mpohl

"Capitalism Has Only Hurt Latin America" Bolivia's President Evo Morales, 46, talks to DER SPIEGEL about reform plans for his country, socialism in Latin America, and the often tense relations of the region's leftists with the United States. SPIEGEL: Mr. President, why is such a large part of Latin America moving to the left? Morales: Injustice, inequality and the poverty of the masses compel us to seek better living conditions. Bolivia's majority Indian population was always excluded, politically oppressed and culturally alienated. Our national wealth, our raw materials, was plundered. Indios were once treated like animals here. In the 1930s and 40s, they were sprayed with DDT to kill the vermin on their skin and in their hair whenever they came into the city. My mother wasn't even allowed to set foot in the capital of her native region, Oruro. Now we're in the government and in parliament. For me, being leftist means fighting against injustice and inequality but, most of all, we want to live well. SPIEGEL: You called a constitutional convention to establish a new Bolivian republic. What should the new Bolivia look like? Morales: We don't want to oppress or exclude anyone. The new republic should be based on diversity, respect and equal rights for all. There is a lot to do. Child mortality is frighteningly high. I had six siblings and four them died. In the countryside, half of all children die before reaching their first birthday. SPIEGEL: Your socialist party, MAS, does not have the necessary two-thirds majority amend the constitution. Do you now plan to negotiate with other political factions? Morales: We are always open to talks. Dialogue is the basis of Indian culture, and we don't want to make any enemies. Political and ideological adversaries, perhaps, but not enemies. SPIEGEL: Why did you temporarily suspend the nationalization of natural resources, one of your administration's most important projects? Does Bolivia lack the know-how to extract its raw materials? Morales: We are continuing to negotiate with the companies in question. The current lack of investment has nothing to do with nationalization. It's the fault of the right-wing government of (former president) Tuto Quiroga, who stopped all investment in natural gas production in 2001 because, as he claimed, there was no domestic market for natural gas in Bolivia. We plan to start drilling again. We have signed a delivery agreement for natural gas with Argentina, and we are also cooperating with Venezuela. We have signed a contract to work an iron mine with an Indian company. This will create 7,000 direct and 10,000 indirect jobs. We have negotiated much better prices and terms than our predecessors. SPIEGEL: But there are major problems with Brazil. Bolivia is demanding a higher price for natural gas shipments. Doesn't this harm your relationship with (Brazilian) President Luiz Inácio "Lula" da Silva? Morales: Lula is showing his solidarity. He behaves like a big brother. But we are having problems with Petrobras, the Brazilian energy company. The negotiations are very difficult, but we are optimistic. SPIEGEL: Petrobras has threatened to end all of its investments in Bolivia. Morales: This isn't coming from the Brazilian government, but from a few Petrobras executives. They print these threats in the press to put us under pressure. Brazil is a major power, but it has to treat us with respect. Compañero Lula told me that there will be a new agreement, and that he even wants to import more gas. SPIEGEL: Bolivia doesn't sell natural gas to Chile because the Chileans took away Bolivia's access to the sea in a war more than 120 years ago. Now a socialist is in power in Chile. Will you supply them with natural gas now? Morales: We want to overcome our historical problems with Chile. The sea has divided us and the sea must bring us back together again. Chile has agreed, for the first time, to talk about sea access for Bolivia. That's a huge step forward. The Chilean president came to my inauguration, and I attended (Chilean President) Michelle Bachelet's inauguration in Santiago. We complement each other. Chile needs our natural resources and we need access to the sea. Under those circumstances, it must be possible to find a solution in the interest of both countries. SPIEGEL: What influence did Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez have on the nationalization of Bolivia's natural resources? Morales: None whatsoever. Neither Cuba nor Venezuela was involved. I managed the nationalization myself. Only seven of my closest associates knew about the decree and the date. Although I did meet Chavez und (Cuban leader) Fidel Castro in Cuba a few days before the announcement, we didn't talk about nationalization. I had already signed the decree before I departed for Cuba, and the vice president gave it to the cabinet. When Fidel asked me in Cuba how far the project had progressed, I told him that we planned to announce the nationalization in the coming days, but I didn't give him a date. Fidel warned me to wait until the constitutional convention. Chavez wasn't aware of anything. SPIEGEL: Chavez wants to install a socialism for the 21st century in Venezuela. His ideological advisor Heinz Dieterich, a German, was recently in Bolivia. Do you intend to introduce socialism in Bolivia? Morales: If socialism means that we live well, that there is equality and justice, and that we have no social and economic problems, then I welcome it. SPIEGEL: You admire Fidel Castro as the "grandfather of all Latin American revolutionaries." What have you learned from him? Morales: Solidarity, most of all. Fidel helps us a great deal. He has donated seven eye clinics and 20 basic hospitals. Cuban doctors have already performed 30,000 free cataract operations for Bolivians. Five thousand Bolivians from poor backgrounds are studying medicine at no charge in Cuba. SPIEGEL: But Bolivian doctors are protesting the Cubans' presence. They say that they deprive them of their livelihood. Morales: The Bolivian state doesn't pay the Cuban doctors any salaries, so they're not taking anything away from the Bolivians. SPIEGEL: Do you know how Castro is doing? Morales: Yes, I spoke with him on the phone today. He has been feeling better for the last two days. He told me that he'll be well enough to attend the summit of nonaligned nations in Havana in September. SPIEGEL: And he'll give a speech then? Morales: Certainly. It's an opportunity