The Round Up - 9/5/06

I haven't done a good news round-up post in a little bit, so here you go

Latin America / Latinos

(Mexico) Electoral Court declares Calderon (PAN) winner of the election

MEXICO CITY, Mexico (AP) -- Felipe Calderon was declared president-elect Tuesday after two months of uncertainty, but his ability to rule effectively remained in doubt with rival Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador vowing to lead a parallel leftist government from the streets. (...)

Lopez Obrador, whose support is dwindling but becoming more radical, has said he won't recognize the new government and vows to block Calderon from taking power December 1. Protesters outside the tribunal wept as the decision was announced and set off firecrackers that shook the building.

"We aren't going to let him govern!" Thomas Jimenez, a 30-year-old law student, screamed as hundreds of protesters threw eggs and trash at the courthouse. (...)

The decision was unlikely to end the demonstrations that have crippled Mexico City's center or to heal the nation's growing political divide.

In the Zocalo plaza, thousands in a month-old protest camp chanted: "If there is no solution, there will be revolution!"

"Taking up arms is the only way," said Angel Sinsun, 80. "They'll never give us power with peaceful resistance or with negotiations."

Supporters dwindling, but radicalism increasing. You have a large segment of Mexicans who will make it their job "not to let him govern" and some who might soon turn to violence and force of arms. I don't know if it will come to that and hope that these Mexicans will see that such action will seriously hurt the Mexican nation and all Mexicans.

I didn't like Lopez Obrador before, I like him a lot less now that I've seen his actions the past few weeks, as he shows his anti-republican, anti-rule of law authoritarian tendencies. That and the growing radicalism of his movement and the potential violence that his followers may bring should bring it home that this person should not ever be the head of a government.

Immigrants eager to learn English : Duh, anyone with common sense knows that immigrants -- for the most part -- are interested in learning English. A frequent argument I hear is that immigrants simply don't want to and don't see a need to learn English, to which I say: OK, whatever dude. Of course there will be some but the majority do want to learn.

"New to the United States? Want to learn English?

Get in line.

Across the country from California to Pennsylvania to Massachusetts are full and have waiting lists up to 18,000 people long.

The demand for English-language instruction is evident on Spanish-language television, with an array of commercials for English-learning products, including the top seller, "Inglés Sin Barreras," or "English without Barriers," a video and audio program that reportedly sells 60,000 copies a year.

Immigrant advocates say the full classes and booming business in language products demonstrate that many immigrants are eager to learn English and assimilate.

"People assume that if you don't speak English it's because you are not trying or don't want to, when in fact, a lot of people are struggling to learn," said Holly Patrick, manager of language programs at Atlanta's Latin American Association, where about 500 adults are learning English.

But critics say too many immigrants are still not learning the language or integrating into American culture and that the English is under attack as government agencies increasingly try to to accommodate foreigners. For example, many states offer driver's license tests in various languages, and electoral ballots in some areas are printed in Spanish.

"The problem is that multilingual government has created for some an English-optional society," said Rob Toonkel, communications director for U.S. English Inc., a group that advocates making English the official language of the federal government.

I find the arguments and fears that immigrants don't learn and don't want to learn English stupid and ignorant for the "duh" reasons I gave earlier. As for the argument that accommodating other languages encourages them not to learn english...lets just day that most immigrants know that it benefits them more to learn the language than not.

But, why should government forms, vote forms, banks accommodateate other languages?

Simply, because it is pragmatic to allow immigrants to do their business in a language they acomfortableble with, and face it, banks want customers and this increases the number of potential customers.

Even for those who do know English well among immigrants, things are much easier, there is much less chance of confusion and error when forms accommodate languages other than english.

My father talks and speaks english well, but when given the opportunity to fill a government or bank form in Spanish, he will take it because although good in english he is even more proficient and comfortable with Spanish.

It doesn't breed a English-optional society as tbenefitsits to learning English are way to high compared to not learning as to make that argument seem simply idiotic. What it does do is ensure that immigrants are able to go about their lives with as little difficultylty as possible, allows them to function as members of US society a lot better than they would otherwise.

9/11 ABC Docudrama

People please beware, the coming 9/11 Docudrama on ABC will include many outright falsehoods and the authors are known conservatives who it seems is trying to lay the blame totally on the Clinton Administration and totally away from the Bush Admin.

