Compassion Or Contracts?

On August 20th, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmen Al-Megrahi was released from his Scottish prison and flown home to his native Libya to die. Al-Megrahi had been sentenced to a life for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21st, 1988. He was released on compassionate grounds by Scotland, a normal practice, due to his terminal prostate cancer. His release was met with great controversy, which has only increased in the following days.

Libya, which took responsibility for the bombing in 2003, has a long history of anti-Western beliefs. Muammar Al-Gaddafi, the de facto head of state, took power in a military coup in 1969. Hoping to become the "African Che Guevara," Al-Gaddafi installed what he called a "Islamic Socialist" government. He funneled weapons and money to terrorist groups, or anybody claiming to battle "imperialism." He has recently, however, become more diplomatic with the West. In 2006, the US normalized relations with Libya after they acknowledge their WMD program and cooperated with inspectors.

The UK, however, still has a vested interest in Libya. British Petroleum and the Lybian National Oil Company have a $900 million contract to harvest Lybian oil reserves. Al-Gaddafi's son, Seif Al-Islam Gaddafi, told Al-Megrahi, "In fact, in all the trade, oil and gas deals which I have supervised, you were there on the table. When British interest came to Libya, I used to put you on the table." When Al-Megrahi's plane arrived in Libya, hundreds gave him a hero's welcome.

Al-Megrahi is a terrorist, a criminal. There was no compassion when he exploded Flight 103. There was no compassion when passengers fell thousands of feet to their deaths. Yet, only by showing compassion to this criminal can the people of Scotland show that they are better than this dispicable tactic and this bankrupt ideology. What the people of Libya did, treating him to such a homecoming, set relations with the West back decades and showed why they deserve to be treated like the backwater of modern humanitarianism, which they are. Indeed, if the British released Al-Megrahi not for humanitarian concerns, but simply to secure an oil contract, then they have used the deaths of those 270 people to increase the coffers of an multi-national oil company, and they deserve scorn as well.

Now, Al-Gaddafi is set to visit the United Nations in New York on September 23rd. With a backlash growing in the US, against both Libya and the UK, his welcome is expected to be much colder than the one Al-Megrahi received upon his return. Can the UK navigate this controversy or will this lead to a rough patch in US-UK relations? Britain has a critical role in US national security, both in Afghanistan and concerning issues like global warming, and differing views on compassion and humanitarianism are sure to complicate ideas about Islamic extremist in the future.

Cyber Autonomy Under Attack

A little publicized, but highly worrisome bill is making its way through the United States Senate. The Cyber Security Act of 2009 would give the executive branch wide reaching authority to manage and even shut down the Internet infrastructure in the United States. The bill is sponsered by Democrat Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine.
The Cyber Security Act would give the Secretary of Commerce access to critical networks across the country in order to monitor and react to a cyber attack. This would allow the President to "direct the national response to the cyber threat," according to the language in the bill. Senator Snowe has said that this bill is necessary to prevent a "Cyber Katrina."
Senior counsel of the Center for Democracy and Technology, Greg Nojeim, has warned that the new law could undermine the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which requires law enforcement to get a warrant to monitor e-mails, texts, tweets, and even blog post.
No one in American politics understands the value of the Internet like Barack Obama, and that is what makes this bill all the more problematic. The Internet has become the printing press of the new millennium, and millions of citizen journalist around the world are taking part. We have seen what effect a government crackdown on social media can have in places like Iran and China. Americans cannot allow the government to control the spigot of the New Information Age. With more of our personal information on the Internet than ever before, we must take steps to ensure that it is secure, but we mustn't hand over that responsibility to government, for those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.

Long Live the Lion

Senator Ed Kennedy passed away Tuesday at his home in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts. He was 77 and had been diagnosed with brain cancer last year.

Kennedy was born February 22nd, 1932, and was first elected to the Senate in 1962 to fill the seat of his brother, John. He was the second senior member of the Senate and the third longest serving member in it's history. Over the years he was a champion of liberal policies, and became known as the "Lion of the Senate." In 1980, he challenged incumbent President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination. The two fought a long battle, the likes of which was not seen again until 2008. Kennedy eventually lost the nomination. The battle produced an awkward moment on stage at the 1980 Democratic Convention in New York, and the party limped to November and defeat to Ronald Reagan. He appeared at the 2008 Democratic Convention to deliver a speech and endorse Barack Obama.

