ROBERT ROUSE- FIRST AMENDMENT SHUFFLE

Robert, of Left of Centrist, has outdone himself with this one. For those of you who are not familiar with the Constitution, it contains the Preamble, the Body (those 7 articles that established our federal government and its powers), and the 27 amendments. The First Amendment is one of the first ten amendments - better known as the Bill of Rights. The Constitution was ratified in 1788 and the first Congress was held in 1789. One of the first items on the agenda was to pass a Bill of Rights to allay the fears of the citizens that their new federal government would be too powerful. The final offering was what is known as the Bill of Rights and prevents the federal government from infringing certain of our rights and liberties.

But it sure looks like Bush has all but forgotten about those rights in his rush to “Bushify” the rest of the world as well as trounce on us as citizens.

Anyway, here is the video. And I hope Robert does many more.

FAMILY PROVIDES FOUNDATION FOR PEACE - EXCEPT FOR THOSE WHO ARE VICTIMS

Hat Tip to Pete at Landfill Pointe for this topic.

Pope Benedict XVI, celebrating a “World Day of Peace”, greeted the New Year by criticizing policies that undermine the traditional family, saying they eroded one of the most important foundations for peace in the world. He said the traditional family led by a husband and wife instilled values that promote peace, and added it was an “irreplaceable” institution.

The Pontiff, delivering the traditional New Year prayer for peace, appeared to take a swipe at efforts in several countries to grant legal recognition to gay and unwed couples - although he did not single out any policies by name.

“Those who are hostile, even unknowingly, to the institution of the family … make peace fragile for the entire national and international community,” the Pope told crowds gathered in a sunny St Peter’s Square.

Well, okay, let’s see, the Pope must be talking about those families where spousal abuse, child abuse, and elder abuse do not occur. And, lest we forget, physical abuse is many times accompanied by psychological and emotional abuse. What’s the old saying, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me?” Psychological and emotional abuse also takes a toll on families.

If the family is such a safe haven as a foundation for peace, why on earth do we have so many domestic violence task forces, domestic violence commissions, centers for non-violence and on and on?

According to the American Bar Association’s Commission on Domestic Violence, approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States. The U.S. Department of Justice gathered the following statistics between 1998 and 2002:

• Of the almost 3.5 million violent crimes committed against family members, 49% of these were crimes against spouses.
• 84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse were female.
• Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers
• 50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.

Moving on to elder abuse, 90% of elder abuse and neglect incidents are by known perpetrators, usually family members, 2/3rds are adult children or spouses. 42% of murder victims over 60 were killed by their own offspring. Spouses were the perpetrators in 24% of family murders of persons over 60.

And finally, the following are some statistics on child abuse:

• Each week, child protective services (CPS) agencies throughout the United States receive more than 50,000 reports of suspected child abuse or neglect.
• In 2002, 2.6 million reports concerning the welfare of approximately 4.5 million children were made.
• In approximately two-thirds (67 percent) of these cases, the information provided in the report was sufficient to prompt an assessment or investigation. As a result of these investigations, approximately 896,000 children were found to have been victims of abuse or neglect—an average of more than 2,450 children per day.
• More than half (60 percent) of victims experienced neglect, meaning a caretaker failed to provide for the child’s basic needs. Fewer victims experienced physical abuse (nearly 20 percent) or sexual abuse (10 percent), though these cases are typically more likely to be publicized. The smallest number (7 percent) were found to be victims of emotional abuse, which includes criticizing, rejecting, or refusing to nurture a child.
• An average of nearly four children die every day as a result of child abuse or neglect (1,400 in 2002).

In the mid-1800s, some state courts legally allowed husbands to beat their wives. See Joyner v. Joyner, 59 N.C. 322 (1862); State v. Black, 60 N.C. 262 (1864); State v. Rhodes, 61 N.C. 453 (1868). The cases provide explicit reasons upon which the courts absolved the husbands of wrongdoing in hitting or beating their wives. The underlying philosophy? The husband is the head of the family, the wife is to submit to the husband, and, if she gets out of line, she is to be punished because she is just like a child. That punishment usually took the form of hitting, striking, or beating.

Perhaps when the Pope is pontificating, he might read up on the statistics of abuse and violence surrounding the family unit. The Pope talks about an ideal which may exist for some families; statistics gives us reality in black and white.

