Y’ALL COME BACK NOW

The U.S. public likes stereotypes. Over the years, we have seen quite a few, some funny and some inflammatory. For instance, African-Americans have been portrayed as lazy and shiftless. But at least they are good basketball players and dancers. Today, Arabs are the recipient of many stereotypical designations that are not exactly accolades. They are "camel jockeys" and terrorists. Mexicans are "beaners."

To be fair, not only people of color have come under fire in assessing negative images. Southerners of the U.S. have been the subject of many jokes that are not complimentary. The term "redneck" is used to describe someone who holds racist tendencies. Sure, there are some racists in the South today, but the region hosts many white people who are not inclined to make negative statements about African-Americans.

Probably the most widely used subjects used to poke fun at Southerners are their accents and use of the English language. Years ago, a friend of mine from Alabama explained to me that the words "you all" are translated into "y’all" in his neck of the woods. It is pronounced as one word. The stuff that comes out of the ground, the reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, is pronounced "oll." There are other variances as well.

Perhaps the most popular stereotypical depiction of a Southerner who is not exactly Einstein and is also a little crooked has been that of a Southern sheriff. They are semi-literate and either chew tobacco or chomp on a cigar. The law enforcers are noted for stopping motorists and affixing trumped-up charges, but their humanity comes to the forefront when they offer the driver a chance to get off the hook by making a financial contribution to them.

In 1970, the Dodge Motor Company made a few advertisements using the Southern sheriff as the brunt to the punch lines to their ads. He was fat, had a small vocabulary, and chewed on a cigar. Ironically, the person who played this part, as well as made a living at depicting a dimwitted Southerner in many movies, is Clifton James, who was born in New York. Before you read the rest of this article, please go to this link to see him in action as he pulls over a young driver and attempts to charge him with driving a racing car within city limits, a violation in the town where he works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1WICosbX8k

They may be a dying breed, but one of these sheriff types came out of the woodwork recently. According to an Associated Press article of July 19, 2008, titled "Trucker Fined $500 for Failing Roadside English Test:"

The Star newspaper of Canada ran the story and received many replies. Here are a few:

• I guess all the Americans who travel to various parts of the world and drive will have to learn the local language well enough to be able to communicate efficiently with the police of the respective countries. Hill Billy was not a fictional character, he lives.
• Mr. Castillo spoke English well enough for this story, so it’s obvious why he was docked $500.
• I speak perfect English, yet I am sure if some Alabama cop with a heavy southern accent stopped me, that I too would have difficulty in understanding him.
• I’m sure Americans don’t mind anyone who doesn’t speak English to be fighting the war in Iraq.

Castillo had a trucker’s license for 20 years. In that time, he never received a ticket for any infraction. In other words, he is an accomplished trucker with an unblemished record. While speaking to the Alabama state trooper, the officer had no trouble understanding him. He just did not like his accent.

Xenophobia is rampant in the U.S. Unfortunately, it is growing, not receding.

I have written several columns about the "English only" movement in the U.S. and how ludicrous it is. I offer the same challenge to the Alabama state trooper who wrote up Castillo that I give to any U.S. citizen who espouses "English only" in the U.S.: when your use of the English language is faultless, maybe then you can open your mouth in opposition to those who speak English with an accent.

In parting, I would like to see the Alabama lawman stopped in New York City for an infraction and see if the New York cop could understand him. Fat chance.

SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF

The human race is gullible. In India, thousands of villages have "haunted houses" in which no person will enter. Haiti practices voodoo and many Haitians are convinced that a voodoo practitioner can put a spell on them that will make their heads turn 180 degrees so they will be looking behind them.

Most U.S. citizens mock such practices, yet they also are guilty of suspension of disbelief. My last article was a spoof about the cover of the New Yorker magazine on which Obama and his wife were pictured in an unflattering manner that depicted them through the eyes of his opponents. I wrote about this and then proceeded to make up names of magazines and organizations. I took the New Yorker incident to the absurd.

A reader from Canada said that it will be unfortunate, but some of my readers will think my article was true. He was right.

I designed a cover of a fictitious magazine, Quack, in which I showed a dog humping a duck and said the feature article was written by an astute researcher who proved the old saying, "Fuck a duck." The publishers were NADA (North American Duck Admirers).

The first inkling that someone would believe this came from a retired pro wrestler friend of mine, who, while reading the article, said, "I didn’t know there was a North American Duck Admirers group." I told him that he took too many bumps on the head during his wrestling career.

The next day, a friend to whom I sent the article, wrote back and said, "As usual, your articles are interesting and informative." I responded, this article was meant to be neither.

Today, I was speaking to one of my clients who enjoyed the article for its satirical content, and then I told him, "The editor of Quack magazine called me today and said they would pull the cover of the September issue after I noted that it may offend some duck lovers." I was shocked when the person to whom I was speaking said, "Really. It made such an impact." Unreal.

There is one huge aspect of history that surpasses even the gullibility of people believing my spoof on ducks: the invasion of Iraq was going to be a cakewalk.

There have been billions of words written about Iraq. Writers vary from unapologetic warmongers to hardline resistance supporters. However, few have written in detail about the one aspect of the U.S. policy that was the big gamble. If it worked, we would not be writing about Iraq today.

The big gamble was that Iraqis would welcome the U.S. as liberators. If they had, Bush would have no political problems today and his acceptance rate of the U.S. public would be very high. The anti-war opponents would be buried and no one would listen to their messages.

There would be no anti-war or pro resistance websites.
Bush & Co. knew fully well that all the propaganda they put forth was false. They knew they could con the public as well as the so-called opposition: the Democratic Party. The administration knew it was a gamble, but they did not realize how the odds were stacked against them.

The main reason for the ignorance is the age-old human frailty called "suspension of disbelief." Bush and cohorts knew Chalabi was lying through his teeth to garner the multi-million-dollar paydays he received from Washington. However, they did believe his assessment of the Iraqi people wanting to be liberated.

One date that is rarely mentioned is crucial in talking about Iraq: April 6, 2003. On that day, Chalabi was flown into the south of Iraq by the U.S. military. According to Chalabi, when they landed he would be met by 100,000 Iraqi freedom fighters. The actual number who showed was zero. That incident hit the U.S. hard because they knew they had been conned again.

Let's go forward three days. On April 9, 2003, we saw George Bush in front of his television watching the toppling of a statue of Saddam Hussein. When it hit the ground, Bush was elated. He got up from his chair and went out to make the announcement.

According to Bush, the toppling of the statue held the same importance as the falling of the Berlin Wall. What he did not tell the people is that the statue was torn down by U.S. military personnel and tanks, not Iraqis. Aerial views of the event show a handful of Iraqis along with a few dozen reporters and the U.S. military presence. Hardly an act of defiance from the general public.

At this time, the administration still held high hopes that Chalabi was right. For a couple of days, chaos was the order of the day. Then, the merde hit the fan. By the middle of April, the victorious conquering heroes were being shot at by Iraqis. In May, the acts of resistance grew in number. "Dead enders" was the phrase of the day. We were assured that within a couple of months, all resistance would be squelched.

