SNL - Iran So Far

****UPDATE****

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xfiaxPsvnTU

Thanks to PTB who brought this to my attention... this video has yet to come down on YouTube, but it surely will.

Well I'm having a terrible day... but this is a little pick me up. Great SNL short by Andy Samberg of "Lazy Sunday" and "Dick-in-a-Box" fame.

It's a homo-erotic ode to the president of a country with no homosexuals... go figure.

****UPDATE****

NBC pulled the video off YouTube, which is ridiculous, because it's free advertising. I mean when was the last time anyone cared about SNL? They get a little juice with this video and they pull it...

but you can find the video here on the NBC site:

here

****UPDATE****

That's not working, either... looks like that was taken down, too, not for copyright but probably our of fear of backlash or something. Unbelievable.

You’ve Studied Yourself Retarded

I know this post is a bit late on the subject, however, I think its important to touch on a few points that no one has mentioned here in relation to Columbia’s invitiation to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yes I know its very late, but so was every single paper I handed in high school and college. That being said, I now move on to my main point: Columbia University has studied itself retarded.

Columbia University’s invitation to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad represents everything that is wrong with the far left. There is a certain arrogance that the far left has, especially a university such as Columbia, that damages the image of Democratic party as a whole. It’s this smarter than you attitude that drives independents to vote for C minus candidates (also known as Morons) as opposed to left leaning Democrats, who get pinned with this image. At what point in your studies have you learned enough facts, solved enough math problems that you become so completely insensitive to reality and make decisions that are in the “quest for education”, yet serve no such purpose. At what point do you put youself so far above the “layman”, that you become just too intelligent for us to understand your reasoning. These people have become completely blinded by their intellect.

Supposedly, this invitation was for the purpose of education. What could they have possibly learned from Ahmadinejad’s presence. Maybe they thought that they could change his views, you know cause they're so smart, how could they not? Guess they failed to realize he is just a figurehead. In 1933 Adolf Hitler’s highest Ambassador, Hans Luther, came and spoke at Columbia, as several other Nazi Ambassadors were around the world giving similar speeches, about Hitler’s peaceful intentions. Millions of Europeans and Americans bought into these "pecaceful intentions" until it became obviously false in the late 1930's. Now we have to listen to another oppression dictator speak of peaceful intentions at Columbia University.

The more I think about it, the more I think this was just a shameful plug and a pathetic grab for attention by Columbia and now they’ve been used as complete tools. They’ve become propaganda for the Iranian government. After his question and answer at Columbia, the Islamic Republic News Agency posted the following article. http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0709252616013529.htm

My personal favorite quote: “On second day of his entry in New York, and amid standing ovation of the audience that had attended the hall where the Iranian President was to give his lecture as of early hours of the day, Ahmadinejad said that Iran is not going to attack any country in the world. “

Lets forget the possibility that this man could possibly be providing Iraqi insurgents with tools to plant roadside bombs that are killing Americans. You’ve been used for propaganda. You've been used for "A standing ovation"…….

Lost in Translation

My interest was piqued by Chris' post regarding illegal immigrants in Riverside, NJ, so I took a look at some people's perspectives, most notably here. And I understand that immigration, legal or illegal, is a complex issue with political, social, historical and cultural facets. But maybe the debate would make a little more sense if the debaters could keep one fact straight: immigrants are not necessarily illegal immigrants.

Oh how the world becomes a little simpler with a spotlight shining brightly through the darkness! That would mean that wanting to enforce laws against illegals (you know, law-breakers) doesn't mean that you're a racist. That would mean (gasp) that it's theoretically possible to embrace the immigrant population while simultaneously restricting illegal immigrants. We could recognize legals as the vital backbone of the American workforce while at the same time recognizing the unfair drain illegal immigrants are on the taxpayers!

