UPDATE 3: The House of Representatives held the first up or down vote on the war in Afghanistan since the war began 8 1/2 years ago. The resolution, offered by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh), failed overwhelmingly after three hours of debate.  The measure called for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan by no later than the end of 2010.

UPDATE 2: I am back to give you a play by play on the Afghanistan war debate. I had to step away for a while to file for FSRN. Here we go:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio): “My resolution calls for the withdrawal of all US armed forces by no later than the end of this year. It can be done.” He continued: “Should the US continue to bear the burden of this war when we have so many troubles at home. We have to reset our priorities.”

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.): “Let us show our appreciation [to the troops] by voting no on this damaging resolution.”

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif): “I encourage my colleagues to stand firm and institute our Constitutional prerogative.”

Rep. Thomas Rooney (R-Fla.) “A withdrawal now undermines what our troops have done.”

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.): “These same folks wanted us to leave before we stabilized Iraq. They wrong in Iraq.”

Del. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa): “Why not debate the issue. I do not believe invoking the 1973 War Powers Act is justified at this time.”
(America Somoa does not get to vote in the full House of Representatives, just in committee. Other non-voting representatives include Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C. Washington residents are the only ones with no vote to pay federal income taxes.)

Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.): “It is my hope and prayer that we never have to end another war.”

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.): “I believe this is not the time to change [the Afghanistan] policy. We see progress.”

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa): “I read this resolution and it reads as a retreat resolution.”

Rep. John Boccieri (D-Ohio): “I believe we do need to bring our trips home safely, but not yet. I am concerned about walking away from Afghanistan too prematurely.”
(Boccieri was deployed twice to Afghanistan.)

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.):  “Afghanistan shouldn’t be our top national security priority. This kind of terrorism flourishes in 70 countries, yet we’re so heavily invested in Afghanistan.”

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.): “I hope the committee has some hearings on this. It’s important to have this national debate.”

Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.): “My colleague from Ohio [Dennis Kucinich] will be defeated more than he was during his Presidential campaign.  Given the growing ethical cloud in this house,… given the trillion dollar health care bill, why would the Speaker” schedule this debate at this time?
(Rep. Kirk is running for Obama’s former Senate seat in Illinois.)

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.): “I think this resolution is wrong on the law and it’s wrong on fact, but it’s also not supportive of our troops.”

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.): “Passage of this resolution… would be an immature withdraw. I oppose this resolution because it is ill-timed and ill-conceived. Now is not the time for Congress to start a Constitutional turf war.”

UPDATE: Debate has begun on ending the war in Afghanistan. Excerpts of the debate below:

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.): “Each additional troop that we send over costs $1 million.” And then: “We need to make sure Congress has a voice and is pushing back. While I am not going to support the particular resolution…the time to debate is long overdue.”

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio):  “We are either in or out. Unless congress acts… we will stay in Afghanistan for a very long time. Or we can set a date, by Dec 31, 2010, by which we must leave.” Kucinich continued: “Congress must claim responsibility.”

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas):  “I cannot support the resolution as I do not support the current strategy in Afghanistan…. The better exit strategy is to have fewer troops that need to exit.”

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine): “It is…unusual that  members get a clear up and down vote on the war in Afghanistan.”

Rep. Lincold Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.): “In the case of Afghanistan, President Obama has demonstrated great responsibility and a sense of the national security interests of the United States.”

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.): “I hope this is the first, not the last” debate on Afghanistan.

PRIOR POST: Liberal lawmaker, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), will open debate on the Afghanistan war in the House of Representatives, Wednesday.  Three hours of debate on his two page resolution, H.Con. Res 248, will take place in the afternoon.  The measure calls for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan with in 60 days.  Should the President deem a withdrawal too dangerous, the resolution allows until the end of the year.

This is the first time the House will debate President Obama’s expanded war in Afghanistan. The President increased the number of troops from 32,000 to an expected 100,000 troops by summer.  According to the National Priorities Project, the US is likely to spen $150 billion in 2009 and 2010 for the war.

