Say Anything Blog

Ah…
Democracy in the Middle East - its soooo sweet. With our military presence in Iraq, regional elections are tending to go to the jihadis. In an exclusive interview conducted by Sparkie Arbuckle yesterday after work at Starbucks, Hamas leaders said, “Vote jihadis at home and for Bush in the US ... and I love these maple-frosted scones.”.

Its a pretty simple phenomenon to understand. Imagine how well the Republicans would do if Canada was being overrun by Islamists who wanted to install their preferred type of government by means of force. All the GOP would really have to do is write a bunch of speeches condemning the jihadis and they would win by a landslide.

The US plan to use democracy to install terrorists into every government in the ME has been a total success so far.

Article here.

Manama: Islamist societies swept to victory in Bahraini parliamentary elections while leading liberals will have to wait until next Saturday’s run-off to find a place in the new parliament, according to official results announced yesterday.
....
“I am glad that Islamists have won massively because I strongly believe that they are the ones best placed to uphold ethical values,” Al Mouawda told Gulf News.

Al Wefaq Society leader Shaikh Ali Salman, who with 85 per cent received one of the highest vote numbers, is expected to play a major role in the new-look parliament, with many observers tipping him to be the likely speaker of the Council of Representatives.
....
Analysts attribute the Islamists’ victory ... to the impact of their religious message and its strong appeal to the masses with the sectarian developments in Iraq as background. Disappointment with the overall performance of the outgoing council, the first in three decades, coupled with a strong desire to influence local governance and politics have spurred voters to cast ballots in favour of the Islamist societies rather than secular liberals.

This post is the result of a disagreement I had with Rob, Bat One, and 2hotel9 about the legitimacy of Iraq’s ‘democracy’ and its constitution. If they didn’t test me I wouldn’t have gone through any trouble, but I know my goddamn Poli Sci and I wasn’t going to take it sitting down. As 2Hotel9 puts it: “sparkle pacifist is gonna pee it’s panties”.

Rob said the following:

Of course, the government representatives elected by the people are all asking for the U.S. to stay.

and

The people of Iraq have their own sovereign government now.

and I replied

We left out the Sunnis. Anyone who knows anything about this stuff knows that a consociational or power-sharing government is the only option in an ethnically and religiously charged situation like Iraq. Its clear stability was not our goal when you take that into account.

See the original spat here. What I said is true. What we have over there IS technically a democracy, but the Sunni minority has been excluded and much of the recent political history there can quickly explain why we will continue to see lots of violence in this ‘democracy’ until the Sunnis are included and all the citizens can be represented not only in the government, but also in the constitution.

First, I was right and you three were all wrong. Now the substance:

Iraq gained independence from Britain in 1932, and was claimed a Republic in 1958, even though it was nothing more than a series of military strongmen, the latest who was Saddam Hussein (Israeli, 6). Saddam Hussein represented the Sunni Muslim minority, a population which constitutes only 32% compared to the 65% of the Shiite majority, or the 15-20% comprised of the Kurdish minority (CIA Iraq, 3). Saddam Hussein’s regime was dismantled, not due to preventive negotiations like South Africa, but because the United States ousted Hussein’s regime over acclaimed non-compliance with the United Nations Security Council (Israeli, 7).

Following this, a Constitutional Drafting Committee was formed, and it was expected that they would finish the constitutional draft in time for the referendum on October 15, 2005( Morrow, 9). Unfortunately, in August, the Committee was scrapped and a Leadership Council was formed with the Sunni representatives excluded from the negotiations. The draft was completed by the projected due date, and was put up to a national referendum on October 15, just as planned. The most contentious issues regarding issues like women’s rights, or how much power the regions should have, were left out of the negotiations (Phillips, 156). The draft would be nullified if two-thirds of three provinces voted against it becoming the permanent constitution (Harvard, 1205). So the Sunnis were excluded from the drafting of the constitution and then the majority (again excluding the Sunnis) voted it in.

As one might expect following Sunni exclusion from the Constitutional negotiations, the three provinces that heavily voted against it were Sunni dominated (1206). Two of the provinces, Salahudain and Anbar, voted 82% and 97% respectively against it. The third province, Ninevan, had a 55% vote against passing the draft, just barely missing the three provinces, two-third majority requirement. Even though this requirement was barely missed, Sunni opposition to the new constitutional framework was already beginning to show.