he won't miss. SPIEGEL: The Americans are worried that Chavez is gaining too much influence. Aren't you making yourself dependent on Venezuela? Morales: What unites us with Chavez is the concept of the integration of South America. This is the old dream of a great fatherland, a dream that existed even before the Spanish conquest, and Simon Bolivar fought for it later on. We want a South America modeled after the European Union, with a currency like the euro, one that's worth more than the dollar. Chavez's oil is unimportant for Bolivia. We only get diesel under favorable terms. But we are not dependent on Venezuela. We complement each other. Venezuela shares its wealth with other countries, but that doesn't make us subordinate. SPIEGEL: The Latin American left is fracturing into a moderate, social democratic current, led by Lula and Bachelet, and a radical, populist movement represented by Castro, Chavez and yourself. Isn't Chavez dividing the continent? Morales: There are social democrats and others who are marching more in the direction of equality, whether you call them socialists or communists. But at least Latin America no longer has racist or fascist presidents like it did in the past. Capitalism has only hurt Latin America. SPIEGEL: You are the first Indian president in Bolivian history. What role will indigenous culture play in your government? Morales: We must combine our social consciousness with professional competency. In my administration, intellectuals from the upper class can be cabinet ministers or ambassadors, as can members of Indian ethnic groups. SPIEGEL: Do you believe that the Indian peoples have developed a better social model than the white, Western democracies? Morales: There was no private property in the past. Everything was communal property. In the Indian community where I was born, everything belonged to the community. This way of life is more equitable. We Indians are Latin America's moral reserve. We act according to a universal law that consists of three basic principles: do not steal, do not lie and do not be idle. This trilogy will also serve as the basis of our new constitution. SPIEGEL: Is it true that all government employees will be required to learn the Indian languages Quechua, Aymara und Guaraní in the future? Morales: Public servants in the cities are required to learn the language of their region. If we already speak Spanish in Bolivia, we should also be fluent in our own languages. SPIEGEL: Are the whites treating the Indians better, now that you're in power? Morales: It's gotten a lot better. The middle class, intellectuals and the self-employed are now proud of their Indian roots. Unfortunately, some oligarchic groups continue to treat us as being inferior. SPIEGEL: Some critics claim that the Indians in Bolivia are now racist toward the whites. Morales: That's part of a dirty war the mass media are waging against us. Wealthy, racist businessmen own much of the media. SPIEGEL: The Catholic Church has accused you of wanting to reform religious instruction. Will there be no freedom of religion in Bolivia? Morales: I am Catholic. Freedom of religion isn't at issue. But I am opposed to a monopoly when it comes to faith. SPIEGEL: Some large landowners have threatened violent resistance to the planned land reforms. Whose land do you intend to seize? Morales: We will expropriate large land holdings that are not being farmed. But we want democratic and peaceful agrarian reform. The 1952 land reform led to the creation of many tiny, unproductive parcels in the Andean highlands. SPIEGEL: Bolivia is divided into the rich provinces in the east and the poor Andean highlands. There is a strong movement for autonomy in the east. Is the country at risk of breaking apart? Morales: This is what a few fascist, oligarchic groups want. But they lost the vote over the constitutional convention. SPIEGEL: Bolivia is an important narcotics producer. Your predecessors had illegal coca plantations destroyed. Do you intend to do the same thing? Morales: From our standpoint, coca should be neither destroyed nor completely legalized. Farming should be controlled by the state and by the coca farmers' unions. We have launched an international campaign to legalize coca leaves, and we want the United Nations to remove coca from its list of toxic substances. Scientists proved long ago that coca leaves are not toxic. We decided on a voluntary reduction in the amount of acreage being farmed. SPIEGEL: But the United States claims that the majority of the coca harvest ends up in the cocaine trade. Morales: The Americans say all kinds of things. They accuse us of not fulfilling the conditions of their development aid. My pro-capitalist predecessor administrations supported the massacre of coca farmers. More than 800 campesinos died in the war on drugs. The United States is using its war on drugs as an excuse to expand its control over Latin America. SPIEGEL: The American Drug Enforcement Agency, the DEA, has agents stationed in Bolivia who advise the military and the police in their efforts to combat the drug trade. Will you be sending them home now? Morales: They're still here, but they are no longer in uniform or armed, as they were before. SPIEGEL: How is your relationship with the United States? Do you plan to travel to Washington? Morales: A meeting with (US President) George W. Bush is not planned. I do intend to travel to New York to visit the UN General Assembly. When I was still a member of parliament, the Americans didn't let me into the country. But heads of state don't need a visa to travel to the UN in New York. SPIEGEL: You broke your nose while playing soccer a few weeks ago. Are you playing less these days? Morales: Does my nose still look crooked? Playing sports has always been my greatest pleasure. I don't smoke, I hardly drink alcohol and I rarely dance, although I used to play the trumpet. Sports helped get me into the presidential palace. My first position in the union was that of sports secretary. I was head of a soccer club in the countryside when I was 13. SPIEGEL: Why don't you wear a tie? Morales: I never wore a tie voluntarily, even though I was forced to wear one for photos when I was young and for official events at school. I used to wrap my tie in a newspaper, and whenever the teacher checked I would quickly put it on again. I'm not used to it. Most Bolivians don't wear ties. SPIEGEL: Mr. President, thank you for speaking with us.