Just prior to the invasion, we saw retired-general-after-retired-general give assessments. On one TV talk show, retired General Barry McAffrie, the mastermind behind the murders of 8,000 Iraqi men, women and children four days after the 1991 cease-fire between the U.S. and Iraq, stated that Iraq would fall within three to six days of the invasion. Another general disagreed and said it would take at least two weeks. They both laughed at the joke while Scott Ritter was hiding his head in his hands, all the time shaking his head from side-to-side and saying, "No, no, no." The generals and the interviewer then laughed at Ritter for his nonsensical attitude that Iraqis would fight back.

I am surprised that no one has made a video of this few minutes of the broadcast and then followed it with a video of a U.S. tank being blown up. It would be gory, but those few minutes would speak volumes. But, the U.S. public has never been fond of wanting to know the truth. And, it is in bad form to attack their heroes, such as McAffrie.

During this time, the administration highlighted the opinions of Chalabi and those of his ilk. They only listened to what they wanted to hear and Chalabi, the master liar he is, picked up on this and actually embellished his message.

Fairy tales are for kids. Bush had watched too many movies of Paris being liberated from the Nazis where the French women were showering the U.S. troops with flowers and kissing the soldiers.
The news we saw from the beginning of the occupation was bizarre. There was not one victory parade in Iraq in which U.S. soldiers marched. For the first few months, all we saw was expressionless Iraqis standing on sidewalks watching U.S. troops driving down the streets. This was definitely not 1944 Paris.

Then, the U.S. personnel became targets. They were not even allowed to travel safely, let alone be welcomed. They were disoriented because they knew the person who watched them in the morning may be the one to shoot an RPG at them that afternoon.

Just think if the big gamble had worked. The average Iraqi would be eating at McDonald's a couple of times a week. In Damascus and Tehran, the stars and stripes would adorn public buildings. The U.S. would be thriving economically after robbing all of Iraq's and Iran's oil, which would be selling for about $10 a barrel. The anti-war crowd in the U.S. would be underground.

Of all the pundits who predicted the outcome of an Iraqi invasion, one was keenly accurate; Tariq Aziz. He said, "We will welcome the Americans to Iraq. Unfortunately, we ran out of candy so we will have to substitute bullets."

MOVEON SHOULD MOVE OUT

Shortly after the illegal March 2003 invasion of Iraq, a new group came to the forefront of the anti-war movement: MoveOn. Its only stated goal was to get the U.S. out of Iraq. It endorsed no one or no party. Its principles seemed honorable.

Shortly after its inception, MoveOn began to endorse and collect money for John Kerry’s candidacy. MoveOn became a shill for the Democratic Party. At this time, the calls for money for the group began to intensify. The problematic aspect of the change in direction was that Kerry voted to go to war against Iraq.

I sent MoveOn a long message and tried to find out why the group changed. I received no reply, despite the organization’s false pretense of being an anti-war movement that endorses no candidate.

Since the Kerry fundraising effort, MoveOn has blatantly moved away from its original goal.

Today, the group is more pro-Obama than Obama. I have yet to ask MoveOn to take my name off its mailing list only so I can see how morally bankrupt and deceitful it is. When you think it has reached its lowest, MoveOn surprises you and descends even further. Today’s message is a denigration of FOX News for using racist tactics against Obama. There are almost 300 words in the message, yet not one about the Iraq debacle.

I know it is fruitless to respond, but I did anyway. First of all, it takes one a long time just to respond to MoveOn. The obligatory calls for money are evident, as are links to respond to them if you want to have a party supporting Obama. Only in the fine print of an insignificant page does the group give information on how to respond. And, there is no e-mail address, only a box in which to insert a comment. Here is mine and the electronically-created response to it.

________________________________________________________

Dear People,

I became a member of MoveOn at the beginning of your organization. Your platform was honorable: stop the war in Iraq. Then, in 2004, you became a shill for Kerry, a supporter of the war. Since then, your message has gone downhill considerably.

You suggested that your members perform a "McCain Watch" and detail his statements and platform. I would suggest an "Obama Watch" as well. In the past couple of weeks, he has sounded more like George Bush than George Bush. The "faith-based iniitiative" had been taboo for candidates to mention. Bush shoved this down the throats of the U.S. citizenry by presidential decree. Finally, Obama mentioned it. Instead of saying it was one of the worst programs in the history of the U.S. ($10 billion down the drain and a miserable failure), he wants to increase the program. Obama, with all his talk of the problems with the Patriot Act, voted for the latest legislation to actually enhance and expand the act. Then, Obama the anti-war candidate who has stated he will bring U.S. troops home, has waffled on that issue, the only one left for voters who once supported his entire candidacy.

Over the past two years, I have sent several messages to your group with no reply to me. It is a shame to see that the honorable beginnings of MoveOn have transformed into a money-begging group that supports a candidate who is indistinguishable from the Republicans. Everything you originally stood for has been transformed into the opposite, including the quest for money.

Sincerely,

Malcom Lagauche

______________________________________________

Here is their canned reply:

Thanks for contacting MoveOn.org.

We welcome your comments and suggestions.
We get a lot feedback, so please don't count on a personal reply.

But all mail is read and carefully considered.

Sincerely,

MoveOn.org Support

CLINTON BLEW IT

The title of this column is a perfect example both the beauty and the curse of the English language: many times, a word construes more than one meaning.

Take the title. It could mean that Clinton blew on his saxophone. Or, change the name Clinton to Monika and put the former president’s name at the end of the statement, and we have "Monika blew Bill." Again, a correct statement.

But, today’s column has nothing to do with sex or music. It is about blown (there it is, another variant of that word again) chances for settling the Iraq issue during his second term.

Today, all I hear from the Democrats (officials and the general public) is how George Bush is a murderous thug who invaded Iraq under dubious circumstances. The fairy tale is that the honorable Democrats would have handled the situation much differently.

Hogwash!

During her tenure as Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright stated time and time again that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). She was a broken record. However, in 2005, in Sweden, she told a group that if Al Gore was elected president in 2000, he would not have gone to war because "we knew Saddam did not have these weapons." One of those statements must be a lie.

Now, let’s look at how many Iraqis have been killed by the U.S. because of military action and the embargo that was in place from 1990 to 2003. Almost three million.

Let’s look at how many were killed under three administrations, two Republican and one Democrat. Hmmm. It appears that many more died from January 1993 to January 2001. But, this was a Democratic administration. In other words, the Democrats have as much, if not more, blood on their hands than the Republicans in the 1990-2003 period of the U.S.-Iraq War.

By the way, the war is still going on. There is no official document calling for the end of the war, making this conflict a 17-year battle, with no end in sight.

Let’s get back to Clinton. History now shows us that Iraq was telling the truth from 1992 on when it said, "We don’t have any more illegal weapons." Even the term "illegal" is wrong, but Iraq swallowed its pride and consented to the terms of a 1991 agreement. These same weapons are not deemed illegal in the countries that possess them (most countries in the world), yet Iraq had to sign away certain aspects of defending itself.