On December 15, 2005, the first parliamentary elections were held for the National Assembly. 128 seats out of 275 were won by the Shiites, the Sunnis took 44 and the Kurds 53 seats. The final constitutional framework that was passed, set up the institution of the legislature as divided into the Council of Representatives and the Council of Unions (Iraq Constitution 9-12). The Council of Representatives is elected by proportional representation for a four year term, and has the responsibility of electing the President, Prime Minister and Deputy President, by an absolute majority vote. Decisions on passing legislation are also made by the Council of Representatives, and only a simple majority vote is required. The Council of Unions is made up of representatives from the 18 provinces, and is responsible for looking over legislation that is directly pertinent to the provinces, but they have no veto power to stop legislation from passing (13). The Iraqi Central Bank, Financial Inspection Office, and the Media and Communications Agency are all responsible directly to the Council of Representatives (17).

The Iraq Constitution also mandates revenue sharing of all future profits made from oil, since oil and gas, under the new constitution, is seen as the property of all the Iraqi people (19). Revenues are to be distributed fairly all over the country. Each province is to have their own President and National Council, which are to be directly elected, but in reality, the total amount of power each province has amounts to basically nothing more than jurisdiction over their police forces. Iraq’s Constitution calls for a majoritarian system for passing legislation and electing a President, which will have dire consequences on the minority population of the Sunnis. (more...)

Now all he needs to do is stop thinking… I can smell the toast burning from here.

...those dark eyes, those luscious lips. original article here.

AMSTERDAM—The Dutch government said yesterday that it would outlaw full-length veils such as the Muslim burqa and other face-concealing apparel in public places, marking this once-tolerant nation’s latest about-face on questions of culture and assimilation in Europe.

A stoned local playing pocket pool said, “I think it’s great. There’s nothing like taking a break from smoking weed and doing hookers to stand in the street and watch the ‘uncovered meat’ walk by. Islamic chicks are wicked hot and when they blush from exposing their face it just makes my ‘blood flow’... you know what I mean?”

The Netherlands, once considered one of Europe’s most welcoming nations for immigrants and asylum seekers, is deeply divided over government moves to stem the tide of new arrivals and compel them to adopt Dutch ways.

Ayhan Tonca, who heads a Dutch Muslim organization, denounced the proposal as “a big law for a small problem,” and said as few as 30 women wear burqas in the Netherlands. Amsterdam’s mayor said giving the issue too much attention could backfire.

Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk said the ban was to promote security. “The Cabinet finds it undesirable that face-covering clothing—including the burqa—is worn in public places for reasons of public order, security, and protection of citizens,” Verdonk said in a statement.

“From a security standpoint, people should always be recognizable, and from the standpoint of integration, we think people should be able to communicate with one another,” Verdonk told national broadcaster NOS.

She said the ban would include not only the tent-like burqa, but full-face helmets and ski masks.

   

Well we all remember the news about Cheney betting against his own team by investing in foreign markets and funds that benefit from the devaluation of the US dollar? Well I think we can agree its un-sportsman-like and unpatriotic. Its like Pete Rose placing bets as the manager of the Reds. I suggest we kick Cheney out of office and ban him from being in the Vice Presidential hall of fame - ever. He’s rich enough I don’t think he’ll be to bothered by it.
   
I am also interested to see if Cheney switches his investment strategy now that the Demos are gaining momentum. His companies and their subsidiaries seem to be doing so well with their non-disclosed graft in Iraq that I’m not sure he’ll be bugged with any of it… He’ll just cackle and keep an eye on that Cayman Island account full of foreign currency!