It has been said that health care for all Americans was the cause of his life, which goes to show just how long the current argument has been going on. Many people on both sides of the political spectrum have said that his death aught not be used for political gain, and thier calls are no doubt sincere, but is that what the Senator would have wanted? Most of his brothers have given their life in service to the country. Would Ted have given his life for universal health care? Liberals have lost ground in the debate since the beginning of the August recess, and Kennedy's death serves as a stark reminder, a wake up call, of how long we have wanted this, how much the special interest have spent to deny reform, and how many more Americans, that don't have access to the world class health care that the Senator did, will die in the months and years to come if we accomplish nothing.

War Crimes Hurt US Image

Today marked the release of the highly anticipated report from the Office of the Inspector General on Torture from 2004. The release of the report is the result of a Freedom of Information lawsuit from the ACLU. Although the report is heavily redacted, it does add some new details to our understanding of what happen between September 11th, 2001, and 2004.
First the report details how "enhanced interrogation techniques" were conceived inside the Department of Justice, using some legalese and references to several statutes from US and International law. These include ten techniques recommended for interrogations, plus one that was suggested but was ultimately not adopted, and is not named. The techniques that were adopted include confinement, stress positions, sleep deprivation (of up to 11 days), an "insult slap," and, of course, water boarding, plus others. The Department of Justice cited an "EIT Phase," which would be in addition to conventional interrogations and last "likely no more than several days, but could last up to 30 days."
Next the report details how the EIT was actually put in to practice. It cites numerous cases of "improvisation." The first detainee to experience these EIT was Abu Zubaydah. Zubaydah was captured on March 27th, 2002. He spent several weeks in the hospital recovering from injuries suffered during his capture, but then was almost immediately subject to these EITs. Of course there is also the case of Khalid Shiek Muhammed, who was water boarded 183 times. Perhaps the most egregious act in the report happened to Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashir. Al-Nashir was bound, naked and hooded, when an interrogator threatened him with a power drill. Al-Nashir was told that "we can get your mother in here," a threat that he would have understood to mean that she would have been sexually abused in his presence had he not talked. Al-Nashir was also threatened with a handgun; threatened both with being shot and being pistol-whipped.
Of course, all of these techniques are illegal under both the Geneva convention and United States law. The CIA, which carried out the interrogations, claims that such techniques lead to the capture of other suspected terrorist, but no one knows if any attacks were actually prevented. What we do know is that actions by the CIA, and the Department of Justice, are easily war crimes. They have tarnished the image of the United States abroad, caused a kind of legal purgatory for detainees, and made America less safe in the future.

Crusader Xe

On August 19th, The New York Times published an article by Mike Manzetti which claimed that Blackwater USA, now known as Xe, had been secretly directed by the CIA to locate and assassinate Al-Qeada operatives in Iraq in 2004.
Blackwater operates a private military and police training facility on 7,000 acres in North Carolina that trains up to 40,000 people per year. It is the largest such facility in the country. The founder and CEO of Blackwater is a former Navy SEAL named Erik Prince. Prince was an intern in the George H.W. Bush White House and is a massive GOP donor. He has also come under fire for his "Crusader Ideology." In one affidavit, a former employee says Prince, "views himself as a Christian Crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe. To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights Templar, the warriors who fought the crusades."
This Blackwater Assassination Squad isn't the only example of these men murdering Iraqis. On Febuary 6th, 2006, a Blackwater sniper opened fire on security guards of the state-run Iraqi Media Network, killing three. On September 16th, 2007, a Blackwater security detail opened fire on Iraqi civilians, killing 17. The FBI found that at least 14 were innocent victims, and that the security detail continued to fire into a group of fleeing Iraqis.
Yet, The Assassination Squad never actually killed anyone. The program, which was never revealed to congress, was started and cancelled by CIA director George Tenet. His successor, Porter Goss, restarted the program, only to have it "downgraded" by Michael Hayden. Then Leon Panetta, who was head of the CIA for months before he learned about the program, finally killed it.
However, Blackwater never had a contract for this program. Instead, CEO Erik Prince was personally involved in negotiations at a very high level. Illinois Representative and member of the House Intelligence committee Jan Schakowsky puts it as Prince being in, "the innermost circle, strategizing within the Bush Administration."
So the Bush Administration was paying Blackwater to assassinate Al-Qeada. Assassinations have been against stated American policy since the '70s, and mercenaries of any kind are illegal under the Geneva Conventions. The United States position is that Blackwater are only security detail, and perform "defensive" duties in Iraq. The Geneva Conventions make no distinction between offensive and defensive mercenaries. What is the operating legal framework here? What if Blackwater employees were captured by Iraqi officials? Murder charges or war crimes?
This is another example of Conservatives hating government. Military operations are one thing that most Americans can agree should be handled by the government, but the Bush Administration decided to outsource this duty as well. The claim that there are simply not enough troops to perform guarding our own diplomats and convoys only undermines their argument. Why are we undertaking such massive nation building efforts if we acknowledge that we don't have the troops necessary? What does this mean for Afghanistan? In recent polling, most Americans now question the usefulness of the Afghan war. Can we afford to have Blackwater in Afghanistan, or can we afford not to?