ARMS SUPPLIERS: THE REAL “WEAPONS” OF MASS DESTRUCTION

As George W. Bush’s dreams of finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq faded away, his reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein changed on an almost daily basis. The weapons of mass destruction he had worked so hard to delude the world into believing existed in Iraq included nuclear arms, biological weapons, and chemical weapons. The sought after but never found weapons are called weapons of mass destruction because they are capable of killing large numbers of people.

But, where is the hue and cry about the true weapons of mass destruction - those weapons such as assault weapons and other smaller firearms traded in the international market? Arms suppliers play a game of oneupmanship - you sell to my enemies and my allies’ enemies, and I will sell to your enemies and your allies’ enemies. And, if the situation changes, I will sell to those who were once my enemies because they are now your enemies and are now my allies. And on and on and on - the madness never ends.

The arms trade is a deadly, corrupt business. It supports conflict and human rights abusing regimes around the world while squandering valuable resources. It does this with the full support of governments around the world with the majority of small arms and light weapon production facilities operating legally with the consent of a host state. The point at which a weapon becomes part of the illicit trade, therefore, takes place after the weapon has left the factory.

Legal small arms and light weapon producers range from large state-owned companies, which manufacture a wide range of small arms and light weapons; to large, privately owned companies; to small, specialist producers of weapons. Since the end of the Second World War, tens of millions of people have been killed by these conventional weapons - weapons which do not incorporate toxic chemical, biological, or nuclear payloads. Conventional weapons, those that can be transported, managed, and carried by a single individual, consist mostly of small arms such as hand guns, pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns, mortars, landmines, grenades, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and light missiles.

However, sales of advanced weaponry - fighter jets and high-tech electronics, sophisticated long-range artillery and warships, and “weapons of mass destruction” - tend to receive the most press coverage. Yet, these costly, sophisticated weapons have not proved as deadly as ordinary guns and grenades that are easy to buy, easy to ship, and easy to use.

Small arms - image from Wikipedia

Since 1992, the United States has exported more than $142 billion dollars worth of weaponry to states around the world. U.S. weapons sales help outfit non-democratic regimes, soldiers who commit gross human rights abuses against their citizens and citizens of other countries, and forces in unstable regions on the verge of, in the middle of, or recovering from conflict. The United States supplied arms or military technology to more than 92% of the conflicts under way in 1999.

A report from the Congressional Research Service (CSR) indicates that from 2001-2004, the United States and Russia have dominated the arms market in the developing world, with the United States ranking first and Russia second each of the last four years in the value of arms transfer agreements. From 2001-2004, the United States made $29.8 billion in arms transfer agreements with developing nations, in constant 2004 dollars, 39.9% of all such agreements. Russia, the second leading supplier during this period, made $21.7 billion in arms transfer agreements, or 29.1%.

The real weapons of “mass destruction” are not chemical, nuclear, or biological. The true weapons of mass destruction are the arms suppliers of the world - whether it be the United States, Russia, or any other government that makes money from selling these instruments of death.

They are the major arms players in the international market of conflict and death. Focusing on the chemical, nuclear, and biological aspect of weaponry simply deflects attention from a profitable and lucrative business aimed at instigating conflict and keeping alive the game of oneupmanship.

What a pity that governments speak out of both sides of their mouths - praising peace and entering accords all the while shipping massive amounts of small arms which keep the world in a perpetual struggle to the death.

 

JOHN LENNON - “JUST IMAGINE” WHAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN YOU “GIVE PEACE A CHANCE”

Yesterday was the 27th anniversary of the assassination of John Lennon. I first saw the Beatles on that famous night back in February 1964 when they appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. I was just about to turn 16, and several girlfriends and I gathered to watch the show together. We were enthralled with the prospect of these “British Invaders” - our parents and grandparents were not.

My grandmother nearly passed out when Elvis Presley wiggled and gyrated across the stage on the Ed Sullivan Show years earlier - even though his lower body was hidden. She was absolutely mortified and did not mince words as she castigated Ed Sullivan, Elvis Presley, and a society that would allow this horrific display.  In between breaths and heart palpitations, she declared the end of the world.

I didn’t even want to be around for a repeat performance. Besides now I was older and wanted to be with my friends when we watched these cute guys from England. I mean, really, how can you make comments and even act like you appreciate these rockers when your elder grandmother and your parents are sitting in the same room with you?

