How Arafat Destroyed Palestine
The Atlantic has an article that goes into detail about Arafat's use of money to enrich himself and his friends. (unfortunately the article cannot be accessed in full through the website.)

Al-Masri a leading financier of the Palestenian national movement. He made a fortune in the oil-services business. He considers Arafat a "great man". He also says some very revealing things, for those who want to blame Israel for the palestenian people's poverty. "Ah, he (Arafat) thought money was power," The money he spent to buy the loyalty of his court, al-Masri gently suggests, could easily have paid for a functioning Palestenian state instead. "With three hundred, four hundre million dollars we could have built Palestine in ten years. Waste, waste, waste. I flew over the West Bank in a helicopter with Arafat at the beginning of Oslo, and I told him how easy we could make five, six, seven towns here; we could absorb a lot of people here; and have the right of return for the refugees."

Though Arafat routinely cut his bequests to ordinary Palestenians to half or a third of what was asked, no such economies were inflicted on the petitions of his top officials.

The amounts of money stolen from the Palestenian Authority and the Palestenian people may exceed one half of the total of $7 billion in foriegn aid contributed to the Palestenian Authority. The IMF has conservatively estimated that from 1995-2000 Arafat diverted $900 million from the Palestenian Authority coffers. Arafat also made money for his friends and family members through monopolies on products sold to Palestenians and no-bid contracts.

A secret report prepared byan official Palestenian Authority committee headed by Arafat's cousin concluded that in 1996 alone, $326 million, or 43% of the state budget, had been embezzled, and that another $94 million, or 12.5% of the budget, went to the president's office, where it was spent at Arafat's personal discretion. An additional 35% of the budget went to pay for the security services, leaving a total of $73 million, or 9.5% of the budget, to be spent on the needs of the population of the West Bank and Gaza. The financial resources of the PLo were never included in the state budget. Ararfat hid his personal stash, estimated at $1 billion to $3 billion, in more than 200 seperate bank accounts around the world, the majority of which have been uncovered since his death.

HRC at the DLC
Watched Hillary Rodham Clinton on C-Span, giving a speech at the DLC Annual Meeting.
One word - BORING!
Sorry, the woman has no charisma, and is boring when she speaks. If she wins the nomination in 2008 the Dems will be introuble. Mark Warner is the Democrats best chance at getting back into the White House.

Response to DevP of FreedomDemocrats.org

Sean, I'm writing up a response and will have it up at FreedomDemocrats.org soon, but I wanted to make one side point for now. A big reason that you're seeing "conflicting" claims is that you're amalgamating all antiwar advocates as one, unified, mixedup "Left". In reality, the Democrats represent a lot of diverse interests, and each having their own "solution". (For example, isolationist "just get out" sentiments vs. internationalist "UN 4EVAR" sentiments.)

Really? I have found very little diversity in the antiwar bunch's comments or reasoning. Maybe there are some differences regarding when to withdraw from Iraq, but outside of that there is great uniformity in their comments. The problem is not mixed answers, but inconsistent logic and anti-Bush hatred. The answers to the questions by DevP follow the exact same logic and wording that I have heard from every anti-war person. Now to the questions.

1. Do acts of violence prove we are losing?
His answer was, no. I just want to expand on why I asked this question. Everytime there is a suicide bombing I hear the screed "see, it's a catastrophe!" from the anti-war left.

2. Should we send more troops, or begin withdrawing?
"...A big drawback of this war (and blowing off allies) is that our manpower resources are totally tapped, weakening our response power elsewhere in the world. "
So, do we start withdrawing? Honestly, not right away - an abrupt withdrawal will only create blowback. However, I most certainly do not favor the neo-con idea of setting up permanent forward stations in Iraq, either.

Where has our response been weakened? Not theoretically, but actually.
Once again an anti-war response that is more reactive than pro-active. The comment attempts to define itself more by what it does not think, in comparison to the "neo-cons", instead of on its on logic. (Please, do not use neo-con so loosely)

3. If we need to stay, then what should we do differently?
Get allies. Seriously. I know it's hard, and it's been done, but there have been some obvious diplomatic blunders that have cost us the presence of foreign manpower. Frankly, we just need more resources, and we shouldn't have to shoulder the burden. Getting foreign support means some compromises, but that is what diplomacy is all about. It diplomatic compromise free up enough resources to be more flexible and better defend our homeland, that's certainly worth it.