Now, even still, there are some interesting points made by people who haven't quite worked this out. Honorable mention to this guy who says that all 20th century immigrant arrivals in New York and San Francisco arrived "uninvited" and technically illegal until processed. So I guess you can't oppose illegal immigration unless your ancestors received and RSVP'd to their invitations...

Sarcasm aside, I'm not an expert on anything, least of all immigration. Call it idealism, but I have to believe that there is a way to preserve the economic strength of communities with high immigrant populations without embracing illegals. I don't think it's going to be done with a fence that reinforces the "us and them" mentality, especially since the invention of the tunnel. Next idea?

This Pissed Me Off

Okay... it's 3 AM and I'm still awake and pissed off. I'm mostly pissed off at the Mets, but that's another story for another blog, so I'll have to talk about something else.

Last night, a Republican debate aired on PBS focusing on minority issues. The debate, which was at a traditionally Black university, opened with the question "Can the party of Abraham Lincoln win the hearts and minds of all Americans?" Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, and Romney-- the front runners for their party's nomination for president-- declined invitations to participate in the debate. Each cited conflicting fundraisers.

I'm obviously not a Republican, and I don't want to belittle or lecture Republicans or their party, but I thought this was an unequivocal disgrace. (I'll belittle and lecture the candidates in particular, thank you.)

How could someone who aspires to lead this country put his back to so many Americans so publicly? How could they refuse to speak to their issues so blatantly?

Blacks and Hispanics are disenfranchised in this country, by almost any measure they are doing worse than their white counterparts. In that community a feeling of alienation persists, a feeling that minorities are left almost entirely out of the political process in this country.

And apparently they are.

Minorities vote less. They are more cynical about the process, and so they stay home at a greater rate on Election Day. And I guess that'll suit these guys just fine, because it seems these candidates did the political calculus that they are better off taking money from rich folks than sharing their ideas and opinions with a group that doesn't usually get to hear them. And if they don't show up to vote, if this gets minorities a little more alienated from the political process, well then that's two birds, one stone.

At the risk of sounding idealistic, a president can't duck important questions like this. It's undemocratic and un-American. Those 4 candidates said all you need to know about them right there. I mean, have some guts and the courage of your convictions.

--The crazy part is that if just one of the four had shown up, it would have been a huge story and a huge political victory, and it would have been a bigger story than anything that was said there. But instead the story is about Republicans looking like bigots. So it was a crap move politically as well, but that's neither here nor there.--

In the end, it's not about Democrat or Republican, Giuliani or Hillary, or black or white. In the end it's about a system that has gotten so F'd up that it encourages leading candidates to take a pass, and skip out on the American people and the free exchange of ideas.

Watch: Bill O'Reilly Discovers Black Culture

This is a video re-cap of the comments CP alluded to in his post, immediately below. I couldn't find a link with just the sound bite, so it's a liberal radio show called The Young Turks talking about it.

I agree with CP that the media definitely focuses too much on O'Reilly's ignorance here. It's just another form of "celebrity news" that I loathe. On the other hand, O'Reilly's got the #1 show on cable news. There are a lot of people that look at him as if he preaches the Gospel, and when he puts his ignorance on display like this, it's very telling.

The Young Turks are kind of annoying, and the segment is a little long, but the better clips come in the second half so you have to be patient.

The Man, The Myth, The Factor

Recently, there's been some uproar regarding Bill O'Reilly's comments. Last September 19th, Bill O'Reilly was describing his Harlem experience with the Reverend Al Sharpton on his radio show. He expressed some surprise at how similar the environment in Sylvia's, the renown soul food restaurant, to other "white" restaurants was. This last point is what several media outlets took issue with. How could O'Reilly live in New York and be surprised at Blacks acting civil? Why would he seem to equate his experience at Sylvia's to some foreign endeavor in Istanbul?

