Shark (“Michael Jordan”) saw fit to kill himself by leaping out of the bowl, smacking himself on the shelf above his tank, and then plummeting to the kitchen floor where he ceased to move I have had poor luck with fish.

In 2004 I bought a twenty gallon tank that might as well be a fish concentration camp. I filled it with red rocks and a large red tunnel. There’s also a red tinged plant and some Greek columns sticking out of the gravel. (The theme of the tank being “Life on Mars”.) Three shopping trips worth of fish met their doom in this tank up until it turned a year old in 2005. From then on it has housed a single fish, Jelli (yes…spelled like a 12 year old girl would spell it).

I don’t recall what type of fish Jelli is and can’t tell whether it’s a guy or a girl. So its gender alternates with my mood. I’ve maintained that I’ll be buying a 40 gallon tank and moving on to fish that will require burial rather than the ol’ flusheroo as soon as Jelli kicks the bucket. Oddly, despite my incompetence and disinterest in Jelli’s environment, the little hermaphrodite continues to prosper. Turning two this August, I have mixed feelings about her/him.

I want my new tank…but I think I’m emotionally attached.

Do I think it can still be done? Yes, I do. I’m just not sure if it can be done on the kind of time lines and with the kind of time pressures that the situation back home has generated. –US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. Whether or not victory in Iraq is possible.

In early January I posted a blog at yhbm.cedramania.com that was heavily in favor of the President’s planned troop surge. I announced my support of the decision a full day before Bush introduced the idea and by the time he’d taken the podium the post became (and to this day remains) my most viewed piece. If I could do it again I’d drink less coffee and proofread it but my feelings at the time would remain the same.

Mid-summer has public opinion at about the same level it was earlier in the year with regards to the War in Iraq. Americans were and are tired of it.

While I wouldn’t characterize myself as “war weary” like the rest of America surely is. I think in my mind the chances of success in Iraq have clearly shifted. I supported the troop surge, because it seemed as though it was the President’s last stitch effort to force some success in a floundering situation. I also did and do feel a sense of responsibility to the population of Iraq, I have no doubt that the sooner we leave the sooner all hell breaks loose.

I don’t think that it’s too much to ask of our army, that they remain abroad trying to hold together this shell of a country so long as there’s a reasonable chance for success. If it was the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong colored camouflage it’d still be their duty to serve in it. As it stands now I’d say there is no nobler cause than trying to keep a distance between human lives and the bloody result of our departure but public sentiment indicates we’ll probably leave before getting close to “Mission Accomplished”. If our pull out is all but certain aren’t we now asking troops to die for hardheadedness rather than freedom?

Iraq is going to collapse; the troop surge has come and gone. While I didn’t expect the problems of Iraq to be resolved by now, I didn’t expect the surge to be a surge in US and civilian casualties. Whatever arrogance makes us need to hold on to Iraq, a fear of encouraging the terrorists or further instability in the Middle East—the longer we spend in Iraq the less likely it is that we’ll be able to pull together for the “right” war if it should ever come along.

I don’t believe we’re at risk of weakening our military by having spent a prolonged amount of time in Iraq, I have no doubt that we could crush any challenging regime within a handful of weeks. As for constructing a nation in the wake of that crushed regime, I think we’ve proven that we’re not comfortable with the cost of successful nation building.

What really faces our nation after we pull out of Iraq anyway? Fast forwarding through the carnage and guilt part, the state that forms in Iraq will either be consistently unstable for most of our lives or somehow manage to function as a singular or multiple entities.

Regardless of their disposition toward the United States, whatever forms in Iraq has at least a decade before it will be able to potentially maximize its oil income and maybe build an economy. By then who’s to say what the state of the world will really be, it might not even matter whether or not the state(s) that come to fruition in the area we now refer to as Iraq are friendly or hostile to us. On that same note, even if the entity does dislike us—is that really a big change from what we’ve been dealing with since Desert Storm anyway?

In my opinion the worst thing that could happen in Iraq would be the likely continued lack of stability. Their weak government will of course make the Middle Eastern area an ideal location for terrorist organizations. Isn’t this happening regardless? Anti-western sentiment isn’t going to disappear because we manage to fix the mess in Iraq. Terrorist recruiting will probably strengthen regardless of whether or not we manage to establish what would be considered a “puppet” nation in the midst of a hostile region.