Let’s go to 1997. By now, the embargo had killed more than one million people under the watch of Bill Clinton. But, there were certain quarters that were trying to get the embargo ended.

One person who was at the forefront of ending the embargo and welcoming Iraq back into civilization was Jack Kemp. That’s right, the conservative former congressman who was Bob Dole’s choice for vice president in 1996.

Although he espoused conservative issues, Kemp is basically a good human being. He is not a racist and neither is he xenophobic. He is fair. An aspect of his vice-presidential run in 1996 is rarely brought up: that of him knowingly throwing away any chances of ever being president by being on the same ticket as Dole, a sacrificial lamb to the Republican Party because they knew they would be trounced. Kemp put the good of the party above his own personal future.

In 1997, Kemp was aghast to find out that U.S. personnel at the U.N. were ordered never to utter one word to an Iraqi on the diplomatic staff. If they saw an Iraqi, they were to ignore him. He questioned Clinton on this because he thought the only way to settle the Iraq-U.S. dispute was through diplomacy. But, no one could practice diplomacy if one side was considered non-existent.

Kemp put forth an initiative through his organization, Empower America, to seriously discuss an end to the embargo. He advocated a six-month period of "snap inspections" in which U.N. inspectors would hold unannounced sessions anywhere in the country.

By 1998, the Kemp plan was growing. Former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter joined Kemp in making a plan to end this period of history.

At the time, the late Nizar Hamdoon was the Iraq’s Ambassador to the U.N. He had the assurances from his government that the Kemp plan was acceptable and desired. But, the administration turned a blind eye to any talks with Iraq.

To this day, I still don’t know the reason why Clinton did not take the opportunity offered in 1998. He and his cohorts never made public Kemp’s offer. Instead, they upped the ante. Bill Richardson, then the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. rejected any deal with Baghdad. But, the U.S. signed a piece of paper in 1991 stating the sanctions would be lifted once the weapons were destroyed. Richardson said that the embargo would remain as long as Saddam was in power. The 1991 agreement, like most U.S. treaties, was not worth the paper it was singed on. Just ask the U.S. Native American community; what’s left of it.

During what could have been a dynamic time for a bold move to ensure peace and the cessation of genocide against Iraqis, the Clinton administration was mute. Then, in October and November of 1998, Clinton began to make allegations against Iraq and the public thought war was just around the corner. In December, the U.N. pulled its inspection team from Iraq and the U.S. launched Operation Desert Fox, a military campaign that further eroded Iraq’s infrastructure. Hundreds of buildings were bombed and after the air show stopped, Clinton said the U.S. destroyed much of Baghdad’s chemical weapons stockpile.

What stockpile? As we now know, in 1991 the Iraqis destroyed it themselves, so all the destruction of the 1998 bombing and missile attacks destroyed anything but chemical weapons.
Then, in the aftermath, the myth of "Saddam kicked out the inspectors" began to take hold. The inspectors were ordered to leave by the U.N. and the U.S.: they were not kicked out by the Iraqi government.

Backdoor negotiations made Iraq think the light at the end of the tunnel was now visible. But, it received a whack instead. It is no wonder the Iraqis would not trust any words uttered by the U.S.

The tragedy of this is that the U.S. public still believes the horse dung we have been fed by successive administrations.

It’s too bad Monika wasn’t blowing Bill while he was blowing a chance at becoming a person of integrity and vision. It just may have kept his mind off bombing Iraq.

ZIMBABWE TO U.S. AND BRITAIN: GO HANG

The U.S. and Britain just can’t allow a country in its crosshairs to function on its own. Both imperialist nations are calling for more sanctions on Zimbabwe. To many Westerners, sanctions are a slap on the wrist, but the truth is different. As we saw with Iraq, sanctions are no less than murder without firing bullets.

On July 1, 2008, according to an Al Jazeera news article titled, "African Leaders Urge Zimbabwe Unity:"

What a bunch of self-serving horse manure. McGee has undertaken deeds that are not a part of the job resume for an ambassador. He has been a thorn in the side of the Zimbabwean government and has actively worked with the opposition to assist in the overthrow of the government. If anything, McGee should thank Mugabe for not throwing him out of the country. In most countries of the world, if an ambassador was involved with shenanigans like McGee has performed, he/she would have been escorted to an international airport with a one-way ticket back to Washington.

The U.S. is no country to lecture others on the legitimacy of elections. Just look at all the discrepancies of the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. national elections and they far surpass anything that can be construed as shady by the Zimbabwean government.

The main point here is that the U.S. is once again trying to have its own stooges put in power by elections in foreign countries. The list of U.S. active involvement in elections of nations is long: Bosnia, Serbia, Ukraine, Belarus, Iraq, Nicaragua and Venezuela are some of the more blatant incursions. In the case of Bosnia and Serbia, the U.S. unilaterally negated elections. The reason? According to Madeleine Albright, "The wrong side won."

After a few decades of backing off the affairs of foreign nations, Britain is again attempting to regain an empire on which the sun never sets. And, the Labour Party, not the Conservatives, is in the forefront of the copycat imperialism. The U.S. copied Britain and now Britain is copying the U.S.

Zimbabwe is not about to take the outside infringement laying down. The country called elections according to its constitution and the opposition declined to field a candidate. The leader of the opposition to Mugabe, Morgan Tsvangirai, fled the country and returned. Shortly after, he took refuge at the embassy of The Netherlands. Despite his odd activities, he accuses the Zimbabwean government of not having fair elections because there was only one candidate. He does not mention that the only reason for there being only one candidate is that he disappeared and stated he would not run.

On July 1, 2008, Zimbabwean spokesman George Charamba addressed the issue of outside interference in Zimbabwe politics. According to CNN News:

With the U.S. blatantly leading a movement to re-colonize Africa, I’m sure we have not heard the end of this segment of Zimbabwe’s history. If Barak Obama is elected president of the U.S., the program will advance to overdrive mode. Sudan and Zimbabwe already have large bullseyes affixed to them on a map of Africa.

Sunday-Tuesday, June 29-July 1, 2008

ARABAPHOBIA IN FULL SWING

A few years ago, a person was almost beaten to death in San Diego in a parking lot. The perpetrators hollered racist remarks while they were pounding the merde out of him: "Go back to Iraq you bastard! We’ll come back and kill you if we don’t finish the job now."

They almost killed the man. However, he was of Portuguese descent, not Arabic.

The anti-Arab mood is so intense that U.S. bigots don’t care what nationality one is, only that he/she looks like an Arab. That’s good enough.

The irony is that most Americans have never met an Arab. They mindlessly make hateful statements without knowing the first thing about their "enemies." And this attitude comes from a population made of immigrants.

For the past 18 years, I have made a point of talking to people of Arab backgrounds. As you see from my writing, I bring up aspects that many journalists evade. By knowing what Arabs think about various subjects, one can learn much. It is shameful that no one in the U.S. administrations of Bush I, Clinton and Bush II have shown even the most remote knowledge of Arab culture and thought.