Rep. Kucinich’s resolution invokes the War Powers Act of 1973, which allows the Congress to limit the president’s powers to declare war. Because of the nature of the resolution, it limits the ability of House leadership to block the measure from receiving a vote before the full House.

The House is expected to overwhelmingly reject Rep. Kucinich’s proposal, but he has the support of 16 progressives and two Republicans who co-sponsored the bill. They include Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI); Ron Paul (R-TX); José Serrano (D-NY); Bob Filner (D-CA); Lynn Woolsey (D-CA); Walter Jones, Jr. (R-NC); Danny Davis (D-IL); Barbara Lee (D-CA); Michael Capuano (D-MA); Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ); Tammy Baldwin (D-WI); Timothy Johnson (R-IL); Yvette Clarke (D-NY); Eric Massa (D-NY); Alan Grayson (D-FL); and Chellie Pingree (D-ME).

Eric Massa has since resigned; Rep. Kucinich lost the support of one.

Editor’s Note: Please follow Leigh Ann Caldwell on Twitter, and The News Junkie Post for all of our updates.

Rahm Emanuel doesn’t have the reputation of being Mr. Nice Guy. Some have likened his character disposition to the one of a mobster. With the Eric Massa incident just revealed to the press, the White House’s Chief of Staff is in the spotlight again, and it could complicate the already difficult challenges and hurdles facing the Obama administration to turn the public opinion around before the 2010 elections.

Emanuel could become even more  a source of embarrassment and ultimately more a liability than an asset to the Obama administration. The left now wants him gone. Rahm Emanuel got his job because of his reputation of “getting things done in Washington”, yet what is remarkable is more what has not being accomplished in the first 14 months of the Obama administration than the other way around. So, the “can do” Rahm Emanuel image is becoming more a myth than anything else at this juncture.

Rahm Emanuel is a study in contrast to say the least. Years ago he was offered a scholarship to the Joffrey Ballet Company, but instead he joined the Israeli army to fight during the Gulf war.

Is Rahm Emanuel A Lose Canon?

Beside the latest incident involving Eric Massa, Rahmbo has a long track record illustrating his bad temper, lack of control and ruthlessness and violent streak.

The Finger At Arby’s

While in his Senior year in high school, Emanuel badly cut his finger while working at a local Arby’s. But it was Prom night and Rahm was determined in having some fun. So instead of seeking immediate medical attention, Emanuel decided to go swimming in Lake Michigan. The blood and bone infection that resulted from this impulsive foolish act almost killed him.

Political Fundraising Mobster Style

Emanuel started his political career under the wings of the notoriously ruthless Richard Daley. Emanuel was one of Daley top fundraisers by using what amounts to threats and scare tactics. He would tell potential contributors he found their offers so low, it was insulting and he would abruptly hang up the phone on them. The scared donors would call back to pledge more.

Mailing A 2 1/2 Foot Dead Fish To A Pollster

Emanuel once mailed a dead, decomposing stinky fish to a pollster who came up with a poll not at Emanuel’s liking.

Stabbing The Dinner Table After Clinton’s Election In 1992

The incident took place while Clinton’s campaign staff was celebrating the election in 1992. Among those present at the table was George Stephanopoulos who watched completely puzzled as an unhinged Emanuel started ranting at a long list of Clinton’s “enemies”. As he shouted each names,he  frantically stabbed the table with a steak knife: “Nat Landon! Dead!, Cliff Jackson! Dead!” and so on.

Threatening A Head Of State While Working In The Clinton White House

During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Emanuel had some very strong words with Tony Blair, then British Prime Minister, before an appearance Blair made with Clinton at a press conference. Emanuel is said to have told a shocked Blair: “This is important, don’t fuck it up!”

The Shower Incident With Eric Massa

The latest incident is one which took place at the House and Senate gym in Wshington DC with former Congressman Eric Massa. Eric Massa accused Emanuel last Sunday of threatening him in the shower of the gym over his vote against President Obama’s budget.

Eric Massa political career is over, he gave his resignation yesterday over an ethic probe. Regardless, Massa wanted to settle a score with Emanuel while leaving Washington.