One Small Step For Afghanistan

With all the talk of health care reform and Micheal Vick's return to the NFL, one story has gone woefully under reported in the mainstream press. Tomorrow is the presidential election in Afghanistan, perhaps the first meaningful election in the country's history. Hamid Karzai is the incumbent, and has been president of Afghanistan since the US installed him in the position in 2001. The presence of Western troops, the government's tolerance of the Taliban, and political corruption have been the major issues of the campaign.
Over 30 candidates have filed to unseat Karzai, and half the population, or fifteen million people, have registered to vote. If the winner, presumably Karzai, does not get 50% of the vote, a run-off would be held. Two televised debates have been already been held. The first was on July 23rd, and Karzai boycotted it because he perceived the network presenting the debate to be biased against his campaign. The next was on August 16th, and the main opposition candidate, Abdullah Abdullah, did not participate in that debate. This is not your typical election, however. There have been reports of ballots being delivered to remote villages by donkey. There are also various security concerns. More Coalition troops have died since March than in the first three years of the war. Polling places still have not been announced. In a country stuck in the 1800s and with the majority of the population illiterate, one has to think that this will have a negative impact on turnout. The UN has even reported cases of voter fraud, accusing Karzai of attempting to buy voter registration cards.
So, despite these hazards, the election will go forward as required. Hamid Karzai leads the (unreliable) polling with 44%. After helping the Mujaheddin, a predecessor to the Taliban, fight the Soviets in the 1980s, Karzai was allied with the Taliban in the '90s until they started to allow foreigners to operate training camps inside Afghanistan. Abdullah is the main challenger, currently getting 26% support in polling. Abdullah is the former foreign minister, and was a leading member of the Northern Alliance, which helped to oust the Taliban in 2001. Abdullah wishes to change to Afghanistan constitution to a parliamentary system. Ramazon Bashardot is third in polling with 10%. Bashardot is the only Shiite with any popular support in a mostly Sunni country. Bashardot was exiled under Taliban rule, and has no tribal affiliation. He is considered a crusader for human rights. Ashraf Ghani is the last candidate with any widespread support, but he only garners 6% in the most recent polling. Ghani is a former member of the World Bank, working on projects in Southeast Asia. He was also, according to the Financial Times, a candidate to replace Kofi Annan as Secretary General at the United Nations. Ghani is the former finance minister, and supports the creation of an All-Women's University. Ghani, who famously hired James "Ragin Cajun" Carville as a political consultant, has said of the elections, "It has been the largest seminar in my life, and I am the sole student."

Free Maziar Bahari

Unfortunately, this has become a banner year for imprisoned journalist. On June 21st, Maziar Bahari was detained by Iranian authorities. Bahari is a reporter for Newsweek and was covering the protest resulting from the contested Iranian elections. Bahari has dual Iranian-Canadian citizenship and has been working for Newsweek since 1998. He has also been covering Iraq consistently since the war began in 2003.

Bahari had published at least five articles about Iran in June before his arrest. Bahari was coerced into making statements incriminating himself of "covering illegal demonstrations" and "promoting a color revolution." He has been visited briefly by his mother several times in the last eight weeks. His wife, Paola Gourley, who lives in London (and is six months pregnant) has begun to make the rounds to popular television news outlets to increase public support and awareness of his situation. She says that when she saw the picture of him in detention it "broke her heart." Bahari has been jointly charged with over one hundred other journalist and activist of promoting the "illegal" protest, and they will all stand trial together.