From January 17 to February 28, 1991, I spent two hours nightly in an Iraqi-American-owned store in El Cajon, California. This was the time of Desert Storm. I took notes and I listened. What I learned was far from what the media were telling us about Iraq and Iraqis.

To gain meaningful information, one must gain the trust of the Arab people with whom he/she fraternizes. In the case of the aforementioned store, the owner would give a signal to a person to whom I was speaking and the person then would open up.

Shortly after Desert Storm, the owner of the market sold his store, yet he gave me the names of a few people who would assist me with my quest for knowledge of Arabs and the Arab world.

By 1995, I had numerous Arab friends: Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians and Syrians. Toward the end of the year, I noticed a sign at the corner gas station saying, "Under New Management." I went in and heard the new proprietor speaking English with an Arabic accent. "Where are you from?" I asked. "Jordan," was the reply. I now had another outlet for meeting people from the Middle East.

Shortly after meeting him, his mechanic approached me and said, "I’m Sabah. I hear you’re a writer." He then said he was working on his PhD and needed an editor for the project. I offered to help him.

Soon after, Sabah was hired by the largest Ford dealer in the area as a mechanic. He came by my house to drop off some of his work and I noticed his name tag said, "Sam." When I asked him if this was his nickname, he said he was told by the company that he must call himself Sam. I was irate and told him it was illegal for the company to do that. The next time I saw him, his name tag said "Sabah."

He did pay a price for sticking up to using his own name, however. The company watched him relentlessly and harassed him many times. His work was impeccable, so the firm could not fire him.

In time, he acquired his PhD and became a professor of business management at Brescia University in Kentucky. Then 9/11 occurred. His own personal secretary began to ignore him. One day, he burst into her office and told her, "I didn’t have anything to do with it, you know."

When he entered a small store with his daughter (who had blonde hair) and asked to use the rest room, on coming out he found that the owner had called the police and reported that "an Arab" had kidnapped the girl. Since then, he has had many stories to tell.

Another meeting place is a market/restaurant owned by my friend Mahmoud, a Palestinian. He is very politically aware and I have gained much knowledge from him, as well as he has from me. For years, he had a small market, but six years ago, he opened his current venture, a much larger enterprise with a restaurant attached.

In that time, the F.B.I. has visited him several times. They have taken his books away twice to peruse. One time, an agent asked him, "Have you ever thought of blowing up a building?" How many non-Arab U.S. citizens are badgered like this almost every day?

Mahmoud tells me that customers, on a regular basis, harass him about being an Arab. They come into his store and tell how great it is that "we’re kicking the Arabs’ asses in Iraq." He asks why they do this when they know of his background. I tell him that it’s xenophobia and ethnocentrism run awry.

One day, a new cashier, who was very nervous because it was her first day on the job, was being chastised by a customer whose car heralded a pro-Israel bumper sticker. He said to the cashier, "You’re a refugee, right? You people are all refugees." The girl, about age 19 or 20, responded, "I don’t know what you’re talking about. I was born in La Mesa." The customer then nastily repeated his refugee statement and laughed.

Normally, I am quiet, but some times one must step up to the plate and be heard. I said, "You are an asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. An adult trying to humiliate a young person like that." Because I was considerably larger than he and in much better shape, he did not respond and quickly left the store. The girl thanked me. Had I not intervened, he would have probably continued his line of talk for a few more minutes. It made him feel superior by demeaning a young girl.

I will end with an anecdote about Mahmoud. Even though we are in troubled times, we can make some humor of events.

Mahmoud’s entire family was given a few hours to leave their house in 1948 after the state of Israel came into being. They lost all their land that had been in the family for generations. Today, his family lives in Jordan after spending years in Kuwait. They are stateless. Because of this background, Mahmoud is not exactly a fan of the state of Israel.

A few years ago, a professional wrestler, Bryan Walsh, lived with me for a few months. He had never met Mahmoud. One day, I said, "Let’s go down to the market at the corner." I then concocted a scheme to confuse Mahmoud.

I entered the store and said "Hi" to Mahmoud and then went into a corner and pretended that I was looking at the large selection of Arabic breads offered. A minute later, Walsh entered the store. Mahmoud said, "Hi. May I help you?" Walsh asked, "Do you serve Jews?" Mahmoud immediately replied, "Of course."

"I’ll take two," said Walsh.

I was in the corner and had my mouth covered so I wouldn't laugh. Mahmoud was stunned. He looked toward me and then saw Walsh laughing. After he put two and two together, he smiled and flipped me off.

A BIG LOSS

Yesterday I opened my e-mail messages and the subject line for the first one read: "Memorial for George Carlin." I thought, "Oh no. Not George Carlin." When I opened the message it stated that Carlin died on Sunday evening of a heart attack. The Humanist Association of San Diego announced a memorial celebration of Carlin’s life to be held next week.

Many non-U.S. citizens may not know of George Carlin. He was a comedian who broke all the rules of hypocritical social mores in the U.S. Nothing was sacred to Carlin when it came to exposing duplicity, falseness, and outright stupidity. In the 1960s and 1970s, Carlin was in the forefront of the war of freedom of speech.

Carlin may be remembered by many as the comedian with a foul mouth. This is true, but his obscenity-laced routines transcended language and were laden with philosophical observations that few humans could duplicate.

Among other things, Carlin was an outspoken critic of racism, ethnocentrism and xenophobia. He was a loud voice against the U.S. government in its dealing death and destruction to the world.

I can think of no better tribute to George Carlin than posting a portion of his book Napalm and Silly Putty, published in 2001, in which he delved into U.S. foreign policy, particularly the 1991 Gulf War. Even though he used many terms of sexuality and human body parts, his assessment is as accurate as that of any intellectual expert.

ROCKETS AND PENISES IN THE PERSIAN GULF

History Lesson

I’d like to talk a little about the "war" we had in the Persian Gulf. Remember that? The big war in the Persian Gulf? Lemme tell you what was goin’ on.

Naturally, you can forget all that entertaining fiction about having to defend the model democracy those lucky Kuwaitis get to live under. And for the moment you can also put aside the very real, periodic need Americans have for testing their new weapons on human flesh. And also, just for the fun of it, let’s ignore George Bush’s obligation to protect the oil interests of his family and friends. There was another much more important consideration at work. Here’s what really happened.,

The simple fact is that America was long overdue to drop high explosives on helpless civilians; people who have no argument with us whatsoever. After all, it had been awhile, and the hunger gnaws. Remember that’s our specialty: picking on countries that have marginally effective air forces. Yugoslavia is another, more recent, example.

But all that aside, let me tell you what I liked about that Gulf War: it was the first war that appeared on every television channel, including cable. And even though the TV show consisted largely of Pentagon war criminals displaying maps and charts, it got very good ratings. And that makes sense because we like war. We’re a warlike people. We can’t stand not to be fucking with someone. We couldn’t wait for the Cold War to end so we could climb into the big Arab sandbox and play with our nice new toys. We enjoy war.