“I am sitting there showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel….his finger in my chest and yelling at me because I wasn’t going to vote for the President’s budget. You know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man,” Massa told an Upstate New-York radio station on Sunday.

Editor’s Note: Please follow The News Junkie Post on Twitter.

The attack took place in Jos, in the Plateau area of Nigeria, over 500 people, mostly women and children were murdered in the early hours of Sunday. Once again this troubled area of Nigeria is up in flame. It is the second times in a few months that the town is engulfed in ethnic-religious violence opposing conflicting tribes which are either Christians or Muslims.

Nigeria as a whole has been torned by ethnics and religious violence for decades. April 12, 1994 was the first deadly riot in Jos. The cause of the 1994’s riots is arguably the conflict between several tribes: The Benon, Anaguta and Afizere tribes on one side and the Hausa-Fulani tribe on the other. Each sides are laying claims on Jos as their own territory.

In Sunday’s attack, the attackers were from the Fulani tribe (see 2ND photograph), while the victims belonged to the Beron tribe. Some of the Fulani fighters positioned themselves at the entrance of the village while others went in and proceeded to start setting most houses on fire. Most of those who escaped the fires were butchered with machete while others were shot.

“We were caught unaware. We were alarmed by gunshots at about 2:00 AM, ans as we tried to escape, the Fulanis who were already waiting slaughtered many of us,” said Dalyop Gyang one of the few survivors.

The survivors describe the attack as reprisal. They said it could be in direct retaliation for an attack on the Fulanis in Kuru.

Ima Niboro, Nigeria’s acting President’s spokesperson, called on “all Nigerians to remain peaceful and law abiding”.

“While it is too early to state categorically who is responsible for this renewed wave of violence, we want to inform Nigerians that the security forces are on top of the situation,” said Ima Niboro.

Ima Niboro announced that the acting President has placed all the security forces in the region on “red alert” so as to “stem any cross border dimensions of this latest conflict”. Niboro has also directed the security forces to “undertake strategic initiatives to confront and defeat these roving bands of killers”.

Meanwhile and despite the reassuring words of Ima Niboro, the pure madness of killing is still obviously largely going unchecked in this area of Nigeria.

Editor’s Note: Please follow The News Junkie Post on Twitter for all of our updates.

One of the most terrifying pieces of climate change denial which I see crop up from time to time is some form of “No problem, we’ll just use air conditioners.” This simple statement betrays so many levels and types of ignorance that I prefer the “It’s all a hoax” Deniers. At least their nonsense is easy to expose in one straightforward argument.

Let’s begin with the assumption that ‘everyone’ has air conditioning; privileged much? Needless to say the majority of the world’s population does not, nor are they going to be able to access them. Even within the Denier’s belief system, ie that the problem is heat waves, this betrays a staggering lack of awareness of who is human and what is possible. If you ever needed a blatant example about how climate change is really the oppression of the marginalized by the privileged, this is it.

Our next problem is the profound ignorance of the natural world and how humans depend on it. The author of this sort of statement is clearly unaware of how food is produced, and what it requires to be grown. One needn’t have been raised on a farm to have noticed how often “drought”, “heat wave”, and “crop failure” go together in the news.

The fact is that climate change affects crops both directly and indirectly. Heat waves do not need to actually kill the crops outright. A heat shock during vulnerable times such as germination, flowering, or seed set is enough to ensure no harvestable crop. This is true even if the rest of the season is/was perfect growing conditions.

A less direct effect is that climate change affects rainfall. Crudely speaking, dry areas will get drier and wet areas will get wetter. Neither is good for growing food. I won’t belabour the details, but suffice to say that on our current course we expect to lose significant proportions of our food production capabilty over the next few decades, after which it will get much worse. For those who wish to understand why climate change means global famine (including North America) see Greenfyre’s.

The quick version to understanding the impacts of climate change goes like this: Too often people relate to climate change on the warmer than average winter day – mistake. Right now we are tracking for a global average warming of at least 4C (7.2F) this century. Warming is twice as much over land, so make that 8C (14.3F) to understand what we will actually experience. Now add that to the worst heat waves and droughts that you experience every year.