Both sides need to be taken to task. Today, ABCnews.com has an AP piece about how there are more Blacks and Latinos in prison cells than in college dorms. Sit back and let that last sentence settle in. Blacks and Latinos make up roughly twelve percent of the nation's population apiece, well over fifty percent of the prison system, and are a dwindling minority on college campuses. This is all acceptable because the media chooses to continue to normalize criminal behavior with Black and Brown skin, thus making it acceptable to fill prisons with "them" and college campuses equivalent to Burma (or Myanmar). Meanwhile, Bill O'Reilly, a member of the media, would rather continue his fight against gangsta rap than confront the issue head on with some hard-hitting questions. How is this acceptable to most of society? What are the impacts on the several communities and what is society's obligation in this pandemic? Those questions aren't as sexy as missing white girls or Dennis Miller's diatribes.

Instead of acting upset over what O'Reilly said, maybe the folks at Media Matters, CNN, et al., should look in the mirror. The fact of the matter is they'd be as surprised as O'Reilly that on Sylvia's walls, you'll see photos of former presidents, elected officials, A-list celebrities of all colors and culture, and a who's who of American public life. Yet, the Fourth Estate would prefer to continue its crusade against Bill O'Reilly than to deal with actual problems that affect the Black community. Exactly what harm does Media Matters expects to befall upon Black folks of Harlem due to O'Reilly's words? None.

Meanwhile, O'Reilly is still out there putting down rap music. Because rap music, of course, is a genuine phenomenon that praises nihilism, that puts a premium on violence of all sorts, and is responsible for the many ills of Blacks.

Last February, we celebrated a filmmaker by granting him the highest award he can be given. The film for which he was awarded was called The Departed. America created its African Americans, and its African Americans know where to look for inspiration.

Obama has as many donors as entire Republican field

The title of this post is pretty self- explanatory. The Politico has an article on how Obama's strategy of getting many (many, many, many) small donors has re-written the fundraising game, similar to how Howard Dean (through Joe Trippi) used the internet to re-write fundraising rules four years ago.

The result is Obama boasting 75,000 new donors who pledged small amounts in the last four months alone. That's huge. That's more than the entire Republican field put together.

Obama still can't pierce Clinton's lead, just like Dean ultimately fell despite his netroots support, but this is an important, and I think ultimately good, shift.

NY Times: Towns Rethink Laws Against Illegal Immigrants

The New York Times has an interesting article today about Riverside, NJ, a town that passed a law subjecting those who knowingly hire or rent to illegal immigrants to civil and criminal liability. The law was passed three years ago, but because of the legal and economic consequences, it has been rescinded.

Quotes from the article:

“I don’t think people knew there would be such an economic burden,” said Mayor George Conard, who voted for the original ordinance. “A lot of people did not look three years out.”

“The business district is fairly vacant now, but it’s not the legitimate businesses that are gone,” a former mayor who pushed for the law said. “It’s all the ones that were supporting the illegal immigrants, or, as I like to call them, the criminal aliens.”

Many businesses that remain are having a hard time. Angelina Guedes, a Brazilian-born beautician, opened A Touch From Brazil, a hair and nail salon, on Scott Street two years ago to cater to the immigrant population. At one point, she had 10 workers.

Business quickly dried up after the law against illegal immigrants. Last week, on what would usually be a busy Thursday afternoon, Ms. Guedes ate a salad and gave a friend a manicure, while the five black stylist chairs sat empty.

“Now I only have myself,” said Ms. Guedes, 41, speaking a mixture of Spanish and Portuguese. “They all left. I also want to leave but it’s not possible because no one wants to buy my business.”

////

The article describes a ghost town, with boarded up storefronts and for sale signs in the downtown section of town.

The town where I grew up in New York has been the center of a national immigration debate, because of unsuccessful efforts to stop day laborers from meeting up to look for work each morning. Immigration has had mixed consequences in my town. Our small public schools have bulged in size, and the buildings can't really keep up. The housing market has been hurt, because illegal immigrants pack multiple families into small apartments. The culture of small town, USA has been altered by the influx of different language and culture. Our identity as an Italian and Irish community has been reshaped.

