Your news & views … open thread …

by b real
(lifted from a comment)

There was a widly circulated November 5th Associated Press story on skepticism and distrust greeting AFRICOM:

Skepticism, distrust greet America’s new military command in Africa.

The story was heavily reissued again this afternoon under the headline:

Skepticism Greets New US Africa Command. 

The word "distrust" was dropped and the command is no longer "military". There are other subtle but interesting changes, the most significant of which I’ve noted below.

Nov 5th version

Africans are concerned the new command is an American attempt to project military might, unnecessarily bringing the global war on terror to their own backyard.

They also wonder whether it is a ruse to
protect America’s competitive stake in African oil and other resources
increasingly sought by rising powers like China and India.

Nov 6th version

Some Africans are concerned the new command could draw the continent deeper into the global war on terrorist groups.

Others wonder if it is meant to protect
America’s competitive stake in African oil and other resources
increasingly sought by rising powers like China and India.

.. more below the fold ..

Cont. reading: A Sanitized AFRICOM Story

Q But what he says what he’s doing is against the terrorists, that is necessary to preserve stability there against terrorist organizations?

MS. PERINO: We do not believe that any extra-constitutional means were necessary in order to help prevent terrorism in the region. And that’s why we are deeply disappointed with the actions, and we asked them to not do it.

Q Is it ever reasonable to restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism?

MS. PERINO: In our opinion, no.
Press Briefing by Dana Perino , Nov. 5, 2007

With two Democratic Senators’ votes the Senate
Judiciary Committee approved Mukasey’s nomination to head the
Justice Department. Another torture advocate will occupy the highest legal office of the United States.

There was and is one point missing in the hearings and the public discussion about Mukasey and torture. What about torturing innocents?

There are 2 million people imprisoned in the U.S. It is certain that some of these are not guilty. Even with all due process, assumption of innocence and appeal procedures, some innocent people are trapped as guilty by misleading circumstances. The society has agreed to take that risk and is trying to minimize it.

But the assumption in the discussion about torture seems to be that only "terrorists" will have to endure it. It is very unlikely that all accused as "terrorists" are such. As due process and appeals are missing in processing "terrorists", the number of ‘false positives’ of the test hypothesis ‘is terrorist’ is likely much higher than those in the legal trial test hypothesis ‘is guilty of the crime’.

The question to the society should therefore be about "torturing innocents", not about "torturing terrorists" as it is asked during the current discussion.

The question is: "How many innocent shall be tortured to get a, possibly false, confession from a terrorist?"

Has someone asked Mukasey? Or Senators Feinstein and Schumer?

Henry A. Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, writes an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times about corruption in Iraq.

The reference to the op-ed on the opinion web-page says:

Is Maliki’s corruption worth American lives?
By Henry A. Waxman

The Iraqi prime minister is presiding over a government that is stealing us blind.

‘Stealing us blind’???

Waxman’s piece itself remarks:

Cont. reading: Waxman Blames The Victims

Apres Deluge says:
(pictures added by b)

Walking outside the MoA cyber-cirquel-jerk for some fresh air and a smoke, noticed float glass on the windows of a recent converted condo tower. Float glass! From 19th Century! Single pane float glass with R 0.9 insulation, little better than wax paper, a whole building full of it! Then another, and another, walking around, I realized most downtown apartment buildings still have wooden sashes and single pane glass! Compared to R19 walls, energy loss of single pane windows is 19 times!

heat leaks – source: infratec

Would it be that terribly difficult to organize a protest march at every new condo conversion, and demand that, in addition to finding replacement housing for the soon to be evicted low-income tenants, who can no longer find replacement housing now that every apartment building is being condo’d, would it be that difficult to demand that the condo conversions must meet current energy criteria for double or triple panes?

Cont. reading: R 0.9 Insulation

Friday:

U.S. Secretary of State Rice is making noise that Musharraf must stick to ‘Democracy’ and not declare a state of emergency. This to bring the disgraced but U.S. supported Benazair Bhutto  back to power.

"I think it would be quite obvious that the United States would not be supportive of extra-constitutional means," Rice said. "Pakistan needs to prepare for and hold free and fair elections."

Also Friday, U.S. Centcom commander Fallon visits Pakistan for talks.

Both now that further violence in Pakistan, fueled in parts by the U.S. conflict with the Pashtun in Afghanistan and Waziristan, will excaberate the situation and make it more likely that Musharraf will (have to) take the step.

But then, the very same day, the U.S. kills another 10+ people within Pakistans border:

Cont. reading: Musharraf Teightens The Reins

Mearsheimer & Walt’s The Israel Lobby gained outrage  and continued attempts to suppress it from AIPAC.

But there is criticisms on the study’s theses from a different side too. In that view the Lobby is not of really significant influence on U.S. Middle East policies, but used as an excuse by other forces.

Stephen Zunes writes in Tikkun:

I am in no way denying that the Israel Lobby can be quite influential, particularly on Capitol Hill and in its role in limiting the broader public debate. However, it would be naíve to assume that U.S. policy in the Middle East would be significantly different without AIPAC and like–minded pro–Zionist organizations.
[…]

Cont. reading: Views on ‘The Israel Lobby’

Open thread … please leave some news or views …

Wonder why the stock markets are tanking today bespite a $41 billion inflationary injection by the Fed?

Well – this is what official U.S. economic numbers are about: Inflation was low because oil prices surged

The above is not an Onion piece but a well-founded explanation of ‘serious’ official U.S. ‘economy numbers.’

Yesterday we learned that U.S. growth was 3.9 percent and inflation down to 0.8%. But the same day these good numbers made the Fed to cut its interest rates? "Who do you believe – me or your lying eyes."

Today some economy blogger found out that Maybe the Real Reason for the SIV Rescue Plan was to save Citibank from going belly up.

Welcome to the club. I wrote about the Citigroup Bailout via the SIV plan and included the likely  ‘belly up’ scenario two weeks ago. Why does it take people so long to catch up on the plain obvious?

In the big picture the bailout for the rich is running via the Fed induced inflation: Rising Prices Widen Gap Between Rich and Poor

Although higher prices also mean higher wages and salaries, the tax authorities are the first to benefit from the incremental earnings — but not when it comes to high earners. Not much changes for those who have already reached the highest tax bracket, while everyone else is affected by what is known as cold progression: the marginal tax rate changes with each additional euro in income, resulting in a more uneven distribution of the tax burden.

The scenario I see gets worse each day. ‘You ain’t seen nothing yet,’ is the tune I can’t get out of my head right now. If you thing the great depression was an impressive show, this downturn will leave you staggered.

Get out of the markets, stocks, US$s and variably mortgaged housing, while you can.

Stephen Colbert prepares to file as a candidate for the South Carolina primary today.

I welcome this. He brings seriousness into the race and, as he wins, back into the White House.

But I am unsure of his position on UFOs. Does he understand people’s concern about the issue? Will he take a firm stand?