And one reason we enjoy it is that we’re good at it. You know why we’re good at it? Because we get a lot of practice. This country is only 200 years old, and already we’ve had 10 major wars. We average a major war every 20 years. So we’re good at it.

And it’s just as well we are, because we’re not very good at anything else. Can’t build a decent car anymore. Can’t make a TV set, a cell phone, or a VCR. Got no steel industry left. No textiles. Can’t educate our young people. Can’t get health care to our old people. But we can bomb the shit outta your country, all right. We can bomb the shit out of your country!

Especially if your country is full of brown people. Oh, we like that, don’t we? That’s our hobby now. But it’s also our new job in the world: bombing brown people. Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Libya. You got some brown people in your country? Tell ‘em to watch the fuck out, or we’ll goddamn bomb them.

Well, who were the last white people you can remember that we bombed? In fact, can you remember any white people we ever bombed? The Germans! That’s it! Those are the only ones. And that was only because they were tryin’ to cut in on our action. They wanted to dominate the world. Bullshit! That’s our job. That’s our fuckin’ job.

But the Germans are ancient history. These days, we only bomb brown people. And not because they’re cutting in on our action: we do it because they’re brown. Even those Serbs we bombed in Yugoslavia aren’t really white, are they? Naaah! They’re sort of down near the swarthy end of the white spectrum. Just brown enough to bomb. I’m still waiting for the day we bomb the English. People who really deserve it.

Now, you folks might’ve noticed I don’t feel about the Gulf War the way we were instructed to feel about it by the United States government. My mind doesn’t work that way. You see, I’ve got this real moron thing I do, it’s called "thinking." And I guess I’m not a very good American, because I like to form my own opinions: I don’t just roll over when I’m told. Most Americans roll over on command. Not me. There are certain rules I observe.

My first rule: Never believe anything anyone in authority says. None of them. Government, police, clergy, the corporate criminals. None of them. And neither do I believe anything I’m told by the media, who, in the case of the Gulf War, functioned as little more then unpaid employees of the Defense Department, and who, most of the time, operate as an unofficial public relations agency for government and industry.

I don’t believe in any of them. And I have to tell you, folks, I don’t really believe much in my country either. I don’t get all choked up about yellow ribbons and American flags. I see them as symbols, and I leave them to the symbol-minded.

I also look at the war itself a little differently from most. I see it largely as an exercise in dick-waving. That’s really all it is: a lot of men standing around in a field waving their dicks at one another. Men, insecure about the size of their penises, choose to kill one another.

That’s also what all the moron athlete bullshit is about, and what that macho, male posturing and strutting around in bars and locker rooms represents. It’s called "dick fear." Men are terrified that their dicks are inadequate, and so they have to "compete" in order to feel better about themselves. And since war is the ultimate competition, essentially men are killing one another in order to improve their genital self-esteem.

You don’t need to be a historian or a political scientist to see the Bigger Dick Foreign Policy Theory at work. It goes like this: "What? They have bigger dicks? Bomb them!" And of course, the bombs, the rockets, and the bullets are all shaped like penises. Phallic weapons. There’s an unconscious need to project that national penis into the affairs of others. It’s called "fucking with people."

So, as far as I’m concerned, that whole thing in the Persian Gulf was nothing more than one big dick-waving cockfight. In this particular one, Saddam Hussein questioned the size of George Bush’s dick. And George Bush had been called a wimp for so long, he apparently felt the need to act out his manhood fantasies by sending America’s white children to kill other people’s brown children. Clearly the worst kind of wimp.

Even his name, "Bush," as slang, is related to the genitals without actually being the genitals. A bush is sort of a passive, secondary sex characteristic. It’s even used as a slang term for women. "Hey, pal, how’s the bush in this area?" I can’t help thinking, if this president’s name had been George Boner … well he might have felt a little better about himself and he wouldn’t have had to kill all those children. Too bad he couldn’t locate his manhood.

Actually, when you think about it, this country has had a manhood problem for some time. You can tell by the language we use; language always gives us away. What did we do wrong in Vietnam? We "pulled out." Not a very manly thing to do. No. When you’re fucking people, you’re supposed to stay with it and fuck them good; fuck them to death; hang in there and keep fucking them until they’re all fucking dead.

But in Vietnam, what happened was by accident we left a few women and children alive, and we haven’t felt good about ourselves since. That’s why in the Persian Gulf, George Bush had to say, "This will not be another Vietnam." He actually said, "this time we’re going all the way." Imagine. An American president using the sexual slang of a 13-year-old to describe his foreign policy.

And, of course, when it got right down to it, he didn’t "go all the way." Faced with going into Baghdad, he punked out. No balls. Just Bush. Instead, he applied sanctions, so he’d be sure that an extra half a million brown children would die. And so his oil buddies could continue to fill their pockets.

If you want to know what happened in the Persian Gulf, just remember the first names of the two men who ran that war: Dick Cheney and Colin Powell. Dick and colon. Someone got fucked up the ass. And those brown people better make sure they keep their pants on because Dick and Colin have come back for an encore.

A FORGOTTEN "DAY OF INFAMY"

Many countries have one or two days a year that indicate a national tragedy. In the U.S., December 7, 1941, the day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, is labeled a "day of infamy." Almost 60 years later, September 11, 2001 surpassed December 7 as a rallying cry for U.S. solidarity.

Iraq, a country much smaller than the U.S., and never as large a player on the international scene, can claim several days of infamy: January 17, 1991 (the beginning of Desert Storm); February 14, 1991 (the destruction of the Amiryah Bomb Shelter); March 20, 2003 (the start of the U.S. illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq); and April 9, 2003, (U.S. forces enter Baghdad) among others. But, one date that gains little international attention is imbedded in the hearts and minds of most Iraqis: June 26, 1993.

On that date, the U.S. military, under the command of Bill Clinton, ordered 23 Tomahawk guided missiles to demolish the headquarters of the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence services, in central Baghdad. Twenty of the missiles hit the agency complex, while "only" three missed their targets.

A jubilant Clinton took to the airwaves and proclaimed victory. He was happy that only three missed their mark. One could think he was addressing the public about the score of a sporting event.

Of the three that missed, one destroyed the home of Layla al-Attar, killing her and her husband, and blinding her daughter.

Layla al-Attar was the director of the Iraqi National Art Museum and a leading Arab artist who was revered in Iraq much the same as Norman Rockwell was in the U.S. In addition, she was a spokesperson for international peace, for the inner peace of women, and for resistance against U.S. hegemony. Layla al-Attar symbolized Iraq.

When news of al-Attar’s death broke, Iraq mourned. A special person who transcended political ideology and represented all of humankind had been assassinated.

During the Gulf War, her home was almost totally destroyed by U.S. missiles. Two years later, shortly after the completion of the house’s reconstruction, an "errant" missile finished the job that its cousin had only partially performed in earlier years.