Not an answer. Thats like telling someone filing for bankruptcy, to get money. The assumption of this comment is that "but for Bush our allies would run to our side". It ignores their own intentions, and they did not run to Clinton on Kosovo. Maybe, you need to realize it is a weakness of those countries not our President. What compromise would bring in an ally that is not already there? what ally will run in, while we are leaving? Same oversimplified answer.

Allow gradual FDI into the country, integrating into local concerns, so that a strong local economy takes root. I'm not against foreign businesses working alongside Iraqis, but I'm concerned about our no-bid sweetheart deals to larger US businesses. Also, make sure the oil rights stay with Iraqis. They'll be hella pissed otherwise. (Maybe put an Alaskan model in place?)

FDI is already allowed. They already have control over their oil.

4. What does winning look like?
Iraq as a busy, noisy, squabbling civil democracy. Middle-class Iraqis sitting in Baghdad cafes, complaining about Iraqi politicians, rather than American ones.
Troops back home, getting well deserved time with their families.

Non answer again. The entire point of asking the questions is to make those who oppose the war actually have to think about answers, not just slogans.
All troops home? Those circumstances already exist in Iraq. They will probably always find a reason to complaina bout American politicians. No details, no real answer. If the present situation is failure, then what is success?

5. Did you support Kosovo? If so, explain how that is morally and legally different from Iraq?
Genocide: it's a big deal.
Similarly, I would support principled intervention in Darfur. There have been war crimes committed by the Baath regime in Iraq, but they are, frankly, at a different scale, which matters when we have only limited resources.
That all said: they same kinds of burdens apply in both cases. Clinton's approach to Kosovo would have benefitted from being more transnational rather than unilateral. (NATO is better than nothing, but still.) Also, note that we didn't have long-term designs on staying in the Balkan region.

There was no genocide in Iraq??? How many have to be killed in a genocide in order for it to reach the "scale" you feel is needed to qualify for American military action? We dont have long term designs on staying in Iraq. Yet, we are still in the Balkan region, so was that a failure?

6. Was Iraq a greater or lesser threat than Afghanistan before 9/11? After 9/11?
(Sidenote: we're already in some fallacy by assuming that there is some magical world-change before and after 9/11. In fact, the same trends in the world, and the same violent fundamentalists, were all around and building pre-911 and post-911. What changed then was our response, and some of the climate, but I think that for security's sake we need to be taking a longer view of these dangerous trends.)

I am not assuming anything magical happened after 9/11, i am asking for clarity.
For example. would the US have been wrong to attack afghanistan, if it knew of the 9/11 plans? we had evidence that Osama was involved in other terrorists attacks on America territory. Did they become some military threat after 9/11? Although his comment does show the idea that many anti-war people hold, that there is nothing really different after 9/11. That is like saying there was nothing different after Pearl Harbor except for America's response. There was already a war, we just joined in the battle. It is a way of minimizing any post 9/11 actions.

So, Afghanistan was explicitly harboring Al Qaeda, and strongly suspected to contain bin Laden. They were, as a nation, broken (and taking down the Taliban was a good thing, but not directly related

They were broken as a nation? what does that mean? But no genocide, right? why not just attack Al Queada? why take out an entire nation? You admit the Taliban was not directly related, then why approve of it?

7. Why are you still arguing about WMD and why the war started?
So, WMDs were, really, a big part of making the case for war when we were deciding to go to war. We had other reasons retroactively, like liberating Iraq and that wacky "buglamp" theory", but this is crucial: when we, as a civil society, were debating going to war, the greatest impetus to approving of the war was that we were under imminent danger from an Iraq containing WMDs. This deliberative process is absolutely vital for democracy.

None of those "wacky" reasons are retroactive. Just because those on the left who never supported the war, did not know all the reasons, does not mean they did not exist. You guys need to admit, that you never supported the war, therefore are not sure about the reasons why most people supported the war. You can only assume why.
There you go with the "imminent threat" comment again. (Which at this point is a lie). How many times will you on the left keep repeating something so blatantly false. Bush never claimed it was imminent, he never claimed Iraq was on the verge of creating nuclear weapons.
Also, it would not have changed your opinion about supporting the war. So why do you suddenly find it important? If it was not important enough to change your mind, why do you assume it was THE issue for those who supported the war? (Hint: it wasn't)

If the claims were honestly "misstated", but by accident, then this is a case of gross negligence, and even if it was an error in good faith, it was still a great error that deserve rebuke. This is a game with friends were you forgive the nice guy: this is about the security of the country, and we deserve only excellent security. So if the very claim that defended and entire war operation was incorrect, that reflects very poorly on the Administration's ability to use their resources to keep us secure. (And to be fair: it reflects poorly on the Senate for uncritically going along with it.)