SPIEGEL ONLINE - August 28, 2006, 12:43 PM URL: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,433886,00.html Difficult Re-Entry for Guantanamo Prisoner Learning to Walk without Chains For well over four years, Murat Kurnaz lived in a small, brightly lit cell at Guantanmo. Now a free man, he has to re-learn how to deal with reality -- and how to walk without chains on his feet. Murat Kurnaz arrived back home in Bremen on Friday morning. DPA Murat Kurnaz arrived back home in Bremen on Friday morning. Murat Kunaz may now be home. But the ex-Guantanamo prisoner, who arrived in Germany last Thursday following more than four-and-a-half years in isolation, has a long way to go before he re-adjusts to reality. Indeed, having not been allowed out of his cell without his feet chained together, Kunaz even had to relearn how to walk normally, his defense attorney says. Kurnaz, now 24, touched down at the United States military base at Ramstein on Thursday evening following lengthy negotiations between Washington and the German government to secure his release. His lawyer Bernhard Docke said Kurnaz would first have to re-learn how to cope with reality. Kurnaz, a Turkish citizen with German residency, had never seen euro notes before and was surprised to learn that mobile phones now have cameras built into them. From the air base, Docke said, Kurnaz drove with his family to Bremen where he lived prior to his arrest. On the way, Kurnaz asked for them to stop the car so he could look at the stars -- which, because of the bright lights at Guantanamo, he hadn't seen in well over four years. Kurnaz, who became known as the "Bremen Taliban" following his arrest in Pakistan in 2001, said the bright, neon light in his cell hadn't been turned off during the entire time he was held at the camp, his lawyer said in a press conference after his arrival in Germany. Even in the process of freeing Kurnaz from imprisonment, the US took no chances. Docke says his was chained to the floor of an American transport plane and his eyes were covered during the flight. Fifteen American soldiers were on the flight with him. "The Americans are incorrigible, they have not learned a thing," Docke said. "He was returned home in chains, humiliated and dishonoured to the very end by the Americans." Defense Department officials told the Washington Post last week that they agreed to release Kurnaz only after receiving assurances from Germany that he would be treated humanely and that he would not pose a security threat. Documents declassified and reported on last year made it clear that both US military intelligence and German officials had concluded that Kurnaz had no ties to al-Qaida or any other terrorist organization. Kurnaz has said he was on a missionary trip in Pakistan and was originally arrested by Pakistani authorities because he was a foreigner.