Consider the less common events such as the heat wave in 2006 that destroyed 50 percent to 90 percent of many crops in the American West, or the 2003 one in Europe that killed over 50,000 people. How about the now annual fire season in California and other regions of the west coast? Add 8C (14.3F) to those. Then add more because 4C is just the prediction for this century, and not even the worst case one. That’s climate change.

Yet another level of ignorance is the belief that some form of technology will save us. Here again this topic deserves far more explanation than I am going to give here, but the short version is that technological “solutions” typically only address one symptom. Our air conditioning example addresses only the effect of heat waves on the privileged. Various schemes to reflect sunlight don’t address ocean acidification, etc.

Even where technological schemes try to address “the problem”, such as carbon capture, they merely shift the nature of the problem. If we were to actually capture all of the carbon successfully, what would we do with it? How safe is “storage”? Or are we setting ourselves up for a sudden release of many years of accumulated carbon dioxide? Where are the resources to come from to build all of these capture and storage facilities?

The wish for technological solutions is very much like the alcoholic’s fantasy that if they could find just the right drink it would solve their addiction problems. White wine instead of red, or straight up instead of mixed drinks; all the little games pretending to change while actually changing nothing.

None of which should be news to anyone who understands the most basic ecological facts, which in our society is almost no one. The sad truth is that far more people know who won the Super Bowl or who may win the Oscars then where their food comes from and what it needs to be plentiful. Needless to say the former are utterly trivial, whereas the latter is essential to survival.

Which begs any number of questions.

Broadly speaking democracy is not about counting votes so much as it is about universal participation in the decision making process. It is about informed decision making by those affected by those decisions. Is democracy even a relevant concept when the populace is so naïve about their basic survival needs?

Daniel Goleman’s book “Ecological Intelligence: Do Humans Have What it Takes to Survive?” explores aspects of this question, and while he seeks to be hopeful the prognosis is not good. The fact is that we don’t know what we need to know, and we generally don’t want to know.

Another question would be “why don’t we know?” How did we get a society where your social status increases if you are knowledgeable about the trivial, decreases if you know and understand what is important?

The “they control us” perspective of power in society is comforting in that it pardons us individually of any responsibility for the various messes we are in. That is about all it is good for. It is true that there are extreme power differences in our societies, and that the powerholders are actively working to ensure that the mass of society is ignorant about what is in it’s own self interest. That is a given.

It is also true that most of the relevant information is not only freely available, there are in fact large segments of society that pour heart and soul into trying to educate the rest. Our collective ignorance is due, at least in part, to a collective desire to be ignorant. The relationship with the powerholders is not so much Master/Servant as that of a subservient, but nonetheless enabling co-dependent.

Part of the solution has to begin with our individually taking responsibility for our participation in this process. Empowerment cannot be done to us or for us. Nor is it about seizing power. It is the process of recognizing and acknowledging the power we already have and wielding it responsibly. “Democracy Now!” is not a demand on the system, it is a demand we make on ourselves.

Editor’s Note: Please follow Mike Kaulbars on Twitter and The News Junkie Post for all of our updates.

Just over a week ago, members of the Secular Coalition of America met with Tina Tchen, the director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, and representatives from the Justice and Health and Human Services departments .   The secular coalition, led by executive director Sean Faircloth, a former Maine state legislatoris comprised of Secular Humanists, agnostics and atheists.

The agenda for the meeting was threefold. (2)

1/  That all children have access to necessary medical treatment regardless of their parents religious beliefs and that faith based childcare services be held to the same health and safety requirements as all other such services in the community.

2/  That secular, agnostic and atheist members of the military have the same protection as members of minority religions in the face of systemic Christian proselytizing and discrimination.

3/  That alternatives to government funded faith based initiatives, that alienate those of no or different belief systems, and subject those needing service to religious proselytizing, be considered.