So was Clinton negligent with the Sudan intelligence when he bombed an aspirin factory? (I have never accused Clinton of lying- about that issue). Intelligence is never 100%, you are always acting in partial darkness. when EVERY intelligence agency on earth, says that something exists. And the one person (Saddam) who can prove otherwise refuses to do that. Then how is it a lie?
The humanitarian organizations inclusding the UN claimed there would be hundreds of thousands of refugees created by the war. That turned out to be completely untrue. Does that make them liars?
The Senate was not uncritical, they read the same intelligence, and came to the same conclusions. Just because the information turned out to be partially untrue, does not automatically mean they were uncritical. Your comments suggest that more questions, would have magically made the intelligence look different. It is another oversimplified answer, that attempts to appear like a bi-partisan critique.

If the claims were purposefully misleading, to use an erroneous WMD case when this was not the core justification, then this is much, much worse. This is effectively subverting the deliberative process and taking advantage of the great trust we put into our chief executive. If we are purposefully being fed bogus data from our leadership, it makes the entire deliberative process moot, and is a strong condemnation of the Administration. (And to be fair: it reflects poorly on the Senate for uncritically going along with it.)

Let me point out, the IF in the answer is exactly the problem. There is no IF involved. We know that we were not purposefully given misleading or bogus information. There has been absolutely no evidence to the contrary. Yet, the anti-war side likes to present their attack as a question, to somehow give an impression of being open to reasoning.

Unfortunately DevP just repeated most of the same answers I have already heard from the left.

Iraq Questions II:

Did you support Kosovo? If so, explain how that is morally and legally different from Iraq?

How is the Iraq War illegal? According to what statute and what legal authority?
What makes that legal authority a higher authority than the US Constitution?

Was Iraq a greater or lesser threat than Afghanistan before 9/11? After 9/11?
Please explain. Since Afghanistan had no real military, no advanced weapons, a much worse economic situation, no funds to buy or build real weapons. The Taliban protected Al Queada operatives, but the Afghanistan government never threatened the US.

Why are you still arguing about WMD and why the war started?
It is like the left is determined to make those who supported the war cry out "uncle!". The intensity that they are determined to make others admit Bush lied about WMD is as bad as any cult. They never admit that even if the case for nuclear weapons was overstated, that does not equal a lie. There is also no context regarding the illegal weapons we know Saddam had, and the fact that chemical weapons are considered WMD. (I always felt that chemical weapons threat should have been emphasized more than the nuclear.)

A Few Questions for the Anti-War Faction (Part 1):
I keep hearing over and over only complaints from the left. They seem to attack everything regardless of the lack of logic or facts. Whenever I have asked for solutions, they either start name calling, accuse me of defending Bush, or go silent. That is not what patriotic real self criticism is about. Complaining is easy, being responsible and offering real answers is difficult.
I will post a few questions each day of this week, feel free to email me your response. So here are the first few questions: (Please, also tell me where my assumptions are wrong)

Do acts of violence prove we are losing?
The left seems to point to every single suicide bombing and act of violence as proof that things are going badly. Last time I checked, violent things happen in war. The very nature of war, means you are dealing with a violent conflict with the high likelihood of death.

Should we send more troops, or begin withdrawing?
I keep hearing the two contradictory ideas.

If we need to stay, then what should we do differently?
The question is what should the US do, not what the Europeans should do. We cannot make them do anything more than what they are already doing. To keep saying "get the allies involved" is really not a solution at all. It assumes that the only reason our allies are not sending troops is because we have not asked nicely enough. It ignores the internal politics of those countries and their bad economic situation.

What does winning look like?
The left seems adept at finding any and every kernel of info that might suggest we are losing, but they never put it into any context. You cannot proclaim that we are losing, without a baseline that defines in some way what winning looks like.