So, I watched the Beatles that night and loved their music. Beatles songs became the school bus favorites when we traveled to basketball games and band concerts. What fun it was to sing a rousing chorus of “I Want to Hold Your Hand” or “She Loves You, Yeh, Yeh, Yeh.”

As the years passed though, I began to focus more on the music of John Lennon. I am not sure why, but he was my favorite Beatle. Maybe because I have always hated war and opposed the Vietnam War from the minute it started and as it gained momentum. He became a symbol of peace and love of humanity.

His songs became more worldly with less pop rock and fluff. They said something, and they said important things, like “Imagine” and”Give Peace a Chance.” They talked about his life with Yoko Ono, like “Woman” and “Watching the Wheels.” And, they talked about a life he would never see growing up, “Beautiful Boy” written about his son, Sean.

I remember the day he was killed - I still have the People magazine with the cover of John and Yoko. I put my headphones on and listened to his music and cried. While I know many probably have no conception of what it is that draws some of us to John Lennon, I truly feel sorry for them if they cannot understand the idea that religion and geographical lines should not diminish our caring for our fellow human beings and their sufferings.

Lennon understood that. It is too bad so many others don’t. The link takes you to a website. It is well worth your time in listening to what he has to say.

 

 

THE EYES HAVE IT - BEWARE OF BIOMETRICS

Mark Souder has become a crusader for biometrics identification (ID) cards; however, he admits the political climate is not yet ripe. That statement alone indicates he must think sometime in the future it will be ripe.

Biometrics is, generally, the study of measurable biological characteristics. In computer security, biometrics refers to authentication techniques that rely on measurable physical characteristics that can be automatically checked. We are already seeing biometrics in everyday life. For example, the fingerprint requirement at banks for “non-customers” as well as at some larger stores for check cashing purposes.

There are several types of biometric identification schemes:

• face: the analysis of facial characteristics
• fingerprint: the analysis of an individual’s unique fingerprints
• hand geometry: the analysis of the shape of the hand and the length of the fingers
• retina: the analysis of the capillary vessels located at the back of the eye
• iris: the analysis of the colored ring that surrounds the eye’s pupil
• signature: the analysis of the way a person signs his name.
• vein: the analysis of pattern of veins in the back if the hand and the wrist
• voice: the analysis of the tone, pitch, cadence and frequency of a person’s voice

Souder has taken up the biometric cause from his spot as the top GOP member on the House Homeland Security Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee. Our Third district is also home to a facility owned by Beaverton, Oregon-based Digimarc Corporation, a producer of 32 states’ drivers licenses, including some with biometric information.

Opponents of biometrics feel that there are lots of ways that biometrics are not as reliable and infallible as people tend to think they are. Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation states, “I would argue that the burden of proof is on the proponents of biometrics to show that it is actually going to be workable as security.”

According to Tien, a major reason biometric technologies do well in labs but perform poorly when implemented is because lab tests haven’t sufficiently simulated people trying to defeat the system. All the while, Tien argues, citizens would pay a steep toll in terms of personal privacy if they had to submit biometric identifiers.

Supporters of increased use of biometrics argue that that is precisely the point — being able to identify, track and monitor bad actors so you know who they are and where they are is essential for national security. But who is bad? And how many non-bad “actors” will get swept into the system?

And, aside from the increased security, there would be practical effects that would improve people’s lives, supporters say.

For example, passengers who are commonly confused with someone listed on the no-fly list could clear the matter up in a few short minutes if they are carrying a biometrically enabled ID card and airport security personnel are equipped with a reader that can verify or disprove a match.

In addition to helping to create an adequate redress process and greater security for airline passengers, Souder said biometrically enabled ID cards would help other homeland security agencies to perform their functions better:

• Immigration and Customs Enforcement could go into American companies and accurately ensure that they are not employing illegal residents.

• Customs and Border Protection could accurately identify people attempting to enter the country via a land or sea port of entry.

• State and local police could identify potential threats when they are enforcing traffic and other domestic laws.

• Bank tellers could ensure that legitimate people are the ones removing or adding money to an account.

Souder is considering drafting a bill that would give financial incentives or direct funding to states that include biometrics when implementing the Real ID Act (PL 109-13). Remember, that is the 2005 law requiring states to comply with minimum security standards for issuing driver’s licenses or identification cards or risk having those IDs cease to be accepted for boarding flights or entering federal buildings.