The President was not to attend the meeting, nor were any policy formulations or decisions to be made.  The meeting was simply an audience with members of the administration to express the views and concerns of 16% of the American population.(3)

None of the items on the agenda demand, or even request, the inclusion of the groups practices or beliefs as public policy or law.  None of the secular coalition’s points for discussion require the adherence to any theology or sectarian doctrine.  None of the points of discussion were aimed at imposing any belief system onto the policies and laws of the United States.  All of the points were aimed at protecting those who are either too young to chose for themselves, or have chosen differently, from religion’s intolerance, doctrinal dictates, discrimination, and proselytizing.  The secular coalition was simply asking that the protections afforded by the First Amendment, be upheld.

What was asked for was equal rights for all individuals, their belief systems or world views, and protection from any religion imposing its rules on others.  The First Amendment to the United States Constitution’s establishment clause prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another.(4)

Adherence to the First Amendment is all that was requested.  There was no assault on any religion.  There was no request to repeal, or infringe on, the guaranteed rights of any religion.  There was no defamatory rhetoric used regarding this meeting, by the Secular Coalition, against religion.

In their press release, the Secular Coalition stated, “We are very pleased that the Obama administration is affording us this opportunity to present our positions on issues of high importance, issues of freedom and fairness that affect every American, regardless of belief,” said Secular Coalition for America Executive Director Sean Faircloth. “Our Founders knew that there was no place in American government for the privileging of religion, or of one belief over another, and that will be a central theme in our interaction with the White House.”

The response from Christian groups, on the other hand, was anything but tolerant, or even civil.

“In God We Trust,”  which states it “was founded to push back against… anti-religious activists,”(5) berated the White House for meeting with “hate-filled groups.” (6)

“It is one thing for Administration to meet with groups of varying viewpoints, but it is quite another for a senior official to sit down with activists representing some of the most hate-filled, anti-religious groups in the nation,” says In God We Trust’s Chairman Bishop Council Nedd.  He continues, “President Obama seems to believe that it is a good idea to have a key senior aide plan political strategy with people who believe faith in God is a disease.  Some of the people in this coalition believe the world would be better off with no Christians and no Jews and they aren’t shy about it. The fact that this meeting is happening at all is an affront to the vast majority of people of all faiths who believe in God.”

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said the meeting provided a “definitive answer” about the administration’s stance towards religion.  ”People of faith, especially Christians, have good reason to wonder exactly where their interests lie with the Obama administration,” Donohue said in a statement. “Now we have the definitive answer. In an unprecedented move, leaders of a presidential administration are hosting some of the biggest anti-religious zealots in the nation.” (7)

Fear and defensiveness permeates the Christian response.  Their high level of societal control was called into question.  From the perspective of the religious, what non-theists represent is far more frightening than any opposing theology.  The challenge represented by non-theists is a greater threat than any gun, bomb, sword or tank.  Religions seem to thrive and even strengthen with war, conflict and martyrdom.  They have no defense against the peaceful challenge of rational thinking.

This is one thing that unites the religious regardless of their creed.  There is one thing of fundamental importance to their existence that they all share.  They share the need for other’s to accept their tenets with unquestioning faith.  They need to protect belief in that which can be neither observed nor proven.  They cannot address each other on the fundamental veracity of their beliefs.  They are unable to challenge each others credibility or legitimacy without challenging their own.  They all suffer from the same fundamental and insurmountable weakness.  To this end they will profess to be the stalwart champions of religious tolerance while locked at an impasse of contradictory and often diametrically opposed doctrine.   As a result, even more than each other, they fear the non-theists.  While religions may compete with each other for followers, territories, and wealth, they cannot threaten each other’s very existence as non-theism and rational thought can.  While they may inflict financial and territorial losses on each other, rational thought has the potential to relegate them to the realm of mythology.  The only perceived threat to their existence is rational thought and therefore they make effort to disenfranchise, disempower and discredit.

It is this fear, this realization of the vulnerability of theistic paradigms, that fuels the inappropriate and irrational aggression toward non-theists, as exemplified by Nedd and Donohue, and causes Christendom to continuously violate the first amendment.  Considering their tenuous position, the perception of non-compliant non-theists as a threat is understandable.  The potentially apocalyptic impact of rational thought, peaceful non-compliance, and judicious intolerance of religious delusions, makes desperate measures, born of reactionary insecurity, understandable.  Understandable but neither acceptable or legal.