Kanye West: Blood Diamonds
This is another celebrity thinking they are more intelligent than they really are. Wanting to prove their street credibility, since they now drive Rolls Royces.
If he was serious he would call for a boycott of all diamonds. The blood diamonds are almost impossible to track, and to keep off of the market.

No Tornado Deaths in April-May-June

For the first time since record-keeping started in 1950
no one was killed by a tornado in April, May or June. Normally those
are the top months for tornadoes with an average of 52 fatalities,
sometimes many more.

"That is prime tornado time, so it's amazing," said Joe Schaefer,
director of NOAA's Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Okla.

Global Climate Change Coming! Take Heed!
This Newsweek article lays out the coming climate crises the world faces.

"There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have
begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a
drastic decline in food productionÂ? with serious political
implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food
output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. "

"The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to
accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep
up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline
by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain
production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same
time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a
fraction of a degree Â? a fraction that in some areas can mean drought
and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of
tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and
caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states."

"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any
positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to
allay its effects."

"A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree
in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945
and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite
photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow
cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two
NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground
in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972."

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a
mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at
least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of
Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely
unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the
key questions."

They concede that some of the more spectacular
solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it
with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far
greater than those they solve.

The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they
find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim
reality.

34 MILLION : The number of foreign-born residents in the United States in 2004; they accounted for 12 percent of the nation’s total population. Another 30 million Americans were “second-generation,” meaning that at least one of their parents was born abroad.

More Global Warming Lies and Fears
The Guardian has article claiming global warming is the cause of starvation in southern African nations. The article is pure speculation and partial facts, used to promote a lie. They ignore the political situations in the countries mentioned. For example, Zimbabwe, they have had declining crops for the past five years, since Mugabe instituted his land reforms. That has nothing to do with global warming. An example of putting forth skewed info: "The 20-year average clearly shows a dramatic increase of desertification and drought," said a leading agricultural economist, Professor Giovanni Quaranta, of the University of Basilicata in southern Italy." A 20 year average! No respectable scientist would make such a dire statement based on only 20 years of data. Regarding the climate 20 years can not show much, unless looked at in greater context.

They ignore the scientific data that shows deserts retreating in other parts of Africa. Notice also, no historical context is given. Is this the driest ever? driest in one hundred years? Is this part of a cycle? Who cares, just promote global warming, and attach it to every weather event. Facts are not important on this issue.

More Evidence on "Global Warming"
New studies contradict other studies, concerning if Antarctica is shrinking (or not). It is a THEORY, not a fact. Notice the use of computer models, and the scientists saying they hope to use REAL data in the future. The one thing we know for sure, is that we don't know how the climate operates, especially over long periods of time.

"Most people have heard of climate change and how rising air temperatures are melting glaciers and sea ice in the Arctic," said Dylan Powell of the University of Maryland Baltimore County. "However, findings from our simulations suggest a counterintuitive phenomenon. Some of the melt in the Arctic may be balanced by increases in sea ice volume in the Antarctic."

Powell, a doctoral student, is lead author of a paper describing the results in this month's Journal of Geophysical Research (Oceans).

For Antarctica, the new study concludes, the extra precipitation will mean deeper snow, which will suppress sea ice below, making it thicker over time.

The idea runs counter to a study earlier this year that found glaciers in part of Antarctica are melting rapidly.

"We used computer-generated simulations to get this research result," Powell cautioned. "I hope that in the future we'll be able to verify this result with real data through a long-term ice thickness measurement campaign."

State of Fear: Michael Crichton Takes on Global Warming
I have just completed reading the novel "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. The basic premise of the book is that popular beliefs, that are not backed by scientific facts is dangerous. The context he uses is the present argument regarding global warming. He states fact sand gives citations throughout the book, all with the intention of shedding light on the reality of global warming: that it does not exist. It has not been tested or verified, and many of the ideas that are commonly held are misleading partial truths or complete lies. He is not kind to Hollywood stars who promote these ideas, nor the groups that claim to be environmental organizations. Those groups have become powerful and are now part of the establishment. Man is incapable of preserving any environment, he can only hope to attempt managing it. There is no such thing as pure nature, nothing remains the same for any long periods of time.
For example:
1. Sea levels are not rising, there is no consistent numbers showing any rise in the sea level over the last 20 years;
2. Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 1940-1970, while the global temperature actually went down;
3. The Antarctic is not shrinking, it is actually getting thicker;
the US temperature has risen only a third of a degree in the past 120 years.
4. The Antarctic is getting colder not warmer, from 1986 - 2000 the central Antarctic valleys cooled .7 degrees Celsius.
5. The Kyoto treaty if fully implemented would have only reduced the warming by .02 degrees Celsius.

