Corrupt Politicians or Corrupt "ed" Voters?

UPDATE: Check out the new blog covering the Mid East: Outsider On The Inside

Unfortunately, for one to gain exposure and publicity, he needs the media and big money. The system is corrupt and the voters have been corrupted. Therefore, I should have used the term "corrupted" rather than "corrupt". Its an epidemic on a mass scale. American voters are unaware of the effects of this corruption. As if they are zombies: voting for the candidate they see most often on TV. Its kind of like that extremely annoying Head-on commercial, the one advertising an ointment for headaches and is aired several times an hour. As much as viewers can't stand the commercial, they are still very tempted to try the product once they come across it at a retail location. The product is a joke yet the company selling it makes millions still. Same effect in politics. Until Americans understand this illness or corruption or disease or ignorance or whatever you wanna call it, corrupted American voters will continue putting corrupt politicians into POWER! Show me the rules.

Previous:
Corrupt Politicians or Corrupt Voters?
U.S Presidential Race: Mike Gravel

Corrupt Politicians Or Corrupt Voters?

UPDATE: Check out the new blog covering the Mid East: Outsider On The Inside

Poor American voters. Americans often complain that they have a poor selection of candidates to choose from, whether it be for president or any other political office. Americans often admit that they end up voting for the candidate that is the "lesser of two evils" or for the candidate that is "electable" rather than the one who truly deserves to be elected. I can't count how many times I've heard people say "oh he won't win, he's too nice" or oh she won't win, she's too honest" or "they won't win, they're too pro-peace" and so on. What the fuck!?? How ironic is it when a candidate who is honest is not electable for office? Its ludicrous. What is wrong with Americans when they say such things? Is it sad but true, or is it true because of the sad attitudes that Americans have toward the non-mainstream candidates? It is essentially that attitude that results in the sincere candidates not being elected while the less sincere, or straight-up sleezy politicians, end up getting elected because Americans felt the need to vote for the "electable" candidate. Corrupt politicians are put in to office by corrupt voters. American voters have been corrupted with the idea that voting for the good guy is not a realistic option. After all, nice guys finish last, right? Wrong, they are voted for last. If I am wrong, then show me the rules!

U.S Presidential Race: Mike Gravel

UPDATE: Check out the new blog covering the Mid East: Outsider On The Inside

Well people, the presidential race is well on its way, and its about time people start thinking seriously about the candidates. Most of us are well aware of the "top tier" candidates: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barrak Obama for the Democrats and John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Gulianni for the Republicans. But, has anyone heard of Democratic presidential candidate, Mike Gravel? He was a senator in the seventies and he has more years of experience than most of the candidates. I would like to know what people think about him. Watch this video and write comments. And when it comes time to decide, you be the "decider" for the next "commander guy" (President Bush's latest title for himself, haha). Seriously, I want to know what people think of Mike Gravel.

Mike Gravel at the first major President debate for Democratic candidates:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1gMlHv2lDqA

Egypt To Propose Ceasefire At Upcoming Iraq Conference

UPDATE: Check out the new blog covering the Mid East: Outsider On The Inside

According to this article in the IHT, Egypt is planning to propose a 3-month ceasefire between Iraqi forces and "insurgents" at the upcoming security conference in Sharm El Sheikh:

Under the Egyptian proposal, the participants would "call on all parties to implement a cease fire for an initial period of three months to allow for a conducive environment to help foster the political process and national accord," according to a copy of the draft final resolutions, obtained by the Associated Press. It did not elaborate on how insurgents could be brought on board a cease-fire. The draft resolutions are still being finalized by senior diplomats from the participating countries, but an Iraqi official close to the discussions said the Egyptian proposal is a nonstarter.

Of course, this is unrealistic and will never happen. Response from an Iraqi Diplomat:

"This is not a good idea. How can we have a cease-fire with terrorists?" said the Iraqi diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions. Although the United States has been pushing al-Maliki to reach out for Sunni Arabs, it is highly unlikely that it would back a cease-fire call with insurgents who are battling U.S. forces as well as Iraqi troop.

Update: Another interesting article about the upcoming conference and its significance to U.S policy towards Iran.

Sadr's Bloc To Quit Government

UPDATE: Check out the new blog covering the Mid East: Outsider On The Inside

Iraqi cleric Muqtada Al Sadr has decided to make his political officials, associated with his movement, withdraw from parliament. The move comes in response to Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki's opposition to drawing up a timetable for U.S withdrawal from the country.

Officials from the movement, which holds six ministries and a quarter of the parliamentary seats in Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Shi'ite Alliance, said the formal announcement would be made on Monday at a news conference.

The move is unlikely to bring down the government, but it could create tensions in Maliki's fractious Shi'ite-led government of national unity at a time when it is trying to heal sectarian divisions that threaten to tip Iraq into civil war.

"We are going to declare our withdrawal from government because the prime minister does not want to make a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq," said one official in Sadr's movement who declined to be identified. There was no immediate comment from the government.

Maliki says he sees no need to set a timetable. He said last week his government was working to build up Iraq's security forces as quickly as possible so U.S.-led forces could leave.