Unlike other situations involving other imprisoned journalist this year, Bahari's employer and his family have come out publicly for his release, which probably means that any back-channel negotiations between the Iranians and the Canadian government have not been going well. Maziar Bahari has routinely reported from the Middle East, and was routinely accredited by the government in Iran to cover events there for Newsweek and the BBC. Suddenly, they have come to believe that he is an agent of foreign governments, or more likely they only want to quash legitimate decent and lay the blame on foreign agents. To support the effort to free Maziar Bahari, please go to FreeMaziarBahari.org.

Hot Dance Party at The Church

Last night, indie dance band Passion Pit played at First Unitarian Church in Philadelphia. The basement of First Unitarian has been the venue for many underground bands lately, and last night it was so packed with fans it started to feel more like a sauna than a place of worship.
Passion Pit did not disappoint. Observant followers of this blog will remember that we also reviewed their performance at this year's Bonnaroo festival in Tennessee. Thankfully, First Unitarian was not as crowded and everyone had a great view of the band. Passion Pit played songs from both their 2008 EP Chunk of Change, including the opening track, "I've Got Your Number," and 2009 debut album Manners with their hit single, "The Reeling." The heat did not seem to dampen the dance party atmosphere, and most everybody left with their clothes soaking wet with sweat.
Passion Pit are a big part of the new softer dance music inflecting the indie scene. With their appearance at Bonnaroo and on Jimmy Fallon they appear poised (more than their contemporaries anyway) to crack the mainstream and FM radio.

American Where? Wolves!

Tomorrow is the official kickoff of the new English Premier League season. It has been 17 years since John Harkes became the first American to play at the highest level of English football, but today, there are seven players from the US National Team pool in the Premier League.
Of course there is US goalkeeper Tim Howard, who also wears the number 1 shirt for Everton. Howard, considered by some to be one of the top 5 keepers in the world, is the backbone of an Everton defense that wants to finally break into the "Big 4" of the league. Also minding the net for his club side is Marcus Hahnemann, who is now at Wolves since being released from Reading after they were relegated. Aston Villa has two American keepers, veteran Brad Friedel and his understudy Brad Guzan. Fulham FC also has two American players, both forwards. Clint Dempsey has been with the club for a few years and is a regular starter, while Eddie Johnson is relatively new to the Cottagers. Also in London is defender Jonathan Spector, who plays for West Ham United. New to the Premier League this season is Jozy Altidore, who after an unsatisfying stint in Spanish football with Villareal and Xerez, is now at Hull City. Altidore is needed to provide Hull with some offense if they hope to survive their second season in the Premier League.
This promises to be an exciting year for Americans playing abroad. Next summer will bring the World Cup to South Africa, and a new team in MLS, Philadelphia Union. Can Howard and Everton play with Manchester United? Can Altidore help Hull stay up? Can players like Johnson and Spector improve their game enough to make it on the World Cup team? Will anybody prove that they can't handle the pressure and atmosphere of a big time European league and return to MLS?

Rock The Casbah

True punk rock has always been a DIY enterprise. That is exactly what Micheal Muhammed Knight had in mind when he wrote The Taqwacores and published it himself using a xerox machine in 2003. The Taqwacores is about a group of fictitious young punk rockers growing up in Buffalo, New York who just happen to be Muslims. Soon, a very real Muslim punk rock scene had emerged, also called taqwacore, with bands such as Vote Hezbollah and Sagg Taqwacore Syndicate.

Knight was born Irish Roman Catholic in 1977. He got interested in Islam as a teenager through Malcolm X and Public Enemy. At 17, he moved to Pakistan to study at the Faisal Mosque, one of the largest in the world. In 2003, he had grown disenchanted with Islam's rigid teachings and angry at American imperialism after September 11th. His self-published book was read by legendary punk rock singer Jello Biafra, formerly of the Dead Kennedys. Soon it became a hit with young Muslims living in the west. Prof Carl Ernst of Islamic Studies at the University of North Carolina has said that The Taqwacores has become a Catcher In The Rye for young Muslims.