It’s sad for me to have to admit to myself that our only real options in this situation are pull out now or pull out later. The insurgency won’t be bending soon and the Dems will eventually get the votes to bring us home before we can put in the inconceivable amount of time that will be necessary to restore some semblance of Iraqi order. I don’t doubt that the result of our leaving will be catastrophic, but that is after all the world we live in.

I am not ready to admit to myself and most certainly not to you the reader that the War in Iraq was a mistake. Was it mismanaged? Yes. Were we misled? Yes. Neither of those truths mean that Saddam wasn’t deserving of his fate. It’s the people of Iraq that deserved better though. Multilateral offensives and greater non-military aid sent by the United States if not the entire world.

It is necessary or us to leave this situation because we have little chance of success. We’re throwing away the lives of our troops on a lost cause. It’s time to bring these soldiers home not because it’s the wrong war, but because they’ve given their all in a hopeless situation and have fulfilled their duty to America.

Let’s be sure that when the smoke clears that America serves its duty to the world and especially to Iraq by assisting in picking up the shattered pieces left behind by the events that follow our departure, regardless of the outcome.

Cedric King writes frequently for his personal blog here. You can e-mail him at LCKv3D@gmail.com or take AIM at LCKv4.

The girlfriend is getting ready to head out on a 6 week trip to Bolivia. Those are always lovely, extended vacations with little to no contact with loved ones. That’s actually the inspiration for the next string of “A Global Look” updates. I’m excited…

Speaking of loved ones, I got to see the Chicago Bulls pick up Joakim Noah. I know some people are against a trade for Kobe, but I have too many Laker fans as friends to not jump at the opportunity to rub the stealing of their star player in their faces. I don’t personally think the Bulls need to sacrifice as much to get him. The way I see it the guy should be cheap as his agent has guaranteed he wont be in a Lakers uniform during the upcoming season. They have to drop him! Maybe he’ll kill our unity, but I bet we can squeeze on championship out of him.

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. –President Bush, Address to Joint Session of Congress. September 20th, 2001.

When Fidel Castro ceded power to his brother Raul last summer I did the same three things any of us would have done. First I lamented at the fact that my parents saw fit to bless me with a little sister instead of a brother, surely a handicap when I achieve world domination. Second I mocked the guy interning in the cubicle next to me named Raul. Finally I told my good friend that if I was ever in a position of power and passed the torch to her—she was obligated not to give it back.

I know that it doesn’t seem kosher in the bigger scheme of global politics. I mean on the one hand it’s his little brother so you’d think killing him off would be out of the question. But is this really a solid decision on Raul’s part?

Cuba is a state involved in a slow transition. The Berlin Wall has fallen and Cuba’s private sector has been slowly gaining momentum. I lack the economic background to really say anything more than that on the dollars and cents, but how far can this little country be from having the embargos placed upon it lifted by the United States (about as long as Fidel has breathing)?

There is a hurricane sweeping across South America in the form of Hugo Chavez. Chavez of Venezuela has become quite the opposition to our very own little Satan. He often finds his way into American news by providing colorful commentary to missteps taken by our administration. He is fast becoming the face of the South American alternative. Just what is it about Chavez that makes him so gosh darn hated around here?

Venezuela is another country making big moves toward a more active future, we see shades of what Chavez hopes it will become. Is Chavez taking a stand against the Bush Administration or does he stand against America itself?

Finally, there’s a new face in the world of South American political leadership. He’s every bit as outspoken as Hugo and a little more working class than our own Cowboy in Chief. Evo Morales is the leader of Bolivia, an Indian that came to financial power with his openly admitted reliance on the production of coca (the stuff that we use to make Advil).

Morales is leaning ever closer to the future that Chavez envisions for the world. He finds himself increasingly popular with Bolivian lower class and has also proven to have quite the sharp tongue when it comes to the United States.

There is a new world forming south of the United States. Our old enemy is fading and our new ones are starting to take up the reigns. Where an end may be visible with our Cuban cold war enemy a new opposition is making itself known in Bolivia and Venezuela.

Over the next three installments we will explore the movements forming in each of these countries. We will take a closer look at the new winds of South American (and Cuban) political and economic development as they try to challenge western dominance of the third world.

Cedric King writes frequently for his personal blog here. You can e-mail him at LCKv3D@gmail.com or take AIM at LCKv4.