Moronic attitude, if you ask me. There is no glory in dying or getting maimed. You have had your famous one post. Also hope you have your own health insurance; please don't make me pay for your stupidity, which, as you acknowledge, you had a long time coming.

If some of our American friends love Israel that much, why not re-settle the whole nation in the state of Texas. Plenty of space, desert-like climate, and no Arab neighbours within several thousand miles to bother them. Sounds like bliss. P.S.: Maybe they could pick a war w/ Mexico?

Christian police chief sees Satan at work in Birmingham Homicides rise dramatically By JAY REEVES Associated Press Published on: 08/21/06 Birmingham — Annetta Nunn's office could belong to a preacher: A photo of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. greets visitors, mocha-colored angel figurines fill a bookcase. The baseball cap behind her desk says "God Answers Prayers." But Nunn isn't a minister — she's the police chief. And she wonders if the fact that she is an outspoken Christian has something to do with the surging murder rate in Alabama's biggest city, where homicides are up more than 25 percent over last year. Nunn says one thing is certain to happen anytime Christians speak boldly: "Satan is going to attack." So Nunn can't help but wonder if her own actions — singing hymns at the funerals of three slain officers, making speeches and writing articles mentioning God — somehow have made the devil meaner than usual in Birmingham. A 26-year veteran of the department, Nunn became the city's first black female police chief in 2003. She has improved the firepower of the department by acquiring rifles and additional stun guns for officers, and she worked in the community to bolster neighborhood watch programs. She also is trying to improve the department's communication with other police agencies, and she has encouraged officers to get involved in the community with volunteer groups. Critics on radio call-in shows, Internet forums and letters to the editor have called Nunn too soft. They claim the city needs more hard-nosed policing and less Christian rhetoric. But police Sgt. Allen Treadaway said Birmingham's increasing homicide rate isn't the fault of Nunn, who was appointed by the mayor. City leaders need to provide more money for recruiting and retaining officers and operating task forces to combat problems like drugs, he said. "We have to have a strategy in place and resources available to take those who are not contributing to society out of society," said Treadaway, president of the city's Fraternal Order of Police lodge. For Nunn, faith and crime fighting are intertwined. One of Nunn's first ideas as chief was a Bible-based plan of civic responsibility for cleaning up rundown neighborhoods, and she supports police chaplains who hold revivals in crime-ridden communities. She talks about the need to lock up criminals, but she also talks of working with pastors to discourage crime and change hearts. "I do believe we have to get back to God to permanently change a person's behavior," she said in an interview. "We put people in jail all the time. Our stats show we put in over 20,000 people last year. But our prisons are overcrowded, and they come right back here." Overall, Nunn says, things are improving: The city's total crime rate is down 1 percent this year. But homicides seem out of control, with 72 killings recorded through Thursday compared with 57 during the same period last year. The killings take a toll on Nunn, a soft-spoken mother of two who used to play a mean shortstop in softball and still attends the same Baptist church where she was baptized at age 8. In 2004, three Birmingham police officers were shot to death as they entered a drug house trying to make an arrest. She helped their families cope — and gave herself strength — by singing a hymn at the funerals for the men. "It was the first time I ever sang outside my church," she said. It was also when she began to ask questions about her own faith and crime. "There was a point particularly after the officers were killed where I wondered, 'Is it my fault?'" Nunn said. "I wasn't on the scene, and there was nothing I could have done. But [I wondered] if it was as a spiritual attack. I was looking at it that way." Some answers are hard to come by. And the questions came again this year as the city's homicide rate rose. A stack of letters offering support rests near Nunn's desk, and she draws strength from people who promise to pray for her. But she can't help but wonder about the solution to what's going on in Birmingham. "We've got to enforce the law. But we've got to change people's hearts," she said.