Taqwacore enthusiast Sabina England is a deaf playwright and a Muslim living in the Midwest. She says that taqwacore means, "being true to myself, having my own faith, and interpreting Islam the way I want to." Indeed, most music is against the common interpretation of Islamic law. Micheal Muhammed Knight and most taqwacores acknowledge their apostasy, and are neglecting or challenging Islamic law, although somewhat reluctantly. Taqwacore even has it's first anthem, "Suicide Bomb the Gap," by the Kominas. Sena Hussain, lead vocalist for Vancouver based taqwacore outfit, Secret Trial 5, says, "There's so much animosity towards Muslims and we need a dissenting voice to say 'fuck you' to people who pigeonhole us." Punk rock has had its share of new scenes that would eventually fizzle out, but taqwacore is hitting a nerve among Muslims and Non-Muslims alike who don't see any clear good guys in this "global war on terror." Can punk rock be a vehicle to bring alternative forms of Islam into the western mainstream, and start a more meaningful dialogue between these two civilizations that have had so much ignorance and distrust over the centuries?

The United States of the Future

Today was the World Cup Qualifying match between the United States and Mexico. However, the game wasn't broadcast on ESPN, as most qualifiers are. It was even on Fox Soccer! No, it was on Mun2 (pronounced mun-dos). Mun2 is the new English language channel from the famous Telemundo network.
Telemundo are on to something. There are millions of kids in this country who speak English in school, and watch Telemundo at night. By 2050, whites will no longer be the majority. We have our first Latina on the United States Supreme Court. During the broadcast, when Mexico scored the decisive goal and the camera shot away to members of the United States Army watching on Armed Forces Network in Tikrit, Iraq, they were celebrating. Members of the US Army were celebrating a Mexican goal and the eventual defeat of the US soccer team. They feel every bit as proud of their heritage as Italian, Irish, German, or even Canadians. But they feel enough patriotism in their country to risk their lives in Iraq.
When conservatives stand up in town halls and say, "I want my country back," this is what they are talking about. When Pat Buchanan says, "It was white men that built this country," he couldn't be more wrong. Mun2 is not the first national bilingual network (MTV tres), and it won't be the last. We are the melting pot. Give us your huddled masses. This is the United States of the Future.

Party Of No (Ideas)

The August recess is officially here. The members of congress have left Washington and gone back to their districts. This is usually a time for some light summer reading and spending time with the family, but this August promises to be different. The opponents of health care reform are not planning on taking an August recess. Therefore, it is time for supporters of reform to work harder than ever.
Much has already been said about the town hall meetings that many Democratic members have had to endure, with protesters shouting down questioners, throwing charges on Nazism, and hanging Democrats in effigy. Some liberals have claimed that these are plants by either the Republican party or the insurance companies, and there can be no doubt that some are. But no movement can inspire enough people to commandeer a town hall without widespread support, and the anti-reformers have widespread support. And why shouldn't they? Just look at what they are being told. Rep Virginia Foxx has warned of "seniors being put to death by their government." Even the former Republican VP candidate, Sarah Palin, has said that "her grandparents and her baby with Down Syndrome will have to face Obama's Death Panels." There have been multiple conservatives who claim to despise "socialised medicine," and who want the government to "keep your hands off my Medicare." How can anyone have a debate with these people? Their tactics amount to stuffing one's fingers in his ears and singing "Mary Had A Little Lamb" at the top of their lungs.
Everyone seems to agree that the status quo is unsustainable. The United States has about fifty million people who lack access, and many more at any one time who are between plans. Meanwhile, for those who do have care, premiums and co-pays keep rising, as do insurance company profits. The United States was built on freedom of speech and passionate debate, and the left does not have a monopoly on good ideas, but no conservative has been able to offer any plan that is not already in the proposed bill. What is their plan!? Do they have any ideas to offer working class Americans, or are they only defending profits at the expense of our people, our national health, our national security, and the ability for the rest of corporate America to compete in the global market place?
In the next three weeks, liberals need to do everything in their power to show members of congress the only responsible way to vote. Health Care for America Now! can tell you about forums and town halls in your area. Let's have a real debate about health care. No Shouting! We have the facts, and we're voting YES!