The book documents how, even if there is warming it most likely would be beneficial for most people. He specifically states the fact that a desert in Africa has been receding, giving way to plant growth.

My biggest problems with global warming have always been:
1. It always struck me as defying common sense. If we cannot predict the weather two weeks from now, what makes us so capable of predicting the weather 100 years from now.
2. It is elitist and playing God. It is the industrialized world saying that we like things how they are, and don't want them to change.
3. The very idea that humans can somehow control the climate is laughable.

One day we will look back on the global warming craze, and wander how anybody ever believed it. It will take its place next to other false scares like the population explosion; nuclear winter and eugenics.

"Obliterating a provision of the Consitution, of course, guarantees that it will not be misapplied."

Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al.
The Supreme Court hands a defeat to private property, and gives more power to government and corporate interests. The government will seek the cheapest land avaliable to TAKE, his will effect low income areas with greater impact. This is one more example of ignoring the plain meaning of the Constitution and promoting the idea of "the common good" over the rights of individuals.

The Fifth Amendment provides: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process, of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The dissent was written by O'Connor, and a second dissent was written by Thomas.

Justice O'Connor

Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

If such "economic development" takings are for a "public use," any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O'Connor powerfully argues in dissent. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court's error runs deeper than this. Today's decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government's eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause's original meaning, and I would reconsider them.

When Will Democrats Stop Lying About the 2004 Election?
A washington post article states that Democrats have put out a report that claims "More than a quarter of voters, and more than half of black voters, experienced problems at Ohio polling places during the 2004 presidential vote"
Although they admit that the problems were not enough to change the outcome of the election.
I have a hard time believing this. I am from Ohio, most of my family and friends voted in OHIO and had NO problems at all. NONE. One person had some problems, but they were legitimate problems (they forgot to change their address when they moved)- and they were allowed to vote with the minimum amount of problems.
Just like in Florida, these comments are from outsiders with a political agenda. Just like with Florida it will end up hurting the Dems the most.

BTW- Talk about hypocrisy. Now Dems want to eleminate touch screen voting machines. Republicans were the ones saying we shouldn't rush into touch screen machines. The Rep. Sec. of State in Ohio was attacked for not rushing more touch screen machines to the polls. NOW Democrats suddenly dont want to use them! LOL.

It's Time to Set a Withdrawal Timetable, and Begin Bringing Troops Home
I have been a complete supporter of the war in Iraq. I have come to the conclusion that it is time to set a timetable, and bring the troops home.

I have heard the argument that this will only encourage the insurgents to hide and wait for the US to leave. My response, so what? If they hide and wait, that will create a period where the chaos will settle down, that will also give Iraqi troops time to train and be prepared?
While the insurgents wait, their purpose for the attacks will either leave or they will have to come up with a new one. I believe they will come up with a new one, which will only alienate them more from the majority of Iraqis.

The US should first move most of our troops to the borders, to seal them. While doing this, set a timetable of 18-24 months for full withdrawal. The first troops should begin withdrawing by the end of 2005, or right after the Iraqi elections. We can still train Iraqi forces while withdrawing, and sealing the border will at prevent new insurgents from entering, and lock those in Iraq within the borders. We will continue air support, and equipment and supplies. The US military will mostly protect aid workers, and training facilities. The US will then go back to the UN and call the bluff of the French and others, by asking them to replace the US troops with UN peacekeepers, or allow Iraq to fall into chaos. We have done our job, now it is time for others to support the Iraqi people. The US should send a strong message that we will leave regardless. I also think that Iraqi forces will feel the urgency of the US leaving. They will know that soon they can no longer run, or depend on the US for actual combat support.

The beginning of the troop withdrawal will also send a message to the Middle East, US citizens and the world, that we have no desire to occupy Iraq. With the moving of our troops to the Iraqi border, it will also send a strong message to Iran and Syria. That we are watching them, and free to move militarily against them, if we need to.