Although never proven, it is quite easy to give credence to the theory that Layla al-Attar was the target of a missile, not merely a casualty of "collateral damage" from a misguided projectile. Every Iraqi believes she was marked, but shortly after her execution, the rest of the world forgot.

Outside the Arab world, Layla al-Attar was on the verge of becoming a top international artist. European art galleries were beginning to highlight her work. In the U.S., however, she was little known. Little international outrage was heard when she was killed.

The reason behind the attack was as bogus as any given during the Bush I years. Clinton stated that information was in-hand that showed Iraqi operatives were behind an aborted assassination attempt on former President George Bush in April 1993 at a ceremony praising him in Kuwait. Clinton added that Saddam Hussein ordered the attempt on Bush’s life. At the last minute, those who were to carry out the attack were apprehended and Clinton had to teach the Iraqis a lesson.

The big lie still persisted. Those arrested were merely drug and alcohol smugglers. In the aftermath of the June 26 missile attack, one-by-one the mythical would-be assassins were released from Kuwaiti jails, but, the U.S. media did not consider this information newsworthy. It was not as exciting as assassination plots and missile attacks.

On November 1, 1993, the New Yorker published an article by Seymour Hersh titled "A Case Not Closed." In it, Hersh went into detail about the entire event and basically showed there was no validity to Clinton’s claim.

Why did Clinton order this attack? At the time, Republicans and pro-war Democrats criticized him for being "weak" on Iraq and other invisible threats against the U.S. Clinton had to earn respect. What better target than Iraq, a defenseless country that was isolated because of U.S. propaganda?

According to Hersh:

Over the years, many people have uttered, "Saddam tried to kill Bush’s father," in defense of Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. In March 2008, the story took another turn as an unlikely organization admitted the plot was a hoax: the Pentagon.

The March 23, 2008 issue of Newsweek ran an article called "Saddam’s Files," written by Michael Isikoff. It stated:

Despite the Pentagon coming clean after 15 years of the public believing a myth about the nonexistent assassination attempt, not too much has changed in the perception and reporting of those times. In April 2008, weeks after the Pentagon announced the Kuwaiti hoax, the National Defense University, a quasi-government organization, published a report called Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath," written by Colonel Joseph J. Collins, a retired U.S. Army officer.

Collins seemed to be writing about a fantasy scenario of Iraq. His assessments were not accurate and at times, differed greatly from the facts. One of them stated: "Since the Republicans had last been in power, Saddam had tried to assassinate the elder Bush." No one challenged Collins’ statement, despite the Pentagon’s earlier declaration. It appears that no matter how many people debunk this lie, it has a life of its own and will go down in history as fact.

Hersh was quite right in his assessment of picking on the weak. U.S. citizens take pride in the fact that their society scorns bullies who pick on defenseless adversaries. However, they contradict their own philosophy by cheering on the murdering of foreign civilians who are the weakest prey of all.

I know that a few days from now, most Iraqis will be mourning the assassination of Layla al-Attar that occurred 15 years ago. And, on that day, those resistance fighters who are at work will remember her as well. Her legacy is why they are fighting today. I wonder if Bill Clinton, as he leaves his church of choice this Sunday, Bible in hand and being photographed by the press, will remember Layla al-Attar.

ANOTHER LIE DEBUNKED

We’ve heard them all: Saddam killed the entire Iraqi national soccer team; Saddam’s favorite recreational pursuit was to watch people boil in acid; and, let’s not forget the human shredding machine in which people were turned into ground meat and then Saddam fed them to his pets.

All these preposterous allegations, and many more, were fed to the people of the West and many were believed. But, a recent claim, even though less dramatic and violent, is more disastrous. Recently, an FBI agent, who interviewed Saddam while the Iraqi president was incarcerated, made statements that people in the U.S. government (Democrat and Republican alike) are now using to legitimize the March 2003 invasion of Iraq: Saddam conned them into believing Iraq had retained massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction after the U.N. ordered the country to destroy them.

This new development made a lot of U.S. politicians feel at ease. Now, they can stop making more lies and say the dirty bastard Saddam hoodwinked them again.

The truth, as in most instances concerning Iraq, was far different. The Iraqi government was telling the world that it had destroyed its WMD and had fulfilled its obligation to have the sanctions lifted. This is not mere hearsay. It is sad to see that those who told the truth have been murdered and those who lied are making the rounds selling their memoirs.

On July 3, 1995, the Baghdad Observer ran an article titled, "China to Back Drive to End UN Sanctions, Says Ramadhan." The article, placed under a photo of Saddam Hussein clearly states that Iraq had destroyed the weapons in question. Unfortunately, China’s efforts came to naught because of the U.S. policy of never lifting the embargo with Saddam Hussein in power. Here is the article. It’s very sad that no one in the West took a little time to research and find such a piece that contradicts the words of U.S. government officials as well as the FBI agent who gained a formidable payday for stating such fabrications.

In case anyone claims ambiguity in Iraq’s wording of its destruction of WMD, please pay attention to the statement: " … now that Iraq has met all the obligations set by the Security Council resolutions."

Iraq’s Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadhan has said China would play a role in the UN Security Council implementation of Paragraph 22 of Resolution 687.

Mr. Ramadhan was quoted by INA as saying upon arrival here following a tour that took him to China and Vietnam, the Chinese leadership had shown full understanding of Iraq’s positive attitude vis-à-vis the UN Security Council and Special Committee in charge of eliminatiing Iraq’s mass destruction weapons.

He said the Iraqi delegation’s visit to China was intended to explain the latest developments of the UN-imposed sanctions clamped on Iraq. The team also discussed the role China can play as a permanent UN Security Council member in the implementation of Paragraph 22 now that Iraq has met all the obligations set by the Security Council resolutions. Both sides also discussed the future prospects of bilateral Iraqi-Chinese relations.

The Vice-President said China was undertaken to support Iraq at the Security Council out of the conviction that the plight of Iraqis must be ended and Iraq has done its duty in compliance with Security Council resolutions. He said his visit to China was successful with the Chinese voicing confidence in Iraq’s economic potentials and its key role in the region.

Referring to his visit to Vietnam, Mr. Ramadhan said he had briefed the Vietnamese leadership on the Iraq-UN relations and the need for the implementation of Paragraph 22 now that Iraq had done its duty.

He said he had lengthy talks with the Vietnamese leaders on means of enhancing cooperation and bilateral talks in the post-sanctions period.

The Vietnamese government and people have appreciated Iraq’s support for Vietnam during and after the war of liberation promising to do everything they can in return.

WORDS OF CONFUSION

Language dates back thousands of years. Once humankind began to talk and write, language progressed and communication became more precise. However, current statements and writing have halted the advancement of precision and are beginning to drag the English language back to a communication form that is not readily understandable.

In the past two days, just by reading newspapers or online news, I have seen some of the most ridiculous items in print. Some are outright hilarious because of the mis-use of the English language, while others are blatant lies that no one challenges.