Christianity in America has enjoyed, in violation of the First Amendment, preeminent and preferential status.  Christian organizations have not done this simply by their numbers, which is precisely the kind of exploitation by a majority the First Amendment was designed to protect against, but because of their flagrant and successful attempts at insinuating themselves into politics and the legislative process.  The fact that Christian organizations and churches have become overtly political organizations and political action committees, while enjoying tax exempt status, only compounds the affront to the American people and their Constitution.

Without proposing any assault on religion, or any new rules, this needs to be corrected.  There is no need for new rules.  The First Amendment must be adhered to and respected.  The results of not doing so will be disastrous to American society.   Religions can not be allowed to require anything from anyone who is not an adherent to their faith.  Religious doctrine and dogma cannot be the basis for any law, policy, legislation or governmental procedure.  It may, simply by coincidence, be in agreement with the law, or vice versa, but it cannot be the basis.  Any status, access, influence or inclusion enjoyed by one religion, must be available to all religions, belief systems, and world views.

The First Amendment exists for the protection of individuals to practice their own religion as well as the protection of American society from religion.  The failure of strict enforcement will invite all religions to demand the same generous latitude, political involvement, educational influence and untouchable status afforded Christian interests, organizations and institutions.  After all, the First Amendment is clear about the equal status of religions.  Unless Americans are willing to start compromising with Sharia Law(8) they may want to reconsider the carte blanche often afforded Christendom.

The United States of America is a secular country and its Constitution is a secular document.  American Christendom has been allowed to violate the parameters of the First Amendment for far too long and must now be reigned in to compliance.  The important point to remember is that religions exists within American society, not the other way around.

(1) -  http://www.alan.com/2010/02/26/christian-groups-blast-white-house-for-meeting-with-atheists/

(2) -  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/25/88475/obama-aides-to-meet-with-atheists.html

(3) –  http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations

(4) –  http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=about_firstamd

(5) –  http://www.ingodwetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=53

(6) –  http://www.alan.com/2010/02/26/christian-groups-blast-white-house-for-meeting-with-atheists/

(7) –  http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/03/reaction_to_white_house_meetin.php

(8) – http://www.shariah.net/

Editor’s Note – Secular Sunday is part of the Progressive Unity Project on News Junkie Post. Each day of the week, look forward to a fresh article written by an expert on a variety of subjects.

Daily Postings:
EcoMonday
UnionTuesday
LGBTWednesday
ImmigrationThursday
ScienceFriday
LegalizationSaturday
SecularSunday

A Legacy Of The Vietnam War

It is one of the legacies of the war in Vietnam. Even so the conflict in Vietnam ended in 1975 countries such as Laos and Cambodia are still paying an heavy price as the authorities still struggle to get rid of a massive quantity of unexploded bombs. Between 1964 and 1973 two billion kilograms of bombs were dropped on Laos by the US military. This constitute the heaviest aerial bombing in history, and Laotians are still paying the price today. More bombs were dropped by the US on Laos during the Vietnam war than during World War II in Europe.

Unexploded Ordnance Kill Thousands Every Year Worldwide

The problem of unexploded ordnance (UXO) is extremely bad in Laos, but it also affects, to a lesser extend,  Bosnia, Cambodia, DR Congo, Iraq, Kosovo, Lebanon, Sudan and Vietnam. Lao People’s Democratic Republic ( Lao PDR) is the most bombed country in the world per capita. From the 1.3 million tonnes of bombs dropped by the US on the country, up to 30 percent of some type of ordnance did not detonate.

Laos Historical Background

Modern day Laos- Lao People’s Democratic Republic- has it roots in the ancient Lao kingdom of Lan Xang, established in the 14TH century under King Fa Ngum. For 300 years Lan Xand had influence reaching into present days Cambodia and Thailand as well as over all what is contemporary Laos. After centuries of gradual decline, Laos came under the domination of Siam (Thailand) from the 18TH century to the 19TH century when it became part of French Indochina with Vietnam and Cambodia. The Franco-Siamese treaty of 1907 defined the current Laos border with Thailand. In 1975, after the US were defeated in Vietnam, the communist Pathet Lao took control of the government, ending a six-century old monarchy, and instating a socialist government aligned to Vietnam. A gradual return to private enterprise and the liberalization of foreign investment laws began in 1988.