Souder says he is taking a “patient approach”, assuming time and circumstance are on his side. Let’s prove him wrong.

Keep your eyes peeled on this issue - pardon the pun - because I can assure you, given the Bush administration’s rule by fiat and secrecy, we will see it pushed, and it sounds like Mark Souder is in the forefront of that push.

Let’s hope the American people never let themselves be cowed into accepting a national ID card in the form of biometrics. At some point, enough is enough.

BREAKING THE TRUST - BUSH’S BETRAYAL OF OUR MILITARY

Disgraceful is a mild term to use when addressing the health issues facing our military personnel fighting a war that has no solution and appears to have no end. Over one million service members in the Active and Reserve Components of the U.S. military have been deployed in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), of whom 449,261 have been deployed more than once. That is almost HALF of the overall troop deployment - sent back for a second or even third or fourth time.

As of May 2007, more than 3,700 service members have died, primarily from hostile action, and more than 26,000 troops have been wounded. Psychological concerns are significantly higher among those with repeated deployments, which is a rapidly growing group. The Pentagon’s most recent data from the Post-Deployment Health Re-Assessment, which is administered to service members 90 to 120 days after returning from deployment, indicate that 38 percent of Soldiers and 31 percent of Marines report psychological symptoms. Among members of the National Guard, the figure rises to 49 percent.

But health issues, psychological and physical, do not end with our military personnel; psychological concerns among family members of deployed and returning Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom veterans, while not yet fully quantified, are also increasing. The Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health (MHTF) arrived at a single finding underpinning all others: the Military Health System not only lacks the fiscal resources and the fully-trained personnel to fulfill its mission to support psychological health in peacetime but also lacks such resources and personnel to fulfill the enhanced requirements imposed during times of conflict.

Bush arrogantly marched into war with no plan other than the disgusting “shock and awe” spectacle meant not only to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein and his never-to-be-found weapons of mass destruction but also to demonstrate to the world that George Bush was the very epitome of a swaggering, Texas cowboy, guns ablazin’. As he strode so smugly and self-confidently across the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, those who opposed the war had to wonder “what hath he wrought?”

And, now we know. After over 1,000,000 deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, 3700 American soldiers killed, and more than 26,000 wounded, Bush has created a world far more dangerous than ever in which thousands of physically and psychologically wounded American veterans are not being provided the short-term and long-term care they were promised when they enlisted. It is a world in which they and their families are left to cope with Bush’s disgraceful betrayal.

LOVING V. VIRGINIA - THE SUPREME COURT AND INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE

A couple of days ago, June 12, 2007, marked the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), the Supreme Court decision that ended the practice of making interracial marriages a crime. The Warren Court, famous for its seminal decisions in the area of defendants’ rights, stepped into the area of personal relationships, and marital ones at that.

In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, left the State of Virginia and crossed over into the District of Columbia to marry. While Virginia prohibited interracial marriage, the District of Columbia did not forbid such marriages. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County.

 

However, Virginia was one of a number of states with anti-miscegenation statutes on the books. The purpose of the statutes was to prevent mixing - miscegenation - of the races in order to maintain the “purity” of the white race.

The two statutes under which the Lovings were convicted and sentenced were part of a comprehensive statutory scheme aimed at prohibiting and punishing interracial marriages. The Lovings were convicted of violating the following two sections of the Virginia Code:

§ 20-58 of the Virginia Code:

“Leaving State to evade law. — If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage.”

Section 20-59, which defines the penalty for miscegenation, provides:

“Punishment for marriage. — If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years.”

At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. The trial judge opined that:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

After their convictions, the Lovings left the State of Virginia and established residence in the District of Columbia. They ultimately filed to have their convictions vacated but were unsuccessful in their efforts before the Caroline County trial court and the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Failing at both attempts to vindicate their relationship, the Lovings appealed to the United States Supreme Court in 1966.