Down With NYRB

This week was the final week of games for the preliminary round of the CONCACAF Champions League. On Tuesday, the Puerto Rico Islanders (of the United Soccer Leagues) defeated Toronto FC (of Major League Soccer). Then on Wednesday, Western Connection (of Trinidad) defeated New York Red Bull (MLS).
Puerto Rico got into the competition through the Caribbean championships. They were also the semifinalist of last year's CCL. New York got into the competition by being a finalist from last year's MLS Cup. New York, however, has not won a game since May 8th. They are last in MLS. Yet, while the USL is considered the second tier of American soccer, Puerto Rico defeated an MLS team and is still only fourth currently in USL. Most soccer nations have a league system in which two or three of the worst teams from the higher division are relegated to a lower league, and the best teams from that league are promoted each year. MLS is now in it's 13th season, but does not have promotion from USL.
Promotion is strongly needed for MLS. Not only to punish teams like New York, that year after year are a laughing stock, but also to reward teams like Puerto Rico for patiently building a team to maturation. They are clearly capable of beating the best teams in the region and should be eligible to compete for the MLS title. While the United States national team has steadily improved in the last decade, MLS has been sketchier. The threat of relegation would force the front offices to field a truly competitive team year after year, and would hopefully improve MLS in the long run. Then, maybe, MLS teams would not be knocked out of a prestigious club tournament by teams from footballing backwaters like Trinidad.

Conservatives For Cash

This is the last week before the congressional August recess, meaning that there are several important policy agendas on the table that need to be reconciled. Of course President Obama had made a big deal about Health care reform and there is the under-reported story of Democratic attempts to reform Pell Grants for college tuition, but one surprising story has been the strange odyssey that is the "cash for clunkers" program. Cash for Clunkers will reimburse Americans that trade-in an older, less fuel efficient vehicle for a new one, up to forty-five hundred dollars.
The program has three main goals. The first is stimulus, getting people spending. Secondly, it directs that spending to the ailing American car companies, boosting consumer confidence and saving American jobs. Finally, it's eco-friendly. By reducing the amount of fossil fuels that we burn, it will help to lessen greenhouses gases in the atmosphere. Not surprisingly, the program has worked gangbusters. Also not surprisingly, conservatives in congress want to kill it.
As of Saturday, only a week into the program, auto dealers had already submitted eighty-five thousand clunker requests, with thousands more backlogged. The average fuel efficiency improvement from the cars traded in to the cars bought was about 60%, from 16 mpg to 25 mpg. The program was so successful that the administration has requested another $2B to keep the program going.
Enter conservatives in congress. John McCain threatened a filibuster. Jim DeMint has said we need to "slow this thing down," sounding much like he does on health care. Some members have cynically suggested that we start all kinds of new programs like this one, going so far as to say we need "Cash for Cluckers," were the government would pay people to eat chicken. Some conservative Democrats, like Claire McCaskill, have also opposed the program.
Why all this venom for a program that has exceeded everyone's expectations? Ideology. Conservatives hate government, and any program that proves that government programs can be this successful must be stopped, immediately. Some have gone so far to say that if the government can't run this program, why should we trust them with our health care. Well, the government has run this program, and that's why millions of Americans want them running their health care, too.
Government should not tell you how to live your life, what car you should buy, or how your going to die, but they can put their sizable thumb on the scales of society to influence behavior. That is how the stimulus has started the resuscitation of the American auto industry, and that is how a public health care option will discipline the insurance companies into actually providing quality and affordable health care instead of lining their own pockets.

Clinton Coaxes Concessions From Kim

Bill Clinton made a surprise visit to Pyongyang to secure the release of two jailed journalist, Euna Lee and Laura Ling of Current TV. The journalist had been held since March, when they were arrested for illegally crossing into North Korea and were subsequently convicted of "hostile acts."
It has been assumed for quite some time now that there were back-channel negotiations ongoing, and that it was only a matter of time before a high-profile American was sent to meet with Kim Jong Ill. According to former Clinton White House official Lanny Davis, the former President would probably make a pitch to Kim that would highlight the "good will" that releasing the prisoners would engender around the world. So these two women have been pardoned by North Korea, and should return to the United States soon.
Today's events are made even more surprising by the recent spat between North Korea and the former First Lady and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton, at last month's ASEAN summit, said that North Korea was, "seeking attention," and that "they don't deserve it." In response a spokesman for the North Korean Foreign Minister called her a "funny lady," perhaps misinterpreting her remarks as dry wit?
In the end, this is great news for Ling and Lee, and their families. Many questions remain about their future. How soon will they return home? Will they speak to the press (or on Current TV) about their experience? Will they return to remote and dangerous corners of the world to continue the great reporting they've done so far? It is very possible that they don't know the answers to these questions yet.