Laos Endemic Problem With Unexploded Ordnance

In Lao PDR, unexploded ordnance (UXO) still contaminates the ground affecting a quarter of all villages and preventing farmers access to much needed land to plant crops. The numbers are staggering: Between 1964 and 2008, they were at least 50,000 UXO casualties. In 2008 alone the casualties were as high as 600.

Just like in other part of the world, the UK based organization MAG International makes a difference between life and death in Lao PDR with its comprehensive program of UXO removal. In 2009, MAG Lao PDR said they had increased productivity in bomb removal by almost 90 percent over the last year in land cleaning from UXO.

37 Years After The Massive US Bombing Stopped, How Is Lao PDR Doing?

Connie Cappos and Andrew Coyne just came back from a six weeks journey to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, and were willing to answer a few questions from News Junkie Post (NJP) in the context of this article.

NJP: When you were in Laos did you noticed a lot of people badly injured from unexploded ordnance dropped by the US?

Connie Cappos: In Vientiane( Laos capital) we saw a lot of people begging on the streets having suffered such injuries. They were mostly young adults. In Laos, there is not that many streets kids , as opposed to Cambodia. The Laotian government seems to be a lot more on top of things than the one in Cambodia in this regard. Further, there is very little children or women sex trafficking( proposed to Westerners) in Laos in contrast to Cambodia where it is rampant.

Andrew Coyne: Exactly, In Laos I was very discreetly approached in the streets to buy marijuana or opium, but in Cambodia it was constant solicitations from people such as taxi drivers not only for drugs but also for sex trade.

NJP: Even so the Vietnam war ended in 1975, do you feel that there is still a deep animosity from people towards Americans?

Connie Cappos: None of the people in former French Indochina truly trust Americans and Westerners in general, especially the older generation. So yes, a sense of distrust is still very much at play.

Andrew Coyne: The area of former South Vietnam is actually the part of the region displaying the most animosity towards Americans. A lot more than around Hanoi, in the north.

NJP: Which ones of the 3 countries seems to be doing better on an economical and social stand point?

Andrew Coyne: Unquestionably Vietnam on an economical stand point. The service industry is quite good, and a lot of people have access to modern technology.

Connie Cappos: I agree, Laos is very slow and more traditional. It is a sleepy country compared to the buzzing Vietnam. Laos is still mainly centered on farming and traditional craft. The people in Laos seem to be a lot more at peace with their trouble past than the people in Cambodia.

Andrew Coyne: Yes Cambodia appears to be still struggling with its own awful legacy of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouges. Corruption is rampant, and it seems that some former elements of the Khmer Rouge are running the sex trade and drug trafficking like a mafia. We saw a lot of people walking around in the streets carrying AK 47. Of the 3 countries, Cambodia is definitely the one still struggling  for social harmony.

NJP: Thank you both for your time.

Editor’s Note: All the photographs illustrating this article are by Connie Cappos. Please follow The News Junkie Post on Twitter.

Mark Horvath is on a personal mission: To give a voice and a face and tell the story of homeless people across America one at a time. Horvath is a documentary filmmaker, but has also experienced first hand the harshness of life on the streets when he hit rock bottom due to a drug addiction problem.

After lifting himself out of the streets and drawing on his painful personal experience Horvath decided to put the invisible among us in the limelight by doing short video clips of homeless people one at a time. He launched his web site Invisible People TV a while back, and his site is getting surprisingly high exposure thanks mainly to the social media network site Twitter.

His commendable work is finally getting the attention it deserves, and recently Ford Motor Company donated a vehicle to Mark Horvath to help him take his project on the road all across America.