The Democrats proposing a U.S military withdrawal in favor of a 'political solution' need to start sharing their solutions before the Iraqi government becomes so divided that it's too late to accomplish anything.

Mubarak Wants Military Appeals Court

UPDATE: Check out the new blog covering the Mid East: Outsider On The Inside

A debate on the merits of a new bill is scheuled for this week in the Shura Council of Egypt's Parliament, proposing the creation of a military appeals court to be located in Cairo. Currently, only the President can overturn a decision by a military tribunal, which are often used to try political opponents to the President.

The proposed Supreme Military Appeals Court (SMAC), according to a Shura Council Legislative Committee report, will be located in Cairo and "comprise a board of five military judges, headed by the chairman of the Military Justice Authority". The court's main job will be to "decide on appeals filed by the military prosecution or by military and civilian personnel found guilty by military courts".

The SMAC bill has provoked mixed reactions. Chairman of the Shura Council's Legislative Committee Abdel-Rehim Nafie insists it is "a very civilised step" since it provides guarantees for those referred to military courts. "In setting up the SMAC President Mubarak intends to place military courts on an equal footing with civilian courts in terms of appeal rights."

Opposition and civil society figures are less sanguine over the proposed changes. Political analyst Fahmi Howeidi sees the new bill as symptomatic of the desire to "increase the number of civilians referred to military courts". Howeidi told the Weekly that adding "guarantees and the right to appeal against military court rulings is like mixing honey with poison".

An appeals court, which I assume is supposed to gain the trust of the people in the system. So Egyptians, rejoice! Thank the President! You no longer have to worry about Mubarak coming after you, with his freshly-passed anti-terror legislation under which he has the power to detain you without telling anyone, for as long as he wants, for whatever reason he wants. But consider this: who will you demand your right of appeal from, the same man who authorized your detention and torture? Will the President decide to honor your rights, after he abused them only a few weeks ago with the sham that was known as the constitutional referendum?

More on Egyptian politics, and the paradox of religion here.

Update: The Egyptian Foreign Ministry responds to the allegations of prisoner abuse by a recent report from Amnesty International:

"The Egyptian government is offended by the latest report which included inaccurate and biased information about the state of human rights in Egypt,"

Not as offended as the abused prisoners, I assume. Once again Egypt brushes off criticism, and no word from the United States.

Egyptian Executive Control

UPDATE: Check out the new blog covering the Mid East: Outsider On The Inside

After the Egyptian government had its proposed constitutional amendments passed by national referendum last month (exposed as a complete sham), effectively codifying certain executive powers that President Mubarak has enjoyed for the past 26 years under the imposed martial law, the government faces new hurdles in its pursuit to "democratize" Egypt.

Following the 26 March referendum, the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) is gearing itself up for Shura Council mid-term elections scheduled for June. The council's current session ends on 24 April, after which mid-term elections will be conducted to fill 88 seats -- a third of the total.

To comply with newly amended Article 88 of the constitution, the elections will be held in a single day. The last two elections, in 2001 and 2004, were organised in three stages under full judicial supervision. With opposition parties and the Muslim Brotherhood boycotting the polls, the NDP swept the board.

According to Shura Council speaker and NDP secretary-general Safwat El-Sherif, candidates will be able to register for the elections starting the second week of May.

Opposition parties are widely expected to boycott the poll though Rifaat El-Said, chairman of the leftist Tagammu Party, told Al-Ahram Weekly that "participation in the elections will be left to the individual decision of members".

"The party has little faith in the Shura elections and contesting them is beyond the financial resources of Tagammu."

The Egyptian opposition has taken on a very defeatist tone as of late, which must be very worrying to the country's democracy activists. It seems as if the strategy of choice in opposing the government, whether it be during an election or referendum, is to boycott. So how long before we start to realize that this strategy isn't working?

Russia, Iran Voice Skepticism Over Iran Nuclear Claims

UPDATE: Check out the new blog covering the Mid East: Outsider On The Inside

Follow up on the story posted earlier about Iran's announcement that they have a reached a stage of industrial nuclear development; Russia and France say that claim is unlikely:

MOSKOW - Russia voiced skepticism today about Iran's announcement of a dramatic expansion of its uranium enrichment program, saying it had yet to receive confirmation of the claim from the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog. France and Australia also questioned Iran's claim of acquiring an industrial-scale nuclear fuel production capability.

Islamic Republic News Agency reported. An official of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization confirmed their arrival, and said the visit was "routine." The official spoke on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to speak to the media.

Iran said Monday it has begun operating 3,000 centrifuges — nearly 10 times the previously known number — in defiance of U.N. demands that it halt its nuclear program or face increased sanctions. The United States, Britain, France and others criticized the announcement.

Russia was unaware, however, of "any recent technological breakthroughs in the Iranian nuclear program that would change the format of its enrichment effort," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said in a statement. The Russian government helped built Iran's only nuclear reactor and knows its nuclear program well.

Some analysis on this announcement from the Independent, and the ensuing confrontation with the United States.