As Peter Ustinov, an accomplished British playwright and ambassador for UNICEF once noted: "War is the terror of the rich, and terror is the war of the poor." And no, don't reply. Just think, I mean really think, about it. Edited: UNICEF, not UNESCO as I initially stated.

That's why democracy at the lowest common denominator is prone to be a failure: I mean who in their right mind would have voted for GW Bush? Leave the voting to the educated people: MS, PhD, and MD only. Just as all the tax benefits are left to the rich ppl. P.S.: You aren't educated or rich? Bad luck!

I am encouraged that it took multiple hours for this kind of comment to appear. May I ask for the poster's qualifications to comment in such a way on a former President and Noble Peace Prize Winner, widely regarded in the international community as the ONLY American (besides Bill Clinton) to have any moral autorithy. Please share your CV.

SPIEGEL ONLINE - August 15, 2006, 12:51 PM URL: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,431793,00.html SPIEGEL Interview with Jimmy Carter "The US and Israel Stand Alone" Former US president Jimmy Carter speaks with DER SPIEGEL about the danger posed to American values by George W. Bush, the difficult situation in the Middle East and Cuba's ailing Fidel Castro. Former US president Jimmy Carter: "I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon." SPIEGEL: Mr. Carter, in your new book you write that only the American people can ensure that the US government returns to the country's old moral principles. Are you suggesting that the current US administration of George W. Bush of acting immorally? Carter: There's no doubt that this administration has made a radical and unpressured departure from the basic policies of all previous administrations including those of both Republican and Democratic presidents. SPIEGEL: For example? Carter: Under all of its predecessors there was a commitment to peace instead of preemptive war. Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to war on a preemptive basis. Another very serious departure from past policies is the separation of church and state, which I describe in the book. This has been a policy since the time of Thomas Jefferson and my own religious beliefs are compatible with this. The other principle that I described in the book is basic justice. We've never had an administration before that so overtly and clearly and consistently passed tax reform bills that were uniquely targeted to benefit the richest people in our country at the expense or the detriment of the working families of America. SPIEGEL: You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington's call for democracy in the Middle East has been discredited? Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon. SPIEGEL: But wasn't Israel the first to get attacked? Carter: I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no. SPIEGEL: Do you think the United States is still an important factor in securing a peaceful solution to the Middle East crisis? Carter: Yes, as a matter of fact as you know ever since Israel has been a nation the United States has provided the leadership. Every president down to the ages has done this in a fairly balanced way, including George Bush senior, Gerald Ford, and others including myself and Bill Clinton. This administration has not attempted at all in the last six years to negotiate or attempt to negotiate a settlement between Israel and any of its neighbors or the Palestinians. SPIEGEL: What makes you personally so optimistic about the effectiveness of diplomacy? You are, so to speak, the father of Camp David negotiations. Carter: When I became president we had had four terrible wars between the Arabs and Israelis (behind us). And I under great difficulty, particularly because Menachim Begin was elected, decided to try negotiation and it worked and we have a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt for 27 years that has never been violated. You never can be certain in advance that negotiations on difficult circumstances will be successful, but you can be certain in advance if you don't negotiate that your problem is going to continue and maybe even get worse. SPIEGEL: But negotiations failed to prevent the burning of Beirut and bombardment of Haifa. Carter: I'm distressed. But I think that the proposals that have been made in the last few days by the (Lebanese) Prime Minister (Fuoad) Siniora are quite reasonable. And I think they should declare an immediate cease-fire on both sides, Hezbollah said they would comply, I hope Israel will comply, and then do the long, slow, tedious negotiation that is necessary to stabilize the northern border of Israel completely. There has to be some exchange of prisoners. There have been successful exchanges of prisoners between Israel and the Palestinians in the past and that's something that can be done right now. SPIEGEL: Should there be an international peacekeeping force along the Lebanese-Israeli border? Carter: Yes. SPIEGEL: And can you imagine Germans soldiers taking part? Carter: Yes, I can imagine Germans taking part. SPIEGEL: ... even with their history? Carter: Yes. That would be certainly satisfactory to me personally, and I think most people believe that enough time has passed so that historical facts can be ignored. SPIEGEL: One main points of your book is the rather strange coalition between Christian fundamentalists and the Republican Party. How can such a coalition of the pious lead to moral catastrophes like the Iraqi prison scandal in Abu Ghraib and torture in Guantanamo? Carter: The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God's ideas and God's premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases -- as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world -- it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a fundamentalist can't bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality. And so this administration, for instance, has a policy of just refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them -- which is also a radical departure from past history. So these are the kinds of things that cause me concern. And, of course, fundamentalists don't believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it's just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was made. SPIEGEL: So how does this proximity to Christian fundamentalism manifest itself politically? Carter: Unfortunately, after Sept., there was an outburst in America of intense suffering and patriotism, and the Bush administration was very shrewd and effective in painting anyone who disagreed with the policies as unpatriotic or even traitorous. For three years, I'd say, the major news media in our country were complicit in this subservience to the Bush administration out of fear that they would be accused of being disloyal. I think in the last six months or so some of the media have now begun to be critical. But it's a long time coming. SPIEGEL: Take your fellow Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton. These days she is demanding the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But she, like many others, allowed President Bush to invade Iraq under a false pretext. Carter: That's correct. SPIEGEL: Was the whole country in danger of losing its core values? Carter: For a while, yes. As you possibly know, historically, our country has had the capability of self-correcting our own mistakes. This applied to slavery in 1865, it applied to legal racial segregation a hundred years later or so. It applied to the Joe McCarthy era when anti-communism was in a fearsome phase in the country like terrorism now. So we have an ability to correct ourselves and I believe that nowadays there is a self-correction taking place. In my opinion the election results in Connecticut (Eds: The primary loss of war supporter Senator Joseph Lieberman) were an indication that Americans realized very clearly that we made a mistake in going into Iraq and staying there too long. SPIEGEL: Now even President Bush appears to have learned something from the catastrophe in Iraq. During his second term he has taken a more multilateral approach and has seemed to return to international cooperation. Carter: I think the administration learned a lesson, but I don't see any indication that the administration would ever admit that it did make a mistake and needed to learn a lesson. I haven't seen much indication, by the way, of your premise that this administration is now reconciling itself to other countries. I think that at this moment the United States and Israel probably stand more alone than our country has in generations. SPIEGEL: You've written about your meeting with Fidel Castro. He appears seriously ill now and Cuban exiles are partying already in the streets of Miami. You are probably not in the mood to join them. Carter: No, that's true. Just because someone is ill I don't think there should be a celebration of potential death. And my own belief is that Fidel Castro will recover. He is two years younger than I am, so he's not beyond hope. Carter: In my opinion, the embargo strengthens Castro and perpetuates communism in Cuba. A maximum degree of trade, tourism, commerce, visitation between our country and Cuba would bring an earlier end to Castro's regime. SPIEGEL: You've been called the moral conscience of your country. How do you look at it yourself? Are you an outsider in American politics these days or do you represent a political demographic that could maybe elect the next US president? Carter: I think I represent the vast majority of Democrats in this country. I think there is a substantial portion of American people that completely agree with me. I can't say a majority because we have fragmented portions in our country and divisions concerning gun control and the death penalty and abortion and gay marriage. SPIEGEL: As president, your performance was often criticized. But the work you did after leaving office to promote human rights has been widely praised. Has life been unfair to you? Carter: I've been lucky in my life. Everything that I've done has brought great pleasure and gratification to me and my wife. I had four years in the White House -- it was not a failure. For someone to serve as president of the United States you can't say it is a political failure. And we have had the best years of our lives since we left the White House. We've had a very full life. SPIEGEL: Do you feel you achieved even more out of office than you did as president? Carter: Well, I've used the prestige and influence of having been a president of the United States as effectively as possible. And secondly, I've still been able to carry out my commitments to peace and human rights and environmental quality and freedom and democracy and so forth. SPIEGEL: Does America need a regime change? Carter: As I've said before, there is a self-corrective aspect to our country. And I think that the first step is going to be in the November election this year. This year, the Democrats have good chance of capturing one of the houses of Congress. I think the Senate is going to be a very close decision. My oldest son is running for the US Senate in the state of Nevada. And if just he and a few others can be successful then you have the US Senate in Democratic hands and that will make a profound and immediate difference. SPIEGEL: Mr. Carter, thank you for the interview.