Let’s begin with the toy section in the department store of life, sports. Yesterday’s headline in the San Diego Union-Tribune heralded, "Giants Score 3 in 10^th on Hoffman." That wasn’t a creative headline, but it can pass. Let’s look at the sub-headline: "Wining Run Plates on Grounder to Short." For those who know little of baseball, home plate is the area of the field on which a runner crosses to score a run. I have never seen the word "plate" as a noun used to indicate a verb. This would be like writing a basketball headline similar to "Los Angeles Baskets at Buzzer for Win." Or, "England Goals on Penalty Shot Against Germany" in football (soccer to U.S. inhabitants).

If that wasn’t bad enough, the headline on page 3 stated: "Canary Island Teen a French Revelation." When I read that, I thought, "How the hell can someone from the Canary Islands be French?" After I began to read the confusing article, I saw that the writer was describing the French Open, a tennis tournament. The word "Open" should have been inserted between French and Revelation. This was no mere typographical error. In the past year or so, sports headlines in the U.S. have changed nouns into verbs and adjectives into nouns. It is in vogue to display misleading and incomprehensive headlines.

Let’s get to some more serious stuff. The AP ran a short piece describing the number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq. It stated, "The figure includes eight military civilians killed in action." I have seen the designation "military civilians" many times in describing U.S. deaths in Iraq. But, how can this be? I checked several dictionaries to find the answer. It is impossible. In fact, in each dictionary, the meaning of the word "civilian" was "a non-military person" and the antonym was "serviceman."

Barack Obama is receiving heat for his statement about Jerusalem a few days ago when he declared that the city will not be divided and is the capital of Israel. Well, he clarified the issue by saying:

That’s exactly what he said a few days prior, yet no one seemed to ask the question, "What’s different from your previous statement?" His double-speak seems to have worked. Many Arab voices protested his original statement, yet they seemed to buy his upgraded version.

John McCain, all the time berating Obama for making the statement about Jerusalem, gave his own version of the status of the city:

McCain out-Obamad Obama.

Laura Bush, wife and Alcoholics Anonymous advisor to George Bush, visited Afghanistan yesterday to bolster the American University in Afghanistan. After meeting the stooge Afghan president, she announced that Washington will spend $80 million over five years to support the American University in Afghanistan and the National Literacy Center.

What’s wrong with this? Isn’t the American University a benevolent institution that just wants to help the poor people of Afghanistan to learn to read and write? Of course not.

The American University in Afghanistan is funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Any USAID facility is a hotbed of U.S. spies. If you have a strong stomach, go to the organization’s webpage and read many fairy tales. For instance, when Tony Blair announced in November 2003 that 400,000 bodies had been found in mass graves in Iraq, USAID stated:

On July 18, 2004, Tony Blair changed his tune. He admitted that he "mis-spoke" about the number of bodies found and that the real number was about 5,000. (Further investigation showed that almost all were victims of the Kurdish civil war in the 1990s or were killed by U.S. bombs in 1991.) Despite almost four years passing of the public acknowledgement of the error in the number of bodies, USAID still carries the inflated figure on its website.

Here’s another gem from USAID:

Talk about re-writing history and replacing it with lies of the worst sort. Imagine a woman in Iraq today reading this misinformation. Imagine an Iraqi woman who once was part of the workforce and now can not leave her home. Imagine an Iraqi woman who could walk the streets of Baghdad without a veil and without threat to her well-being. They would disagree with USAID’s assessment.

The problem here is that no one in the media takes USAID to task. Even worse, the general public believes the lies and then credits a spy agency for making the plight of Iraqi women better. The acquiescence to the lies is nothing better than allowing verbal terrorism.

I’ve left the best for last. Hilary Clinton gave an impassioned speech declaring the end to her quest for the U.S. presidency. She mentioned the positive elements that came from her campaign, especially the fact that women’s voices were heard as never before in U.S. politics. In commending those who voted for her, Clinton said:

Her choice of words was not astute and could be construed in various ways. One of the uses of the word "crack" as a noun is low slang for a female, making reference to the shape of a vagina. This term is occasionally heard in barrooms and on street corners and is considered sexist and crude. I can just see someone thinking that Clinton referred to 18 million women. But, I will leave it to someone else to punch holes in (pun intended).

UNBREAKABLE TODAY, UNBREAKABLE TOMORROW, UNBREAKABLE FOREVER

During the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign, many people of the left supported Bill Clinton. The catch-phrase of the day was: "We know he’s not ideal, but when he gets in office, he will change things. He has to be moderate to get elected." Then came the disappointment.

Throughout the Arab world, Clinton’s election was heralded. Those who opposed the Iraqi embargo said that Clinton would represent a fresh look at the sanctions. It soon became evident that it was business as usual. Under the Clinton administration, more Iraqis died than in the two military actions by a couple of Bushes.

Here we go again. Barack Obama is the posterperson of the left and of those who want to see the Arab world get a fair shake in dealing with Israel. The same statements abound: "He’ll change when he’s in office;" "We know he’s not ideal, but he represents a new look in politics." Many Arab-Americans are putting Obama on a pedestal. Unfortunately, that pedestal has already begun to crumble.

On June 4, 2008, it was announced that Obama had officially won the Democratic nomination for the office of president of the United States. His first public statements came in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC), the very powerful unquestioning pro-Israel lobby. Within minutes of the official proclamation of his victory, Obama was telling the world of his strong support of Israel. According to the article "Obama Pledges Support for Israel," from Al-Jazeera News of June 4, 2008:

There should be no doubt where Obama stands in reference to the Arab world and Israel. The irony of his statement is that he stole it from a segregationist governor. George Wallace in the early 1960s took the stand to keep the state of Alabama segregated. His famous statement in defense of apartheid was, "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." It boggles the mind to see an African American presidential candidate use such a statement. But, it is also accurate because of the segregated society Israel represents.

Let’s look at some of Obama’s words over the past few years and it is evident that he represents the same imperialistic attitudes of the status quo:

• In November 2005, while speaking to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, he said that the U.S. must "contain and ultimately extinguish the insurgency in Iraq."
• About Louis Farakhan’s good words concerning his candidacy, Obama, on February 26, 2008, stated: "I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree. I did not solicit this support."
• The "anti-war" candidate says he wants U.S. troops out of Iraq, yet curiously he speaks about sending them back. On February 27, 2008, he said: "I always reserve the right for the president ... to make sure that we are looking out for American interests, and if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."
• The recent fiasco in South America in which Colombia bombed territory in neighboring Ecuador was condemned by most Latin American nations. Despite Colombia being the aggressor, Obama declared, "the Colombian government has every right to defend itself."
• On the announcement of Fidel Castro’s resignation as president of Cuba, Obama stated: "Today should mark the end of a dark era in Cuba's history. Fidel Castro's stepping down is an essential first step, but it is sadly insufficient in bringing freedom to Cuba. The prompt release of all prisoners of conscience wrongly jailed for standing up for the basic freedoms too long denied to the Cuban people would mark an important break with the past. It's time for these heroes to be released."
• How about the Palestinian issue? According to Obama: "[Any] negotiated peace between Israelis and the Palestinians is going to have to involve the Palestinians relinquishing the right of return as it has been understood in the past."
• Obama wants to increase the teaching of the subject of the Holocaust in U.S. schools. On March 15, 2008, he said: "I want us to have a broad-based history" taught in schools, including more on the Holocaust as well as other issues of oppression."