The Lovings’ appeal rested on the 14th amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses. The 14th amendment was passed in 1868 at the end of the Civil War along with two other amendments known collectively as the “Civil War Amendments” or the “Reconstruction Amendments.” Those three amendments were the 13th Amendment passed in 1865, which outlawed slavery and involuntary servitude - except as punishment for crime; the 14th Amendment, which mandated that states not deprive its citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny equal protection of the laws, nor abridge the privileges and immunities of citizenship; and the 15th amendment passed in 1870, which prohibited the abridgment of voting rights based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

 

 

When the Supreme Court reviews a case alleging a violation of the 14th amendment, it must use a standard of review. Each clause in the 14th amendment means something different. The “privileges and immunities” clause was interpreted narrowly in the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases as protecting only those rights of national citizenship, thus that clause is rarely used to argue violations of constitutional rights. However, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment have been used extensively to selectively impose many of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights against the states. Recall, the Bill of Rights was established to prevent abuse of rights by the federal government, not the state governments. Yet, state governments were also capable of denying rights and trampling on fundamental freedoms. Thus, the Supreme Court began using the 14th Amendment as a way to stop states from abusing the rights of their own citizens.

The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit all discrimination, just unreasonable discrimination. If a law treats people differently, the state must demonstrate a good reason for the difference in treatment. Under the Equal Protection Clause, when a state passes a law, generally the Court defers to the state legislature and only looks to see if the state has a rational basis for imposing a law. This is a fairly easy standard of review. But if the legislation touches on either a suspect classification such as race or a fundamental right such as free speech, the state must show that its law reflects a “compelling state interest” in order to survive a constitutional challenge. The Supreme Court uses the standard of strict scrutiny which is the highest and toughest standard used by the Court to review these cases.

Since the Virginia statutes were based on a racial (suspect) classification, the Supreme Court used the strict scrutiny standard of review to ascertain whether the State of Virginia had a compelling state interest in prohibiting interracial marriages. In deciding the state did not have a compelling interest, the Supreme Court held that:

“There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race.

There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.”

The Supreme Court also addressed the issue that the statutes deprived the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

The landmark opinion was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren who was joined by Justices Black, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, and Fortas. The decision was what is known as a unanimous decision, 9-0, the strongest statement of belief that the Supreme Court imposes. Loving v. Virginia ended, finally, the prohibition against interracial marriage. Just two generations ago a fundamental right that we take for granted today, did not fully exist.

NOTE: The Lovings were the parents of three children. Tragically, Richard was killed in a car accident in 1975; Mildred, who is till living today, lost an eye in the accident. The story of the Lovings was turned into a movie in 1996 titled Mr. & Mrs. Loving, starring Lela Rochon, Timothy Hutton, and Ruby Dee.

HOOSIERS LOSE JOBS TO CHINA

Indiana was among the top 10-hardest hit states due to China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, a move that caused a displacement of production that otherwise would have remained in the United States, according to a report issued by the Economic Policy Institute in Washington D.C.

Indiana lost 45,200 jobs, or 1.5 percent of the state’s total employment, the report said. The U.S. trade deficit with China between 1997 and 2006 displaced production that could have supported 2.17 million U.S. jobs. Contrary to the predictions of its supporters, China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) has failed to reduce its trade surplus with the United States or increase overall U.S. employment.

Major findings of this study include:

• The 1.8 million jobs opportunities lost nationwide since 2001 are distributed among all 50 states and the District of Columbia, with the biggest losers, in numeric terms: California (-269,300), Texas (-136,900), New York (-105,900), Illinois (-79,900), Pennsylvania (-78,200), North Carolina (-77,200), Florida (-71,900), Ohio (-66,100), Georgia (-60,400), and Massachusetts (-59,300) (Table 2A).

• The 10 hardest-hit states, as a share of total state employment, are: New Hampshire (-13,000, -2.1%), North Carolina (-77,200, -2.0%), California (-269,300, -1.8%), Massachusetts (-59,300, -1.8%), Rhode Island (-8,400, -1.8%), South Carolina (-29,200, -1.6%), Vermont (-4,900, -1.6%), Oregon (-25,700, -1.6%), Indiana (-45,200, -1.5%), and Georgia (-60,400, -1.5%).

Support for China’s entry into the WTO and Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status in the US comes basically from the business community who see the large population of over a billion as more consumers to buy and consume products. An equally enticing possibility is the enormous source of cheap labor that global corporations can exploit. However, American businesses exhibit little concern about how the Chinese population would benefit; their concern lies with how China as a cheap source of labor would benefit American businesses—not even American people.

China’s entry into the WTO has further tilted the international economic playing field against domestic workers and firms, and in favor of multinational companies (MNCs) from the United States and other countries. China’s state-owned and privately-owned exporters also benefit from WTO status. This has increased the global “race to the bottom” in wages and environmental quality and caused the closing of thousands of U.S. factories, decimating employment in a wide range of communities, states, and entire regions of the United States.