Goldman Sachs Runs The World

Last month's Rolling Stone features an article written by Matt Taibbi titled "The Great American Bubble Machine" about powerful US investment bank Goldman-Sachs. He explains how Goldman-Sachs is at the center of the US financial system and involved in every great crash since 1929.
Goldman Sachs was founded in 1869 by in the United States by German immigrant Marcus Goldman. In 1928 they created the Goldman Sachs Trading Company, which worked like a ponzi scheme. They would create an initial public offering and then sell ninety percent of the stocks. Then, under a different private company that they owned, they would bid up the price of the stock. Afterwards, they would have an initial public offering for that company, and repeat the process over again. Finally, thanks to the market crash of 1929, they would lose $475B of today's dollars when the scheme collapsed as well.
Goldman Sachs also helped inflate tech stocks during the 1990s. Normally, any company taken public by Goldman Sachs would have to have been in business for five years and profitable for three. Goldman Sachs threw out their own rules, and in 1997, out of 24 IPOs they ushered only 16 were profitable. By 2000, they took 18 companies public, and only 4 were profitable. They would then offer their biggest purchasers of new stocks a special low price on the promise that they would buy more stock latter. This ensured that the stock would rise after the IPO, meaning that the casual trader would see this as a good buy. Considering that Goldman Sachs took a 6% fee from all IPOs they oversaw, they stood to make huge profits from these unprofitable companies.
Enter the 2000s, an Goldman Sachs had found another bubble to blow, housing. This story has already become famous. By offering mortgages to people who normally wouldn't qualify and then bundling them together as securities, Goldman Sachs increased demand for housing, thus raising the price. Goldman Sachs would then purchase credit-default swaps (from AIG), effectively betting against the same mortgages they had just sold.
After people naturally started to default on their mortgages, Goldman Sachs turned to commodities trading. In the 1980s, Goldman Sachs purchased J Aron investment firm. J Aron then lobbied congress to overturn a 1936 law preventing using the commodities exchange as a parlor table. Then, Goldman Sachs stated trading oil. In the summer of 2008, an average barrel of oil was traded twenty-seven times, and the price soared 300%. Shockingly, Goldman Sachs has also been a big lobbyist for Cap-N-Trade legislation to curb the effects of global warming. They realize that carbon credits would be on the commodities market, and since the government would continually lower the amount of carbon credits, the price is guaranteed to go up and create the next great bubble.
All of this means that Goldman Sachs, either accidentally or willfully, are inflating bubbles, accelerating crashes, and making billions of the backs of everyday Americans. With ex-Goldman Sachs executives, like Robert Rubin, Hank Paulson, and Larry Summers, at the helm of the federal agencies meant to oversee institutions like Goldman Sachs, that is not very likely to change. The same people who took failing tech companies public, who invented credit-default swaps, and deregulated the markets are the same ones controlling the levers of government. How can they be expected to be defenders of the public interest when they are overseeing the same policies and colleagues from their previous careers that made them wealthy?

Showcasing MLS

This week marks the halfway point for Major League Soccer with the MLS All-Star game, which took place in front of twenty thousand at the home stadium for Real Salt Lake. Taking on foriegn clubs has become the tradition for this game, and this year the all-stars were taking on Everton FC from northwest England. The game is truely a cosmopolitan event, as players from both sides are from a lot of different countries.
The all-stars were quickly schooled on the skill and class of the English Premier League club when Stuart Holden turned the ball over to Louis Saha in his own area, and the Frenchman put his team up 1-0 in the first 12 minutes. Brad Davis would equalize 13 minutes later when Conner Casey used his size to control a long ball from famed Mexican international Blanco. Davis ended up at the far post on the end of a low ball from Casey and it was 1-1. The MLSers had multiple chances to go ahead, notably from Casey and Landon Donovan, who was all alone at the six yard box in the 76th minute, couldn't beat the Everton and US number one Tim Howard. The game would end tied at the end of 90, and go to penalty kicks. After an impressive display of goalkeeping from Howard and US veteran Kasey Keller, Everton became the first foreign club to defeat the MLS All-Stars when Howard made a save against Swedish veteran and current Seattle Sounder Freddie Ljunberg.
This was a good showing despite the loss for MLS. Everton were probably their toughest opponent yet. They still outplayed the Toffies and could have easily won the shootout. The unspoken purpose of this game, however, is to show MLS talent off to top level foriegn clubs, and this didn't really happen this year. MLS standout are already known to these European clubs. Donovan and Keller are Americans who have come to MLS after stints across the Atlantic, and Ljunberg was a standout at Arsenal for years. The game was certainly a showcase for US goalkeeping though, as Tim Howard was named MVP.