On the other hand, I shudder to think what our main street, Mamaroneck Ave., would look like without illegal immigrants from Mexico and South America. There are many industries that rely on the immigrants as labor and consumer. One of my favorite parts of my town's main drag is that there are independently owned and operated family storefronts. While Rye and White Plains are littered with Banana Republics, Victoria Secrets, and other schlocky corporate brands, Mamaroneck has local run markets and old- school stores that give it its charm.

Without immigrants the town would look like Rye, as if a high end mall had exploded and its stores scattered across the streets. Or, it would be completely empty, with hay dust balls skipping down Mamaroneck Ave, as all the "white people" shop in the Westchester, 10 miles away.

Mamaroneck has always been an immigrant town. And I suspect most of the problems I detailed in the early paragraph could have been said about the Irish and Italians that moved there in the middle of last century. The growth and evolution of a town is a slow and painful thing. Change always is, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Quote of the Day 9/26

More on Blackwater...

“This is a nightmare. We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was very bad. This is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we're trying to have an impact for the long term."

- An unidentified senior US military official in today's Washington Post on Blackwater's massacre of up to 20 Iraqi civilians. Blackwater soldiers fired into a group of cars in a downtown Baghdad square. Blackwater, a private security firm that functions as an army to protect US interests, said the shootout came after an ambush when their soldiers were protecting diplomats. Iraqi officials countered no such threat existed, and there is video evidence that Blackwater was unprovoked. Iraq's PM has demanded the firm leave Iraq, but Secretary of State Rice has stepped in to ensure Blackwater's continued presence.

There's A War?

Ken Burns' and PBS' documentary, The War, is a monumental effort showcasing a nation at war, but in contrast to today, it also shows us to be a nation in peril. In the mammoth fifteen hour project, Burns brilliantly shows the war's experience from America's perspective, mainly focusing on four towns scattered throughout the country. Through Tuesday night, we witness the bond drive, the euphoric feeling of young citizens enlisting and being drafted, battles in the pacific, Africa and Europe, the effort to save resources and the booming military industrial complex that put millions to work. Basically, you see much of what you don't see today.

Chris Meehan wrote an interesting piece regarding Blackwater and other private contractors in Iraq last Monday. It's something that would appear alien in the world Ken Burns has brought to us. Paying ex-soldiers to be soldiers is not exactly a value shared by the men who fought and took the town of Cisterna in the spring of '44. Maintaining a policy of no-bid contracts and worrying about inadequate body-armor would appear treasonous to the families who stayed home between '42-'46, saving bacon fat and empty cans to contribute for the war effort.

MSNBC has an article about the Department of Defense battling with the State Department about private contractors and their role. The problem is that contractors' use are as prevalent among the DoD personnel as it is within State. One might say too little, too late regarding the DoD's efforts to take some hold of the situation, but seeing that we'll be in Iraq for a little while longer (I don't know if that's an under or overstatement), it may still be a good time to take some action.

Meanwhile, we delve deeper into fantasy sports, pray at the alter of celebrity news, and bob our heads to the new jingle remixed off Elvis Presley's great song, Viva Viagra! All this, and more, no doubt, to help us forget that there's a war going on. That young, poor men and immigrants are dying. That, despite official military rules, young women are fighting in fierce combat. And that there may be no clear end in sight.

Straight from the TMI Dept.

A moment in the Esquire profile of John Edwards goes from tender to curious to gross...

"I hope this isn't too personal," I said to Edwards, "but I was reading about how Elizabeth discovered her cancer this second go-around. It was a broken rib, correct?"

"Yes," Edwards said.

"The papers said you were hugging her -- which is always nice to hear, a married guy hugging his wife. It must have been bizarre. What happened, you just hugged her and heard a snap?"

"Maybe it is a little personal," Edwards said, laughing self-consciously.

"Maybe I don't want to know?"