Beijing air on a day after rain and a sunny but polluted day

When was the last time you turned over an item in Menards, Target, Wal-Mart or any other big box stores or small shops and found a product that said “Made in the USA?”

 

 

HALLIBURTON - CUT AND RUN!

The decision by Halliburton to relocate its headquarters and its chief executive officer (CEO) to Dubai is a corporate version of the “cut and run” allegations so viciously flung at those who believe we should exit from Iraq. Apparently, Halliburton officials, in their hurry to cut and run, skipped some of the corporate niceties that usually attend such an announcement, failing to notify Houston Mayor Bill White and other community leaders in advance.

And, conveniently enough, Halliburton’s hasty exit comes at a time when it is under investigation for bribery, bid rigging, defrauding the military, and illegally profiting in Iraq. Although Halliburton will continue to maintain a coporate presence in Houston, its move to Dubai will complicate efforts to hold it accountable for its activities connected with Iraq. But what else could be expected from a corporation so closely affiliated with Vice President Dick Cheney, who headed Halliburton from 1995 to 2000, and the Bush Administration?

Dubai, Halliburton’s luxurious new home, is one of the seven emirates that make up the geographical area of the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.). The U.A.E. is a federation located in Southwest Asia, bordering the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf, between Oman and Saudi Arabia. The official language is Arabic although other languages are spoken, and the official state religion is Islam.

United Arab Emirates has the fourth highest GDP per capita in the world, and, in 2005, the United States invested $10,000,000,000. Although the United Arab Emirates government has made some advances in the protection of human rights, the U.S. Department of State notes in its annual report on human rights practices that numerous fundamental practices and policies exist to the contrary.

The rulers hold power on the basis of their dynastic position and their legitimacy in a system of tribal consensus. The current ruler of Dubai, Mohammed bin Rashid, has two wives - the first is called the senior wife and the second is called the junior wife. Mohammed bin Rashid and his two wives are avid horse and camel racing enthusiasts, and, until 2006, kept about 30,000 boys enslaved as jockeys. International pressure and a lawsuit brought by parents of six of the boys resulted in the return of the young boys to their homes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Sudan.

A Dubai City steet scene, above, is identical to those in the United States.

Dubai is home to many extravagant and luxurious hotels and accommodations.

The Burj Dubai, currently under construction, will be the tallest building in the world when completed in 2008.

Rapid modernization, enormous strides in education, and the influx of a large foreign population have changed the face of the society but have not fundamentally altered this traditional political system.

Halliburton’s new home provides ready access to the eastern hemisphere which is a market more heavily weighted toward oil exploration and oil exploitation than the market Halliburton is leaving. Halliburton’s move to Dubai positions it perfectly to exploit Middle Eastern oil resources from a position of safety.

Halliburton will be situated far enough away from the horrors of war-torn Iraq and Afghanistan yet close enough to the world’s existing strategic oil reserves and newly emerging oil excploration in the Caspian Sea region. The tangled web among the players in this scenerio is astonishing and it leads to a possible supposition - is it possible that back in the planning stages of the Iraq invasion, Halliburton already knew it would be relocating once the invasion was completed?

Perhaps its goal was to relocate once Bush and Cheney provided a “free and democratic Iraq” and a blossoming of democracy throughout the Middle East. But what it most assuredly did not count on was the tragic and disastrous outcome in Iraq and the Middle East that is now the legacy of the Bush and Cheney administration.

THE BRUTAL RULERS - THE WORLD’S 10 WORST DICTATORS

More than 70 countries are ruled by dictators who exercise arbitrary authority over their citizens and who cannot be removed by legal means. Each year, Parade publishes a list of the 10 worst dictators in the world. The following is the list with a description and picture of each of this year’s human rights violators.

1) Omar Al-Bashir - Sudan

The 63-year-old dictator has been in power since 1989. Last year he was ranked #1 and retains that distinction this year because of his brutal and deadly human-rights abuses in theDarfur region of Sudan. Over the last four years, pro-Bashir forces have killed at least 200,00 people and driven another 5.3 million from their homes. Over 700,000 have fled the country. (Author’s comment: If we found oil in Darfur would that get our attention?)

