Coulter endorses Clinton?

Okay, I was hanging out with my Mom last night and were having fun checking out videos on YouTube. I decided to actually check out the main page and scan for anything interesting. You can imagine our shock when we came upon an actual video of Ann Coulter endorsing Hillary Clinton! I guess McCain must be quite the polarizing candidate for the Republicans.

My mother is a die-hard Bush fanatic, while I am obviously an ardent Green. Yet we both like Barack Obama, and would prefer to see him President more than any other front-runners. We both watched the live video of the Minneapolis rally at the Target Center.

The truth is, Ann Coulter is right. Hillary Clinton is by far the closest candidate to Dubya. He even stole right from Clinton's speeches after 9-11 and prior to the Iraq War. Hillary was touting the link between Al Qaeda and Iraq more than Bush was! McCain is only going along with the surge to allow himself to be still called a Republican. He's a moderate who is moving the party to the center on many key issues. But the Clintons surpass McCain in their move to the far-right on issues of trade and the US military empire. Anyone that hasn't realized this hasn't done the research!

While I will not be attending a caucus in February, I still urge those who do to consider supporting Barack Obama (and Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer) in the DFL. I know my mother will, my friend Habtamu Ansha, and several others. Instead myself and dozens of others will be campaigning for Farheen Hakeem in House District 61B. ( I currently live in 61A )

Meanwhile, I ponder how awful a situation America could be in if we only have a choice of McCain or Clinton. And how Ann Coulter would be campaigning for the "liberals" she has for so long hated. Ironic, but it shows how far the Democrats are willing to move to win. Which is why the "electable" argument shouldn't always be the most important one.

Hope for Kenya

If you look at they typical American media, you might think that the latest election in Kenya was solely about tribal politics. Delving further into the news there, I have found more than that. I recommend checking out the Daily Nation, The Daily Standard, and the ODM-Kenya Party.

Odinga believes in Universal Healthcare, reducing the size of Kenya's military, and improving the livelihood of Kenya's poor. Yet he also drives a Hummer, as the Governator does in California. He wants taxes reduced but opposes trickle down economics. He wants a Marshall Plan for Kenya, that could only be financed through a progressive tax. He sounds like an FDR populist.

When officially announcing his run for Presidency, Raila Odinga stated " To paraphrase Nelson Mandela, I dream of a Kenya at peace with itself; a country free of hatred. As Martin Luther King Jr said, hatred paralyses life while love releases it. Hatred confuses life, while love harmonises it. Hatred darkens life, while love illuminates it."

Also stating in his announcement speech, "Tribalism is today tearing this country apart." If Odinga really wants to end the bloodshed, he should ensure that his rally in Uhuru Park does not incite more hatred than hope. Though Kibaki is against the rally, it is important that freedom of speech and right to assemble are allowed for democracy to flourish.

His supporters have a right to be angry if the election was rigged or tampered with in any way. But to use the announced results as an excuse to riot, pillage, rape, and murder are not to be condoned. Odinga should extinguish the cycle of tribal warfare in Kenya. He should heal the wounds through word and then action if he is the true winner of the election. There will be hope for Kenya if its chosen leader acts with the highest of wisdom and compassion for all Kenyans.

NEWSFLASH: Humans are the dominate species on Earth

The ignorance of humanity never ceases to amaze me. And when people awaken to what is truly happening, I am amazed they have done so! Global Warming seems to irritate so many people. The question has changed - it's not whether it is real - what are we going to do about it?

Nathaniel states:"All you global warming people need to just stop...take a look at the world and realize that humans are not the problem with the world."

1) The Great Wall of China is visible from space
2) It took 300M years for oil (and coal) to be created from previous life. It will take humanity 300 years to go through most the oil.
3) Acid rain is the effect pollution has on the environment - care to drink from a local spring as people have in the not to distant past? Our waters are not safe anywhere. So much coal has been used in India and Bangladesh that Banglis have little drinkable water ( most has been contaminated with mercury )
4) The photo is of the Earth at night. Tell me again these lights emanate from nature and not humanity?

I keep doing as you say, Nate. I look around and see nature doing amazing things, and humans doing wonderful things to improve our collective quality of life. Unfortunately, humans must find a way to stay within natures boundaries - because we are subject to them at some point. Nature affects us and we nature. Just ask a farmer if humans affect the Earth - because if we didn't he would have no job.

Nathaniel statment #2: " How can you record the C02 emissions over 400,000 years when we obviously did not have instrumentation to record that."

Ice core samples from the Antarctic are the primary source. We know the earth is more than 400,000 years old. Therefore we are smart enough to devise ways to meausure Co2 levels. If you do not believe mankind is that smart, then that is your opinion. Facts have this annoying habit of proving themselves true.

Again, I do not see any debate on Global Warming occurring without ridiculing and ignoring all scientific thought. The debate ended when China capitulated - America's oil industry gave up long ago. Ideological Conservatives are nearly where their own party is taking a stance - that we should just give up on dealing with Global Warming and give in. ( similiar to what they say about Democrats giving into terrorism )

If only humanity realized how serious Global Warming is compared to petty terrorism.

Is Ethiopia a true ally against terrorism?