"It was a perfectly reasonable question," he said, bailing me out.

"So hugging was perhaps a euphemism?"

"That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it," he said, raking his forelock with his fingers.

Here's a hint...

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton was endorsed for president by Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN). Bayh, a moderate Democrat who flirted with running himself, and has a whole Kevin Kline in Dave thing going on, said, "Hillary Clinton is a seasoned, experienced leader who will be ready to lead this country on Day One."

I think Hillary's getting the nomination, and I don't think she's picking Obama as her running mate. She's just too savvy politically to take that big a chance. She'll go the safe route and tab someone like Bayh- a white man from a Republican leaning state. That will show her commitment to being president of "all of America." Of Bayh's endorsement Hillary said: "[this] underscores my commitment for running a national campaign."

As a senator, though, Bayh is not necessarily the ideal candidate. Governors' executive experience, lack of voting record and Washington- outsider status make them more attractive for a national ticket. So team- Clinton probably has a white, male, Southern/ Midwestern governor in mind for the spot.

Someone like Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe might be a good choice, well, on second thought, maybe not the ARKANSAS governor, but you get the idea...

The Counter Jab, Followed by An Uppercut

Today, Columbia University did the academically brave, and socially honorable thing of hosting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a question and answer session. The Ivy League university had been taking harsh criticism for the decision, seeing that relations between the U.S. and Iran have been quite adversarial, especially since the revelation of an Iranian nuclear program back in 2002. Many in the press believed Columbia should not give a Head of State that sponsors deadly and violent activity against the U.S. and our allies a platform, choosing instead to listen to his tirades from other parts of the world, then critique. Even still, there were calls for his arrest due to his government's activities. Columbia went forward with the scheduled speech, then interaction, for if serious discussion cannot be held in these halls, then where?

Columbia's President Lee Bollinger silenced his critics with his opening statement by leveling accusation after accusation at President Ahmadinejad, making sure this would be no cream-puff event. He called into question Iran's freedom of the press and expression, and labeled the president a "petty and cruel dictator". As a great center of Holocaust studies, Bollinger brought the attention to President Ahmadinejad's assertion of the validity of the World War II genocide, calling the self-renowned intellectual "either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.” Bollinger asked Ahmadinejad to clarify his warmongering statements regarding Israel and his government's activities within Iraq and the greater Middle East.

It was exactly what he promised it would be, and he delivered: a free and open dialogue within an institution that should, at its very core, promote such a thing. The Iranian President's response was laced with religious quotes that had nothing to do with the questions before him. He avoided some questions, choosing instead to go into his usual diatribe of the Bush administration and how Iran is a "peace-loving" state. He called for "further research" regarding the Holocaust because he claimed nothing is "absolute". And he all but labeled the U.S. a terror organization because of the government's activities in Iraq, never specifically denying his own state's involvement.

Outside of stripping the king, pointing that he's naked and experiencing "shrinkage", Columbia has risen to the top as an institution that represents and personifies all that an American university should be about. It silenced its critics, but, above all, it spoke loudly for the intellectual and cerebral, who understand the world is a lot more complicated than "us" and "evil doers".

In the end, President Ahmadinejad looked small, out of place and obvious. Small in his childish complaints to Bollinger's points without ever addressing them one-by-one. Out of place because Columbia was too good for him, as evidenced by his response of his nation's treatment of homosexuals that they have no homosexuals to mistreat (hopefully, next time it will get the Ayatollah.) Obvious? Ahmadinejad doesn't run a damn thing in Iran. He's a figure-head who's only real power is that of speech, and Columbia exposed that weakness and, hopefully, redirected our focus to the real issue within that country, the religious zealots who run it.

Operation: BLACKWATER

Private security firm Blackwater USA has been in the news this week for the wrong reasons. Blackwater has been contracted out in Iraq to provide security for US diplomats and civilian construction workers. This is a paramilitary force with little accountability that has taken on the functions of the US military. In her book The End of America, Naomi Wolf points to use of paramilitary forces as a sign that a civilization is on the road to dictatorship.