Nasrallah Remains Defiant

UPDATE: Check out the new blog covering the Mid East: Outsider On The Inside

The struggle for power in Lebanon continues, with Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah giving a defiant speech yesterday, declaring his group will be around for "50 years more" in spite of increasing parliamentary opposition.

In his televised speech to 1700 Hezbollah students who graduated from a Hezbollah run university , Nasrallah also attacked the international tribunal saying it is designed to announce the verdicts that have already been made against certain suspects in the 2005 murder of former PM Rafik Hariri and related crimes.

Check out this post on Beirut Beltway for a good analysis of what Nasrallah's speech means for Lebanon.

U.S May Have To Fight Mahdi Army

UPDATE: Check out the new blog covering the Mid East: Outsider On The Inside

Crazy Cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr urged his followers to focus their campaigns of violence against the 'occupiers', namely the Americans. This marks a turn in recent rhetoric from the kooky-Shiite leader, who had previously instructed his militias to act non-confrontational towards American forces.

The firebrand cleric's mandate came as a Baghdad security spokesman announced that a ban on civilian vehicular traffic will go into effect Monday, the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad.

The 24-hour vehicle ban is slated to begin at 5 a.m. (10 p.m. Sunday ET), Baghdad security operations spokesman Gen. Qassim Atta said on Iraqi state television.

South of the capital, in Diwaniya, U.S. and Iraqi forces were in their third day of battling al-Sadr's Mehdi Army.

Meanwhile, caravans of the cleric's followers were converging on Najaf, south of Diwaniya, for an anti-American demonstration scheduled there Monday at al-Sadr's behest.

They walked through the streets Sunday chanting in Arabic, "No, no to the occupiers; yes, yes to Islam" and "Iraq will always be independent and free of occupiers," police said.

A significant shift, because now the U.S surge which aimed at ridding the capital of insurgents, may have to deal with armed and organized Shiite militias, should they listen to Al-Sadr. Of course, if the U.S was now to leave within the next year or so, Al-Sadr and his followers will take credit in driving the 'evil' American 'occupier' forces out of Iraq, and will demand larger representation in government. The 'Hezbollah model'. This ought to also cause a few waves amongst U.S Congress, since stories like this only play into the hands of the Democrats, and are routinely politicized in Washington, so we'll keep track of that.

Iran Crisis: Aftermath

UPDATE: Check out the new blog covering the Mid East: Outsider On The Inside

A few good articles that help gain a little perspective on the significance of the conflict. This article off of Time.com gives 3 messages Iran may have been giving by detaining the British sailors:

Don't think about attacking Iran, because it has the capacity to threaten Western interests in the Gulf and throughout the Middle East, directly as well as through allies in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine;

Expect Iran to instigate trouble if the West continues to punish Iran for what it sees simply as exercising as its legal right to nuclear technology; and,

Iran will play tit-for-tat if U.S. forces continue arresting Iranian officials working inside Iraq, as in the Jan. 11 raid on an Iranian consular facility in Erbil where five Iranians were detained.

Also, here's an article about the release of the sailors, and who played a role on both sides. Note the last paragraph, and the reality check this crisis has given the British government over its political clout on the world stage.

It had failed to secure a strong denunciation of Iran's actions from the U.N. Security Council; its European allies were balancing support for Britain against their business interests; and although Prime Minister Tony Blair warned a failure to reach a quick resolution would lead to a "new phase" in response to the detentions, nobody detected in his words the martial sounds of rattling sabers.

It seems like the U.S and Britain are letting Iran pass for now. I'd imagine a push for new sanctions on the Iranian regime, but to me, this was an act of war. Perhaps it doesn't justify military action against the country, but couldn't the rhetoric of the British be a little harsher?

Update - Another perspective saying Iran must be handled with patience and restraint.

Also, the U.S might have offered to scare the Iranians for the British while the sailors were in Iran, involving "combat aircrafts patrolling over Iranian bases to show how serious the incident was, the newspaper said in a front page story." The British turned it down, which is too bad because it would have been fun to see how Iran would've reacted.

Update 2- Here's a pretty weird video of the sailors partying in Iran, from Iranian TV. They were given their 'freedom', then probably told to express their 'joy' in front of the Iranian public.

Iran Is Generous

UPDATE: Check out the new blog covering the Mid East: Outsider On The Inside

Iranian ambassador to Britain Rasoul Movahedian talks about his country's latest act of generosity to the Financial Times. In an interview, he shares his perspective of the crisis and what it shows:

"It’s a triumph for Iranian-British relationship, which [gave] British politicians and diplomats a chance to have a taste of ethical diplomacy. We actually achieved this through intensive bilateral negotiations and of course ultimately as a gift of my president to British people."

A great gift, just in time for Easter. Meanwhile, here's what the released British sailors had to say about Iran's gesture of 'good will'.

"I would just like to stress three points at this stage: When taken by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard we were well inside Iraqi territorial waters. The detention was clearly illegal and not a pleasant experience. We as a group held out for as long as we though appropriate. We then complied up to a point with our captors."

Read the full statement here.