All the God talk has been really exciting so far so I think the following should be an interesting argument to comment on. I would like to thank Bezu for posting the recent God stuff and also everyone who pipes in on all sides whether I agree with you or not. Its great and I thoroughly enjoy it. Speculating about which politician or news service is lying to us today is fun, but it does get dreary.
I’m not sure where this argument is from - its not mine and I’m pretty sure its old - but I think it provides an interesting thought experiment. It is presented in a formal logical form, with the premises above the line and the conclusions entailed in the premises below the line. To attack a valid (not necc. true) argument one must show that even though the conclusions follow logically from the premises, the premises are flawed. So the task for those who believe in God is to explain which premise is flawed and how.
(1) If God exists, then by definition he is the omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent creator of the world.
(2) But there is natural evil (suffering not caused by human decision) in the world.
(3) Either God doesn’t know about the natural evil in the world, or he knows about it but cannot prevent it, or he knows about it and could prevent it if he chose to but chooses not to prevent it.
(4) If God does not know about the natural evil in the world, then he is not omniscient.
(5) If God knows about the natural evil in the world, but cannot prevent it, then he is not omnipotent.
(6) If God knows about the natural evil in the world, and could prevent it if he chose to, but chooses not to prevent it, then he is not perfectly benevolent.
————————————————————————
(7) Either God is not omniscient, or God is not omnipotent, or God is not perfectly benevolent.
(8) God does not exist.

I understand the argument is a little bizarre, but I’m just hoping it will be a good vehicle for further discussion. If you have any questions about the logical form feel free to ask. The logic should be pretty airtight (That says nothing about the truth value of the premises). Cheers.

Vermont also elected a GOP Lt. Governor. While many condemn it as a lefty shithole, Vermont proves it doesn't pay to be schmoozy or negative - talking points are just that and Vermonters vote for integrity and substance in their polticians.

Original article here.

As medical science progresses the number of seriously disabled babies that survive is growing - we should therefore consider having a debate on allowing active euthanasia, for the good of families, says the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology. The College explains families who have the most severely disabled babies, babies who until recently would not have survived, are suffering enormously, both emotionally and financially.

The college explains that if obstetricians were allowed to carry out active euthanasia, some patients would be more inclined to wait till birth, rather than carrying out late abortions.

It seems there is some support for this proposal by several parents of severely disabled babies, medical ethicists and geneticists. However, many express concern that this could be the first step in the slippery slope of social engineering.

In a submission to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the College explained “We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test and active euthanasia as they are ways of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns.”

Euthanasia of newborns, no matter how sick and/or disabled they are, is illegal in the United Kingdom. In the Netherlands, there are cases where active euthanasia of newborns is allowed, such as when a baby has severe spina bifida.

The college says it is not asking for euthanasia of severely disabled newborns - rather, it would like to see a debate on it.

It is not unheard of for UK doctors to privately admit that mercy killings of newborns do take place.

I voted absentee so the excitement for me is over. I voted about 50% third party, 40% Republican, and 10% Democrat (and only on the town level, for selectmen that I know personally). My state will re-elect a Republican governor by a wide margin, a Dem house member, and a Dem senator. But for many tomorrow is the big day. Everyone has thrown their predictions out there so I figured why shouldn’t I, Sparkie Arbuckle, give my predictions also.
    I have a feeling that the house will go Dem (but only by one or two seats). and that the Senate won’t. I think the Dems will even come up 2-3 seats short in the senate. I think we will see wider third party support than we usually do as independent voters support independents. Republican voters, I believe, are not going to vote for Dems or Independents. Any Republicans that have a problem with Bush should be satisfied that almost everybody has campaigned on an anti-Bush platform (except Lieberman). Pro-Bush people have no desire to damage the majorities so they aren’t going to take out anti-Bush campaigning on any of the candidates except the Dems.
I am crossing my fingers that the GOP candidates are rewarded for their efforts to separate themselves from Bush. I would love to see a bona fide effort to reduce federal spending in the next session. If the GOP does succeed and they immediately revert back to mindless Bush administration drones I don’t think that will be something anyone who’s paying attention will easily forgive next time around.
I am optimistic that the GOP can hold on and take some of the things they said during the campaigning seriously. I am not going to be too sad about GOP loses in the house as I feel there was some substantial fiscal irresponsibility and BS moral/social parenting going on that shouldn’t have been. Furthermore I think that seniority should be reinstated in the house to prevent rookie politicians from sitting on important commmitees just because they have proven themselves incapable of original thought and are constantly pandering to party bosses. Seniority is directly related to democracy because the longer a group of citizens supports a candidate the more the candidate should be rewarded with important chairs and commitee memberships.

Original article here.

MANAGUA: Daniel Ortega, who fought the American-backed contras in a bloody war in the 1980s, held a strong lead over four other Nicaraguan presidential candidates in preliminary results here, officials said early Monday.