Now, I don't know about all that. I saw Ms. Wolf on the Daily Show the other night arguing that we've seen 10 such signs hit in the last few years, but I don't understand if she's expecting next November's elections to be mysteriously called off for some reason, or what.


Either way, Blackwater, with its ominous name and logo, does sound like something out of a science fiction movie. And now they're facing some serious charges. About a week ago, Blackwater agents were in a gun battle in downtown Baghdad in which they killed 20 Iraqi civilians. The Iraqi government had been looking to file criminal charges; however, according to US statutes, private security firms, and their 25,000 employees in the country, are immune from prosecution by the Iraqi government.

From CNN.com: Iraqi officials, who claim the shootings were unprovoked, dispute Blackwater's claim that the guards were responding to an attack and said on Saturday they had a videotape showing the Blackwater guards opened fire without provocation. The incident prompted the Iraqi government to call for Blackwater's expulsion from the country and sparked anger among Iraqis.

Secretary of State Rice has been working to smooth things over, and right now it doesn't seem like Blackwater is going anywhere. Even on the heels of another report that Blackwater employees were engaged in black-market weapons trade, stealing from the company's arsenal and selling guns and ammo smuggled into Iraq.

200 private contractors have given their lives bravely working in Iraq. However, the whole idea of Blackwater makes me queasy. It's just one more case of the private sector taking responsibility and government function, one more company that's gotten insanely rich from this war, and just one more thing to worry about.

Don't Tase Me Bro!

The following presentation is what makes the internet the greatest and most awful invention ever. Ladies and gentlemen... Don't tase me-- the remix.

All the Mendelas are Dead!

The president once again showed his rhetorical skills while opining Iraq's lack of political leadership. Bush suggested that the lack of political progress in the country can be attributed to the absence of Mandela- style leadership.

Or, as he put it, "Mandela's dead!" Notice how the President talks to reporters like they are little kids and have no idea about Saddam's awful reign, slowly explaining that he split up families etc.

My favorite part of this clip?
"...sombudysezame... wheres MAN-DEL-A?"

According to a Pew Research Center report this week, 54% of Americans want the troops brought home as soon as possible. The Democrats, meanwhile, can't pass cloture motions on any of their proposed anti-war bills. Thank goodness that the Senate was able to find the time in their busy schedule to condemn the MoveOn.org ad calling General Petraeus, "General Betray Us". Is this really the best use of our Congressional resources? The health care system is in shambles, the public education system in this country is failing, the Canadian dollar is now on par with the U.S. dollar, yet the most pressing issue in the Senate is to figure out whether or not they agree with a newspaper ad? I think Obama, who chose not to vote, said it best

"The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements. This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq. It's precisely this kind of political game-playing that makes most Americans cynical about Washington's ability to solve America's problems. By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against this empty politics. I registered my views on the ad itself the day it appeared."

Less meaningless polarizing votes, more progress on the issues pressing this nation.

2007 Mets Highlights

Ok this has absolutely nothing to do with politics. But if you're a Mets fan, which I certainly am, you might need a little pick me up today, which I certainly do (and not only because I saw Naiomi Wolf on the Colbert Report last night talking about 10 reasons why our country is at its natural end).

So, I'm violating my own rule by posting something completely apolitical. Well, apolitical except in the following sense: There's nothing more American than the New York Mets.

On Priorities...

Ben Cohen, of Ben & Jerry's fame, is heading a group called Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities. $2M has been raised by the group to lobby the presidential candidates to commit to reduce the size of the defense budget by $60B. The money would go towards education, children's health care, and energy independence. The Pentagon's current budget is $926B/ year.

The group also says that it has recruited 9,000 voters in Iowa who have pledged their support in the Democratic caucus to whichever candidate Business Leaders endorses. In a caucus as small as Iowa, that could wind up having a large impact.