My experience w/ USPS is more on the order of 8-10 weeks; just for reference.

No, it doesn't! We just evolved to a higher level of consciousness and being. :) Of course, an ORIGINAL Bollingbroke boogie would de-evolve us in no time... P.S.: We have a daughter to add-on come October.

Sold a Mirage G3 container through the classifieds a few months ago. Beautiful piece of equipment: navy blue, pristine condition, MOS w/ all the fixin's. Alas, USPS lost the shipment between here, Georgia, and Colorado. After much hazzle, they finally paid up on insured value in the amount of $800. Maybe someone will get a sweet deal in an auction of the regional mail recovery center. If you come across Mirage S/N #2649, drop me a line. Of course, on the downside it might just get tossed in the dumpster by someone who does not know what they are looking at. /M

Unless you spersonally spent the last five years at Guantanomo Bay... I call BS on this: the system is not working !!! It is utterly broken. All these years without access to a trial or judicial process? And the system is working? You cannot be serious.

Pardon the interruption But what do the latest responses, aka who was the least incompetent US President, have to do w/ the posted hypothesis amd evidence at hand? Are we or aren't we!?

Has it ever occured that a penalty that does not allow for the correction of human fallacies (shortcomings in police work, witnesses, criminal justice system), is uncivilized. Why is it that Texas can be named in the same breath as such sophisticated places as China and Saudi Arabia. What are you trying to defend?