While debate over whether Somalia will become a terrorist state ensues, few in America question the legitimacy of Ethiopia. The current Ethiopian regime was elected democratically. In a New York Times article, that may seem legitimate enough. Reality states otherwise, because our so-called "liberal press" leaves out context.

Just as the Kurds and Tibetans have had their lands seized, history shows the Oromo also had their lands taken unjustly. The Oromo have a distinct culture, language , and even religion. Contrary to beliefs of some Abyssinian scholars, the Oromo have been in the region for some time. The Oromo language shares 20% of its words with Somali, and no one disputes Somalian heritage.

The Abyssinians believe they are, and might even be, descendents of Cush. They had faith that God was on their side. Therefore their kings were appointed by God, who justified war with the Oromo many times. Using their Christian credentials with European traders, they were finally able to crush the Oromo.

Abyssinians are the most ardent Christians in Africa. Being so before Europe "colonized" them, were able to postpone take-over. Italian Fascist Mussolini invaded Ethiopia using Oromo slavery as justification, without League of Nations approval, in 1935 and controlled the country until WW2 resolved.

The Oromo have steadily regained rights as time has progressed. In some circumstances Oromo are able to speak their language without punishment, but not yet in most public schools. They have used both political and violence to push for their cause. The most visible organization in their struggle is the Oromo Liberation Front.

How is the current Ethiopian government illegitimate?:

1) European Parliament resolution on Ethiopia

2) Human Rights Watch - Abuses and Political Repression in Ethiopia's Oromia Region

3) Amnesty International report on Ethiopia

4) US State Department codemnation




How is Ethiopia to justify war against Somalia when it is terrorizing its own people? How can Americans sit by and excuse human rights violations that are facts? How can America assume Somali will become a nation hellbent on American destruction? It takes quite a leap from reality to justify a war with Somalia.

Abdi Galgalo, an Oromo, makes his point against a war with Somalia. Siddise Abamagal believes genocide against the Oromo will be committed if war with Somalia breaks out. The American media ignore Oromo viewpoint, because they contradict Executive intelligence. But American citizens deserve to know what supporting a Somalian war entails.

If America supports Ethiopia, it supports terrorism and lethality against Oromo. This situation is not unfamiliar territory in American foreign policy. We ignored the Kurds, supporting Iraq, while at war with Iran.

Wake up America! We cannot support terrorism and human rights violations in any form - even from our so-called allies. We cannot drag our flag in muddy water and immediately fly it with pride!

Holy War or proxy war in the Horn of Africa?

Ethiopia, an ardently Orthodox Christian nation, is declaring war on Somalia - with U.S. support. The primary reason appears that Ethiopia fears a neighboring nation being an Islamist State. The United States does not want that either, for the irrational fear that it could become a "terrorist" state. For some odd reason, all Somalians have the unpolitically correct label of "Islamofascists." That is who we are are war with, according to many.

Eritrea, having just regained their lands from Ethiopia, supports the Islamist government because Ethiopia does not. Isaias Afwerki , President of Eritrea, wants a proxy war with Ethiopia. With Osama Bin Laden claiming Somalia as primary front for his war on the West, America will want a proxy war through Ethiopia. Somalia, having just regained some stability in 2004, faces the prospect of another harsh conflict.

When nations insist on war as a solution in Somalia, they key questions:

1) Do Ethiopian and Eritrean citizens gain from such a war?

Their money would be better spent diversifying their economies and tending to their own citizens. Their governments seem hellbent on destabilizing the entire region. The people of both nations and Somalia lose.

Ethiopia can certainly slaughter all of its opponents, especially if America chooses a more active role supplying weapons. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi probably assumes more aid from America if he does its bidding. This is quite foolish, like attacking a bees nest assuming you will get help. Neoconservatives may care about foreign aid, but Conservatives do not. And Democrats won't likely give Ethiopia more aid because they follow Bush as blindly as Kazakhstan.

Eritrea is rushing headfirst into fatalities. But they only want a way to hurt Ethiopia without officially declaring war. Foolish, but very ego driven.

2) Does lethality really solve anything?

I have long felt that we need to change the culture of lethality. For too long humans have generally lived peaceful family lives, but accepted that "their" nations military was on "their" side. Lethality is on no man's side but deaths. We need to see militarism for what is it - a last resort and not just a big stick worth wielding at the "other" AKA "the enemy of us."

Somalia is a stabler nation, and even if Islamists control it - will lethality make things better? Somalian Women, children, in addition to men of all ages await war. They wield machine guns ready to die for their nation. They will obey the will of Allah, otherwise the Americans have won.

3) What would no war in Somalia mean?

Imagine that all sides backed off from war. Bin Laden would have nothing to rally around except "Nation Building" in Somalia - what we are supposed to be doing in Iraq. Eritrea and Ethiopia could focus on domestic needs instead of fighting a pointless and irrational proxy war. The United States could focus on real issues, rather than supporting lethality further. All other nations not directly involved, the most signifcant being Kenya, would have no refugees coming caused by a regional war.

I can't imagine why any American would think they could change the mind of another country by use of lethality. Did we end Communism through brute force? How about Socialism in Latin America?

If China becomes the next superpower, would we want them to act as we have - spreading authoritian regimes around the world? America has a reputation and legacy to rebuild. If we are to pass the torch of global power to another nation or region we must become create the standards we want them to abide by. We should start by supporting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and ensuring the UN enforces them.