Evidently, Obama does not take into consideration two holocausts that were much more widespread: those of 100 million Africans during the years of U.S. slavery and the decimation of 30 million Native Americans on behalf of the Catholic Church and European settlers in North America. He has taken off the table the two most important aspects for Palestinians: the right of return and the status of Jerusalem. His views on matters of foreign policy are identical to those of the neocons.

There’s an old saying: "Don’t wish for something too much because you just might get it." In the case with Obama, many of his supporters will be very disappointed after takes office on January 20, 2009 (if elected).

TAKE ME OUT TO THE BALLGAME

Memorial Day weekend is the traditional start of many Little League Baseball organizations in the U.S. When I played baseball as a youngster in my home town of about 5,000 people, all teams assembled at the town library and then marched to the ball field, about a half mile away, with a marching band leading the way. The parade was viewed by townspeople lining the road. Opening day was at hand.

This tradition again occurred this past weekend in the U.S. What about Iraqi kids and the playing of their sports? Some in Baquba weren’t so lucky. According to a Reuters report of May 30, 2008, titled, "Iraqi Children Playing Soccer Blown Up by Bomb:

Amidst the "fog of war," one glaring aspect of Iraqi society has received little or no ink in the U.S.: the gradual and violent cessation of sports in Iraq.

These unfortunate kids were playing soccer (football to the rest of the world outside the U.S.) in an out-of-the-way garbage dump. Many times, kids who play soccer today in Iraq have to find a decrepit area that no one can see, and have adult guards, just to kick a ball around for a few minutes.

The thought police of the "new Iraq" have undone sporting activities in a country that once was laden with sports participants and fans. Remember the Iraqi national tennis team who was gunned down on a street a few years ago for wearing shorts? This was an opening salvo in a war against sports that has increased dramatically. Even chess is taboo. In 2006, Ayatollah Sistani, issued a fatwa against the playing of chess. He did say, however, that playing cricket was okay. Iraqis have never been known to display passion for the sport of cricket.

I recently read articles about the top Iraqi basketball league. One club played in front of four fans. After the game, the captain said that he was surprised that four spectators attended. Usually there was none. He added that fans and players alike are concerned about their lives because of the danger involved in playing sports. He also said that the league did not have much time left because of the dwindling number of players.

Last week, without fanfare, the Iraqi quisling government disbanded the nation’s National Olympic Committee as well as the governing bodies of all Iraqi sports.

FIFA, the world governing body of football was not impressed. According to Al-Jazeera News, in a May 27, 2008 article titled, "FIFA Warns Iraq to Stop Interfering:"

Sports in Iraq are following the same path as the once-great Iraqi education system; the stability of life in the country; the world-class health system; and the once-proud city of Baghdad: a path to extinction.

Before I wrote this article, I looked at a few editions of the Baghdad Observer from the mid-1990s. During the embargo, the broad-sheet English language newspaper consisted of four pages. Most of page four consisted of sports feature stories or statistics. Pictures of participants in volleyball, basketball, football, track and field, and other sports were featured. The top teams of sports were heralded as national treasures.

On page three of the Baghdad Observer, many column inches were devoted to the arts. Information of the latest plays, art exhibits, clubs, concerts and cinemas adorned the entertainment section.

During the embargo against Iraq, sports and the arts held a major part of the life of Iraqis. I have little information about these activities before the sanctions, but I can only imagine that a free Iraq prior to these times held sports in an even higher esteem.

Today, there is no reporting on the arts or sports because they either have been totally eliminated from Iraqi life or they are quickly on the way to extinction. The U.S. said it would bring "freedom" to Iraq. In the aspect of sports, that has become a reality: Iraq will soon be free of all sports.

RE-CONQUERING AFRICA

In February 1990, Saddam Hussein, at a summit in Amman, Jordan, told the Arab world:

Nowadays, Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe, is sounding a lot like Saddam. He is warning the Africans that Western powers, mainly the U.S. and Britain, are in the process of re-conquering Africa. He saw the signs a few years ago. At the Earth Summit in September 2002, Mugabe stated:

Since those statements, the U.S. and Britain have applied sanctions on Zimbabwe and the country has undergone a deadly drought. As with Saddam and the embargo years when the U.S. blamed the Iraqi president for the degradation of Iraq, Britain and the U.S. are now blaming Mugabe for a fluke of nature and the disastrous effects of sanctions. Unfortunately, the people of the West are again buying this false bill of goods.

Today, Mugabe is fighting for his political life. The U.S. ambassador to Zimbabwe is openly giving advice (and probably a handsome amount of finances) to the Zimbabwe opposition. Mugabe is threatening to kick him out of the country.

Plans for Africa transcend Zimbabwe. Sudan is in the firing line as well. Darfur is being presented in the West as a genocide against Christians. The current party line is that the Arab north is decimating the African south. What a bunch of cobblers. All Sudanese are Africans. The country’s president is as black as any African anywhere on the continent.

Two things are apparent here. The first is the demonizing of a person, much as the West demonized Saddam Hussein and now Robert Mugabe. The second is the allegations that Christians are being massacred. The pope recently told Bush that he is upset that Christians are being killed in Iraq. How about the one and a half million non-Christians who have been killed since the March 2003 invasion? They don’t count.

Now, we see the obligatory peace groups and Hollywood stars lining up to speak about the atrocities in Darfur. Where were they after March 2003? Some mildly protested the invasion of Iraq, but once the country fell, they all went back to chasing their Oscars.

A couple of days ago, McCain, Clinton and Obama signed a full-page statement in the New York Times condemning the Sudanese government Don’t expect any enlightening programs for Africa when a new U.S. president is inaugurated in January 2009.

These two countries are just a part of the equation for the West to again rape Africa of its raw materials. After the first conquest, the West thought all was gone, but new discoveries of massive amounts of oil, as well as other raw materials, again beckon the white man back to Africa. The former world heavyweight boxing champion, Mike Tyson, is not exactly known for his brainpower. However, years ago, he made an astute statement. When he returned from his first trip to Africa, a reporter asked him what he thought of the continent. Tyson replied:

In the past decade or so, Christian missionaries have escalated their presence in Africa. Most are working hand-in-hand with the West. Also, they are thwarting efforts to teach Africans birth control. The results have been devastating.

There are many more clues to show that the West again has its eyes on Africa. By the end of 2006, Somalia was experiencing a relatively peaceful lifestyle for the first time in decades. The U.S. would have none of this and co-opted Ethiopia to invade the country and bring an on-paper-only stooge government to power. Then, the U.S. began bombing Somalia. The bombing continues to this day.

Eritrea, a country not known for blowing up airplanes and buildings, was put on the U.S. list of state-sponsored terrorism a few months ago. Their crime was that they did