With 15 percent of polling stations reporting, Ortega had 40 percent, versus 33 percent for his Harvard-educated rival Eduardo Montealegre of the Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance.

Trailing behind were a Sandinista dissident Edmundo Jarquín; the governing party's candidate, Jose Rizo; and a former contra rebel, Eden Pastora.

If Ortega, a former Marxist revolutionary, does not squeeze out a first- round victory and is forced into a runoff next month, analysts expect him to lose, because the country's strong anti-Ortega opposition would unite against him.

But this time, he has been ahead in polls throughout the campaign and stands to benefit from a change in election rules pushed through by his party, the Sandinista National Liberation Front, that lowered the threshold for victory. This time, a candidate needs 35 percent of the vote and a five-percentage-point lead over the nearest opponent. Previously, candidates needed 40 percent of the vote to gain the presidency.

Original article here.

“Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt,” the editorial says, according to an advance copy released Friday. “Donald Rumsfeld must go.”

The editorial will run in the 250,000 copies of Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times. The newspapers are published under the umbrella Military Times Media Group by Gannett Co., not by the U.S. military, and have been popular among U.S. forces since World War II.

Hmmmm. Reminds me of Batiste. Funny all the stuff he said was treated as partisan slander by the right two or three weeks before they all started saying the same things. Just today Rob agreed that 400,000 troops would be needed for invasion and containment in the post invasion Iraq.

Get out your wallet. 30,000 Euros is a lot of cash, but if you can afford it… This sucker is a 160 megapixel camera. One full res uncompressed shot is almost a gig (950mb). Screw flash cards, this sucker shoots right to a hard drive. Full res is a 7500x21250 pixel panoramic shot. That is a 2’x5.5’ photo quality print… even at a very picky res like 320 dpi (which is where most wet chemistry photo printers max out). Damn.

Concurrently posted at The Arbuckle Institute.



...and people are wondering why Karl Rove is so quiet and confident?

Bernie Sanders, self described socialist, is set to win Vermont’s open Senate seat with 65-70% of the vote. His challenger, Rich Tarrant, has spent a record amount of his own money on the race, only to get thoroughly beaten. See the whole article.

Polls show Bernard Sanders, who has served for nearly 16 years as Vermont’s lone member of the House of Representatives, is well ahead in the race to succeed Sen. Jim Jeffords, an independent who isn’t seeking re-election. The state’s Democrats didn’t field an opponent, and Sanders has consistently led wealthy businessman Richard Tarrant, the Republican candidate who is funding his own campaign, by more than 20 percentage points in surveys.

“Bernie is very much beloved at this point in time,” said Peter Freyne, a columnist for Seven Days, Vermont’s alternative weekly newspaper. “He’s going to get 65, maybe 70 percent of the vote.”

The state’s famed ice cream entrepreneurs — Ben & Jerry — even appear in a TV spot for the 65-year-old Sanders, who has long described himself as a democratic socialist.

“I don’t think of Bernie in that way. It’s just a label that tends to get all sorts of reactions from people,” said Jerry Greenfield, who set the state standard for do-gooder capitalism with his partner, Ben Cohen. “To me, he’s somebody who for years has been fighting for the little guy.”

“He’s a populist,” said the multimillionaire Greenfield.

Sanders’ popularity comes despite a personality that could be described as prickly. His manner comes closer to that of the catamount — the New England name for a mountain lion — than of the kindly grandfather that his rumpled appearance suggests.

“He always seems angry,” said Sara Gear Boyd, a longtime Republican National Committee member. “Bernie Sanders hasn’t changed what he says for 30 years.”

“I’ve known him a long time, and it is hard to warm up to him,” echoed Garrison Nelson, a University of Vermont political science professor. “He’s not very humorous. He often walks around like he’s carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders.”

“But then, Vermont is an underdog kind of a state.”

But he breaks with most congressional progressives on federal gun control. Gun regulation should be left to the states, he said, "and shouldn't be done in Washington."

In 1990, Sanders' position on guns helped him defeat incumbent Congressman Peter Smith, who had voted for a bill banning sales of semi-automatic weapons. The National Rifle Association sided with the socialist against the Republican.