2) Kim Jong-Il - North Korea

For all the attention Kim Jong-Il receives, he is one of the world’s most mysterious dictators. Kim Jong-Il came to power in 1994 with the death of his father, Kim Il Sung, dubbed the “Great Leader.” Although the elder dictator utilized both Marxist-Leninist ideology and juche philosophy, Kim Jong-Il has subordinated his father’s ideologies to the more militant “Red Banner” policy, introduced in 1996.

Amnesty International’s long-standing concerns about human rights violations in North Korea include the use of torture and the death penalty, arbitrary detention and imprisonment, inhumane prison conditions and the near-total suppression of fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and movement. (Author’s comment: Strange how we deal with this member of the “Axis of Evil” differently than we did Saddam Hussein.)

 

3) Sayyid Ali Khamenei - Iran

The Ayatollah Khamenei came to power in 1989, and, along with his 12-man Guardian Council, controls all decisions regarding Iran’s relations. The regime has increasingly suppressed freedom of expression, and strict regulations regarding the treatment of women are imposed with severe penalties for violation.

4) Hu Jintao - China

Hu Jintao, and member of the Communist Party, became president of China in 2003. Although Jintao is seen as a reformist in some areas, his abysmal human-rights record seems to have taken a back seat to China’s new role in the global economy. The U.S. State Department has identified 22 areas of human-rights abuses underHu Jintao , including torture, forced abortions, forced labor, detention of religious groups, government corruption, and restrictions on speech and the media. Next year, China will draw world attention when it hosts the Olympics. (Author’s comment: Never mind the human rights violations, as long as Wal-Mart and other corporations can keep those profits up by importing from China.)

 

5) King Abdullah - Saudi Arabia

King Abdullah has been in power in Saudi Arabia since 1995. Since the King and the Saudi royal family control the world’s largest reserves of oil, the U.S. government has not acted to oppose the repressive and intolerant actions of the Saudi regime. It is illegal for a Saudi citizen to practice a religion other than Islam, and school textbooks are anti-Christian and anti-Semitic. (Author’s comment: See, this is what oil will do for a relationship!)

 

6) Than Shwe -Burma (Myanmar)

In power since 1992, Than Shwe is one of the most secretive leaders in the world. Burmese citizens are still waiting on a new constitution 17 years after it was promised. Freedom of the press and political opposition are virtually non-existent in Burma. (Author’s comment: Not enough oil yet to make it worthwhile?)

 

7) Robert Mugabe - Zimbabwe

Mugabe has been in power since 1980, overseeing a country which has the world’s shortest life expectancies - 37 for men and 34 for women. He allowed an election in 2002, and won by having his leading opponent arrested for treason. In recent years, Mugabe has attracted international criticism for corruption, mishandling of land reforms, economic mismanagement, and a deteriorating human rights situation.

8 ) Islam Karimov - Uzbekistan

Karimov was already the president of Uzbekistan in 1989. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Islam Karimovused old-fashioned Soviet tactics of torture, media censorship, and fake elections to hold on to his power. Although the U.S. had shunned him for his numerous human rights violations - including ordering the massacre of hundreds of his citizens - his strategic geographic location made his country an ideal location for American troops after 9/11. Criticism of the 2005Andijan killings which arose out of a trial of 23 businessmen, led to Karimov’s decision to order U.S. troops out of the country.

 

9) Muammar Al-Qaddafi - Libya

Qaddafi has been in power 38 years. In 1969, at the age of 27, he seized power and has been considered an enemy of the U.S for decades. He holds no official title and is referred to as”Brother Leader” and “Guide of the Revolution.” AlthoughQuaddafi appears to have moderated his actions in previous years, Libya is still a country where political prisoners disappear and women are kept in rehabilitation homes indefinitely if they have been raped or have engaged in sex outside of marriage.

 

10) Bashar Al-Assad - Syria

When Al-Assad’s father, Hafez Al-Assad died in 2000, Bashar was elected President unopposed with apparent massive popular support. A major crisis began with the death of Lebanese Prime MinisterRafik Hariri in February 2005, which has been blamed on Syria in the media.

 

These are the Top 10 from Parade; however, since the world is full of dictators, I am sure there are many out there led by leaders who are cruel and inhumane in their treatment of their citizens. I always find it interesting how the government picks and chooses its friends and enemies. We supported Iran and then we didn’t support Iran - it all depends on our interests, and, frankly, I am not sure human rights has much to do with the government’s alignments.