the frig blig

Editor, NY Times:

In yesterday (Sunday)’s editorial page, Carol Giacomo asserts:

“The biggest issue for the United States is how to counterbalance an increasingly assertive China — and reassure its increasingly nervous neighbors — while trying to cajole and goad Beijing into being a more responsible world player.”

I agree that while it would be refreshing to see more nations acting less assertively on the world stage, expecting nations to take a lesser role in furthering their own interests is wishful thinking.

However, taking an unbiased look at the history of the United States, I can only marvel at Giacomo’s audacity in thinking this nation possesses any moral authority for cajoling and goading any other nation to act responsibly.

-FB

Is it possible that the US is using its attack on Libya as a means of redirecting American citizens’ attention away from the popular revolutions occurring in the middle east and northern Africa? Of course that isn’t the main goal, but a convenient side effect no less. If US citizens paid more attention to the revolutionaries demanding greater democracy, they might wonder why the US government is supporting the old dictatorial regimes. When they pay such lip service to freedom and democracy.

Eh, just wondering. And not very coherently at that.

The following are all headlines from today’s BBC ‘US and Canada’ feed:

Wiener quits over lewd photos- eh, what took him so long?
Obama: US action in Libya ‘legal’ - all US presidents believe they are above the law.
Giffords released from hospital - what I really want to know is, why did her hair color change?
Agents ‘let cartels buy US guns’ - weapons are the top US export, so their lobby has some clout.
Oil imports increase US deficit - the oil wars will intensify, I predict.

Whereas President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 by the Norwegian Nobel Committee; and whereas the United States was prosecuting active wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009; and whereas the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize is to recognize “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”; and whereas prosecuting wars is the antithesis of working for fraternity between nations; and whereas killing people makes their families and nations angry enough to seek retaliation; and whereas today, in May 2011, the United States is prosecuting active wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya; and whereas U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan are higher today than they were in 2009; and whereas President Obama is an intelligent man who cannot deny he has increased the prosecution of wars during his tenure rather than reduced them;

Therefore we the undersigned concerned citizens do hereby respectfully beseech and humbly implore President Obama, in recognition of the reality of his leadership of the United States, to return the aforementioned Nobel Peace Prize to the Norwegian Nobel Committee with a letter of apology and suggestion that the esteemed members of the committee use due dilligence to do a better job researching its candidates before awarding the prize next time around.

It’s interesting timing. This year’s Nobel peace prize has been awarded to Liu Xiaobo, a champion of free speech in China who was imprisoned by the Chinese government for his outspokenness.

Meanwhile in the U.S. aka ‘America’, aka ‘The land of the free’ and all-around champion of human rights, the federal government is doing it’s damnedest to crack down on Wikileaks, trashing founder Julian Assange and pressuring providers of internet services such as DNS and payment processing firms to refuse their services to Wikileaks. The crime? Publishing documents authored by the U.S. government.

Um, what was that about freedom of speech being good? In the real world, it’s good when you’re outing the other guy’s government. Exposing your own government, however, is evil (not to mention darn embarrassing) and must be punished lest you set an example for others to follow.

The U.S. State Department is scrambling mightily to negotiate a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine. But it doesn’t seem to be working.

A lasting agreement can only be forged if both the Israelis and Palestinians truly want peace. If, for instance, Israel is more interested in land than peace, peace will be harder to attain.

I suspect that behind the scenes the U.S. is attempting to use carrots and sticks in this process. As the biggest beneficiary of U.S. foreign aid, one stick against Israel would be the withholding of said aid. But, I suspect too that Israel may have a few sticks of it’s own to use on the U.S.

The bottom line is, even if the U.S. can convince these two parties to sign an agreement based on U.S. supplied carrots and sticks, such agreement will not last until, as stated above, the two principles themselves truly want peace with each other, regardless of what third parties such as the U.S. offer them.

The only reason I-1053 “made it” to this year’s ballot is because several dozen corporations collectively put up close to $600,000 to help Eyman. Not counting Eyman’s loan, their contributions constitute about 76% of the funding for I-1053. That’s more than three fourths!

The top corporate and trade group contributors to I-1053 are:

* BP (yes, that BP) – $65,000
* Tesoro – $65,000
* ConocoPhillips – $50,000
* Shell – $50,000
* Washington Farm Bureau – $50,000
* Washington Restaurant Association- $45,000
* Washington Realtors – $25,000
* Washington Beverage Association (Coke, Pepsi, Dr Pepper) – $20,000
* Kemper Holdings – $20,000

The above information helpfully provided by Northwest Progressive Institute and brought to my attention by Publicola — good work y’all!

Read The Pentagon’s game plan by Jack Smith. Scary details emerge about the Nobel Peace Prize winner and his minions’ plans for future wars.

I was mad at former President Bush when he spent billions of dollars to kill people (in Iraq).

And today folks are mad at President Obama for spending billions of dollars to help people (in America).

Go figure.

A new poll of Tea Party (TP) backers, as reported by this NY Times article, says that TP-ers’s “…animosity towards Washington and the President…is rooted in…the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.”

Personally I think it’s about time we started providing more help to the poor in this country. There are more now than ever, and most of the homeless folks I run into deserve as much help as they can get. The rich can help themselves, as they always have.

So I’m proposing the formation of a new party, which gives priority to helping the poor. I propose we call it the Coffee Party. We can proclaim our support by buying homeless people a cup of coffee.