In case of an emergency, we can always slow down the withdrawal. Remember Clinton promised we would not be in Bosnia-Kosovo for more than two years, yet we are still there. This will also change the domestic argument and completely deflate the looney left's arguments about the war. Bush will then be able to move forward with his domestic agenda, and the country will mentally move forward.

Government Hits One-Day Tax Revenue High
Well what do you know. Revenue from taxes have increased faster than expected, without any increases in taxes.

"After totaling it all up, the Treasury Department announced Thursday that it had collected $61 billion on Wednesday. That surpassed the old one-day record of $56 billion set on Dec. 15, 2000.

The government's coffers have been swelling this year as tax receipts from both individuals and corporations have been on the rise, reflecting an improving economy. Because of those increases, this year's federal deficit is expected to fall to around $350 billion, down from the $413 billion record in dollar terms set in 2004."

In Congo, 1,000 die per day: Why isn't it a media story?
The Sudan crises has finally made the news, but it is not the only humanitarian crises in Africa.

"What the world media are missing is one of the deadliest conflicts since World War II: 3.8 million people have died in the Congo since 1998, dwarfing not only the biggest of natural catastrophes, such as December's South Asia tsunami, but also other manmade horrors, such as Darfur."

Whose Asian Century?
This article argues a point I have been making for a few years now: India, not China will be the 21st Century economic powerhouse. He mentions the high level of literacy and the number of people in India who are fluent in English. Another demographic trend that favors India, is the age of their population. About half of the population is under 30, while China has a large and growing elderly population which it owes pensions to. India is also growing at a rate above replacement rate, while China's birthrate has actually fallen below the replacement rate.

The forces that will determine which nations will dominate the 21st century may yet favor India's emerging reach for global power status more than China's determined grasp for that prize.
Kamal Nath, India's energetic minister of commerce and industry, states the case with economy: "China may win the sprint, but India will win the marathon." In Nath's view, this will be the Asian Century -- but not in the ways many in the United States and Europe assume or fear.

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns speaking to a U.S.-European group in Brussels on May 26, Burns observed: "The greatest change you will see in the next three or four years is a new American focus on South Asia, particularly in establishing a closer strategic partnership with India . . . If you look at all the trends -- population, economic growth, foreign policy trends -- there's no question that India is the rising power in the East. . . . I think you'll see this as a major focus of our president and our secretary of state, and it will be the area of greatest dynamic positive change in American foreign policy."

Michael Jackson:
Just a quick note to lend support to those who do believe MJ is innocent.
There was an astounding lack of any child porn found by the prosecution. This is extremely rare for any pedophile. Pedophiles almost always have child pornography. They had none on MJ's computer or any magazines, pictures.

MJ actually standing trial is also a sign of an innocent person. He had the means to leave the country and tell the system to shove it. Most of his money is made outside of the US.

FYI: Check out his website, interesting opening.

Media Mania Over Gitmo
The media, Time Magazine, is once again showing it's irresponsible ability to hype a story. Once again it is a story aimed at promoting a liberal agenda.
They seem to care more about the Gitmo prisoners than other Americans who are subjected to rape and other criminal activity in our prison system. But they want the prison system dealing with terrorists suspects to be perfect.
The argument that how we treat the detainees will effect how our troops are treated is completely false and disingenuous.
Go read the interrogation notes. I guess anything short of a country club or spa atmosphere, is considered torture. The acts listed are no worse than how we treat our own soldiers during training. Sorry, but the following is not torture:

"Interrogators began telling detainee how ungrateful and grumpy he was. In order to escalate the detainee's emotions, a mask was made from an MRE box with a smily face on it and placed on the detainee's head for a few moments. A latex glove was inflated and labeled the "sissy slap" glove. The glove was touched to the detainee's face periodically after explaining the terminology to him. The mask was placed back on the detainee's head. While wearing the mask, the team began dance instruction with the detainee. The detainee became agitated and began shouting. "

"Told detainee that a dog is held in higher esteem because dogs know right from wrong and know how to protect innocent people from bad people. Began teaching the detainee lessons such as stay, come, and bark to elevate his social status up to that of a dog."

"He was laid out on the floor so I straddled him without putting my weight on him. He would then attempt to move me off of him by bending his legs in order to lift me off but this failed because the MPs were holding his legs down with their hands."