From the website: "Former admirals, general and pentagon officials agree that the U.S. can safely trim $60 Billion/year from wasteful pentagon spending by reducing nuclear and other obsolete weapons..."

The $926B the US spends on defense dwarfs China, who spends the second most in the world at $122B, Russia ($59B) or the combined totals for the Axis of Evil ($10B). Of the Pentagon's massive budget, $463B of it is discretionary spending-- meaning it has to be renewed every year and does not include money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and does not include most of the Homeland Security budget, which is covered in other areas. It's mostly bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, when it comes to discretionary spending, K-12 education gets $38B, child's health insurance $50B, renewable energy research gets $2B, foreign humanitarian aid $13B, and the EPA $8B. Again, this is compared to the $463B given to the Department of Defense.

According to the website, here is what could be bought with the $60B taken out of the Pentagon's budget:

• Provide health insurance to 9 million American kids who lack it

• Rebuild or modernize our public schools over 12 years

• Retrain a quarter million workers

• Cut our reliance on foreign oil in half over 10 years

• Restore recent cuts in life-saving medical research

• Invest wisely in Homeland Security by inspecting cargo containers entering our ports

• Save 6 million children who die of hunger-related diseases in impoverished countries annually

• Begin to reduce the deficit

All of these investments could be made, year after year, without increased taxpayer expense.

In his farewell address, President (and former general) Eisenhower warned against our country's developing military/ industrial complex. Today, the two biggest industries in the US are weapons and movies. Where are our priorities? Why must every politician fear a moniker as "un-American" or "soft" because they want to decrease the military budget (ever so slightly) for these other benefits? And, more importantly, why will so few politicians challenge that assertion?

And another thing I really don't get is why this has to be a Democratic issue. Why is this group going straight to the Dem candidates, not bothering to waste their time with Republicans? I suspect it's a similar reason as to why leading Republican presidential candidates refuse to participate in a debate on minority issues. They have ceded the issue. They are not the party of ethnic minorities and their issues, and just accept it, just like they will always be for increased military spending, no matter how little sense it might make.

Buchanan's Paradise Losing

Former presidential candidate, adviser and speechwriter, and Republican strategist Patrick J. Buchanan (The Great!) has pin-pointed a crises facing America and the West at large (excluding Latin America, of course). It seems that the total number of whites in America and Europe, Anglos to be more specific, are not rising as fast as that of browns, light-browns and cafe-con-leches. This, of course, spells a disaster for Western culture because is signals a demise of institutions great men like Johns Winthrop and Smith helped establish, and greater men like James' Madison and Monroe helped sustain, because, quite naturally, the off-whites and darker folks can't possibly have the intelligence, fortitude nor vision to keep our classically liberal government progressing forward.

They - excuse me - We are not naturally of Europe, thus, we are not white, which makes sense. And since most people "of color" born in the West today are born into entrenched representative governments, it's clear as day that we would have no idea, nor incentive, to promote open markets, the Bill of Rights, and all other entities that help keep us living free, unmolested lives.

Here's a question for the former GOP heavyweight: Would an ethnic cleansing do the trick? Since white families aren't having kids at the rate other ethno-racial groups are, the real trick is to get some sort of government program that will; A) halt the births, and; B) start the population-regression program. I mean, the governments of the U.S. already have a pretty successful policy with respect to young, Black men. Why not shift this policy to young, Black women, then to the larger, looming issue, HISPANICS!

The problem with ol' Patty is that he sees a racial problem, which naturally calls for a racial solution. He doesn't see that America, indeed democracies, are an experiment that constantly bring its citizenry into new realms, and the true test of its success and failures are seen in how the citizenry react to those tests. America began with slavery and is currently trying to deal with alternative families, while England has shown it can live with a monarchy. When the strength of a nation is presupposed on its racial, religious, or any other superficial makeup, then the Rwandas of the world become all the more prominent.