"It isn't here"? Are you sure. Do you think that Germans, '33-'45, considered themselves fascist? What about Franco's Spain? Salazar's Portugal? Suharto's Indonesia? Bush's USA??? There is a well-known article by Laurence Britt that defines the 14 common traits of fascist societies. Part of it is reproduced below. [...] For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible. Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity. 1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia. 2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation. 3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly. 4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite. 5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses. 6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses. 7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous. 8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion. 9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens. 10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice. 11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist. 12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power. 13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population. 14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite. Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not. [...] Blah. Ben Franklin also warned of Facism, as have others throughout US history. It isn't here. It's not going to be here.

Thank you for your genuine, intelligent response. America can really be proud to have you as one of her sons! I am thinking, and I think your full of shit!

Who I am is unimportant. THINK!

Fascism in America won't come with jackboots, book burnings, mass rallies, and fevered harangues, nor will it come with black helicopters or tanks on the street. It won't come like a storm--but as a break in the weather, that sudden change of season you might feel when the wind shifts on an October evening: Everything is the same, but everything has changed. Something has gone, departed from the world, and a new reality will have taken its place. All the old forms will still be there: legislatures, elections, campaigns--plenty of bread and circuses. But "consent of the governed" will no longer apply; actual control of the state will have passed to a small and privileged group who rule for the benefit of their wealthy peers and corporate patrons. To be sure, there will be factional conflicts among the elite, and a degree of debate will be permitted; but no one outside the privileged circle will be allowed to influence state policy. Dissidents will be marginalized--usually by "the people" themselves. Deprived of historical knowledge by a thoroughly impoverished educational system designed to produce complacent consumers, left ignorant of current events by a corporate media devoted solely to profit, many will internalize the force-fed values of the ruling elite, and act accordingly. There will be little need for overt methods of control. The rulers will act in secret, for reasons of "national security," and the people will not be permitted to know what goes on in their name. Actions once unthinkable will be accepted as routine: government by executive fiat, state murder of "enemies" selected by the leader, undeclared wars, torture, mass detentions without charge, the looting of the national treasury, the creation of huge new "security structures" targeted at the populace. In time, this will be seen as "normal," as the chill of autumn feels normal when summer is gone. It will all seem normal. --Chris Floyd, November 10, 2001

I find the reference and comment to 97 lives lost in 1989 as "proper kicking" distasteful to the extreme. You sure you are not one of "them"?

I am absolutely thrilled w/ $3/gal gas. Can't wait for $5 or $6/ gal gas. Seriously! Why would I pitty those buying $400k houses in the 'burbs, req. 50 mi. RTs (200 mi. total) from the city commuting to their workplaces each day. What about my $100/mo outlay in asthma medications because of air pollution. I say: Get rid of your 3,000 sqft urban starter-palaces, your gas-guzzling SUVs, and get a bike. Also does wonders to your waistline (health costs and premiums). And while we are at it: maybe instead of bombing other countries and innocent ppl into the ground to the tune of $80b+ each year: how about functioning public transport, nationalized health care?

Closest one w/o a doubt is Aero-Club Walldorf, http://www.aeroclub-walldorf.de/home/home.htm. You can ride the bus (HSB) or S-Bahn to Walldorf. Go to the web page, e-mail one of the contacts and I am sure someone will pick you up at the bus stop/ station the first time: http://www.aeroclub-walldorf.de/kontakt/kontakt.htm.

Ever noticed that the US fits all the political science criteria of a fascist society? http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/052204-fascism_usa.php "People in the US look to Nazi Germany as the modern example of fascism. People need not look so far." Wanna be my blockwart?

My interest in this thread (and similar ones): you guys in KC battle it out any way you want, but don't drag down Tommy or MRVS just for entertainment. Tommy has done more for the sport than almost any poster on dz.com . "Skydiving is about jumping out of airplanes. Everything else is politics!" P.S.: I went thru Tommy's Sr. Riggers boot-camp, and so did my wife.

Give it up! Your posts and arguments are too rationale/advanced/sophisticated to make any impression on the natives. For the Messiah shall come from the East, and look like a Big Red Tomato. And he will take all your sins and inadequacies away.