Read the blog post about it at Daily Kos

And Go to Think Progress to see exactly what Richard Clarke -- one of the people with actual knowledge of the given event (the supposed Bin Laden Raid that never actualoccurredred) who calls this scene a bunch of crock. If you see this "documentary" on ABC, don't buy the BS. A lot of this is straight propaganda from right-wing directors. Its worth noting that the Democrats in the 9/11 commission where not used to advise for this film and "interestingly" enough, the film has been shown in advance for viewings for right-wing pundits and conservative bloggers, but not for Democrats or left-wing pundits and bloggers. Interesting indeed.

----[Excerpt]----

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

In short, this scene which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.

The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military
involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Tell ABC to tell the truth about 9/11.

I Was Wrong II (Iraq Edition)

This will be short, I promise. A few of you may have read my post on why I though it might be a bad idea to leave Iraq at this poiny.

Granted, I caveated it by saying that unless that belief depended on whether or not the US began to change into a counter-insurgency force using classical counter-insurgency tactics, but its not even about that.

While indeed the US has not, and shows little promise to change its tactics in the near future, a big reason for my belief also rested on the premise that the full-scale civil war could still be prevented and so it was worth trying to stop.

Almost as fast as I typed that and especially monotoring the coverage in the days since that post I have come to realize that the insurgents (well some of them) and Al-Qaeda types have succeded in instigating the civil war that they saw as the perfect way to get the US out of Iraq. The coming of the full-scale civil war seems like a foregone conclusion and at this point, I don't believe any drastic change in our tactics will change that.

It has gotten so bad that even once powerfull leaders in the different sectarian communities are finding it more and more difficult to calm their followers and their passions. These figures have lost control to more radical and militant elements in their group. The violence will only increase from this point and now there is no credible figures with the power or sway to stop the violence.

Read this about the once-powerfull Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani:

The most influential moderate Shia leader in Iraq has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards civil war.

Aides say Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is angry and disappointed that Shias are ignoring his calls for calm and are switching their allegiance in their thousands to more militant groups which promise protection from Sunni violence and revenge for attacks.

I will not be a political leader any more," he told aides. "I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."

It is a devastating blow to the remaining hopes for a peaceful solution in Iraq and spells trouble for British forces, who are based in and around the Shia stronghold of Basra.

The cleric is regarded as the most important Shia religious leader in Iraq and has been a moderating influence since the invasion of 2003. He ended the fighting in Najaf between Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi army and American forces in 2004 and was instrumental in persuading the Shia factions to fight the 2005 elections under the single banner of the United Alliance.

However, the extent to which he has become marginalised was demonstrated last week when fighting broke out in Diwaniya between Iraqi soldiers and al-Sadr's Mehdi army. With dozens dead, al-Sistani's appeals for calm were ignored. Instead, the provincial governor had to travel to Najaf to see al-Sadr, who ended the fighting with one telephone call.

Al-Sistani's aides say that he has chosen to stay silent rather than suffer the ignominy of being ignored. Ali al-Jaberi, a spokesman for the cleric in Khadamiyah, said that he was furious that his followers had turned away from him and ignored his calls for moderation.

Asked whether Ayatollah al-Sistani could prevent a civil war, Mr al-Jaberi replied: "Honestly, I think not. He is very angry, very disappointed."

Those instigating a civil war have done their jobs because the limited civil war will soon turn into a full-scale one.

A report from the Pentagon on Friday said that the core conflict in Iraq had changed from a battle against insurgents to an increasingly bloody fight between Shia and Sunni Muslims, creating conditions that could lead to civil war. It noted that attacks rose by 24 per cent to 792 per week – the highest of the war – and daily Iraqi casualties soared by 51 per cent to almost 120, prompting some ordinary Iraqis to look to illegal militias for their safety and sometimes for social needs and welfare.

Its not really about the insurgency anymore, its about the violence between the different sectarian groups.
Full civil war is coming and there is no reason that US soldiers should be in the middle of that. There is nothing that the US military can do at this juncture to stop it from occuring, and thus there is no reason to stay. We have to set a timetable to leave and endevour to make that timetable as short as possible.

We must brace ourselves for the repercussions of Iraqi Civil War and pray to God that the Sunni/Shia War does not spill over into other Middle East nations and cause a regional conflagration. It would be bad enough if it stayed in Iraq, for it to spill over would be disaster.

My God...What has George W. Bush done to our world?

Bush and his Republican enablers must go, for the love of God vote these bums out this November (lets get Congress back) and lets put a Democrat in the White House in 2008. The past 6 (3/4) yrs have shows us what it means to vote for Republicans.

Lets improve our nation and the plight of all its people, and lets save our foreign policy, our image, our respect, and our national soul from the corruption, ignorance, incompetence, and hubris that characterize those that run our nation today.