“I once heard a story about a homeless man on Hollywood Boulevard who really thought he was invisible. It is not hard to comprehend this man slow spiral into invisibility. Once on the street, people started to walk past him, ignoring him as if he didn’t exist…much like they do to a piece of thrash on the side walk. I not only feel their pain, I truly know their pain. You would never know it now, but I was a homeless person. Fourteen years ago, I lived on Hollywood Boulevard,” says Mark Horvath.

Not only Mark Horvath  is giving homeless people a face and a voice, but by doing so he gives them back a little bit of humanity and dignity, and even some hope. We should all emulate Mr. Horvath’s remarkable work, and start paying attention to the ones we do not want to see, because it is too painful for ourselves.

A day before the Hollywood circus of the “Rich & Famous” gather near by on Hollywood Boulevard for the Oscars dwelling on the limelight, we urgently need, as a community, to address the scandal of social injustice, unbearable despair and our broken social safety net. The invisible people need to be seen and to be heard by all of us, but foremost we must address this endemic and shameful problem, made even more acute by the recession, in a comprehensive policy manner on a local, state and federal level. Meanwhile, all of  the people who are lucky enough to have a job and a roof above their heads, and look the other way when they see a homeless person stand  morally guilty as charged.

To visit Mark Horvath web site click here.

Editor’s Note: Please follow The News Junkie Post on Twitter.

Photograph by Mike Licht for NotionsCapital.com

First, consider today’s breaking news: Thursday evening, a lone gunman calmly approached the screening area outside the Pentagon and opened fire. According to officials, the shots grazed “two Pentagon police officers before they returned fire”.

This incident occurred around 6:40 p.m., according to Pentagon Police Chief Richard S. Keevill. Keevill also stated that the gunman, with “no real emotion in his face”, approached the officers outside the Pentagon Metro station. As the officers asked him for his entrance pass, the man produced a weapon from his pocket and started shooting at the officers from a few feet away. ”He drew a gun,” Keevill said, “and just started shooting immediately.”

The two Pentagon Force Protection Agency officers returned fire with the suspect, critically wounding him. Keevill commended the police officers for acting “quickly and decisively to neutralize him as a threat” without hurting anyone else. The incident is currently under investigation by the Pentagon police department, the Arlington County Police Department, the US Secret Service,  as well as the FBI.

Multiple news sources have since identified the gunman as John Patrick Bedell. According to the Washington Post:

Bedell left behind numerous written, video and audio manifestos on the Internet. In an audio address, he suggested that the U.S. was infiltrated by a cabal of gangsters called the “coup regime” after the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. He believed the group was probably behind such things as the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the Iraq war, and continued to manipulate the country “up to the present day.”

For the moment, officials are assuming Bedell’s conspiracy theory of a “coup regime” served as the motivation for his attack at the Pentagon.

Now, second, consider another recent report: Just before 10:00 am, on February 18, a man named Joseph A. Stack  flew his single-engine aircraft into the Echelon building in Austin, TX. Stack died in the crash, and his attack wounded two others. The Echelon Building Stack crashed into houses the offices of the Internal Revenue Services (IRS), the US tax collection service. And apparently, the motivation for Stack’s attack on the IRS was similar to Bedell’s at the Pentagon. Both men were driven by political frustration, resulting from a government they perceived to no longer serve in their interests.

In regards to Stack, the Times Online has reported:

In a lengthy manifesto posted on a website [Stack] administered, he recounted his numerous struggles with the IRS and concludes: “I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.”

The remainder of the manifesto reads like the angry, frustrated ramblings of a man who felt ignored by his Government and the people who were supposed to represent his interests. Mr Stack cites the government bailouts of banks and auto companies and the “murdering [of] tens of thousands” by the greedy insurance companies while his government representatives sit idly by and only help the rich.

Mr Stack added: “I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say [...] I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand,” Mr Stack wrote before declaring: “I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure [sic] nothing will change.”

We should be extremely careful, here, when trying to make sense of these two, unconnected, yet similar cases. US officials have labeled both cases acts of terrorism, which they rightly are. But the articulated motivations behind them are different from Islamic fundamentalist rationalizations of terrorism. There obviously is no religious rhetoric in the cases of Bedell and Stack.

What does exist in the two above cases, and what Bedell and Stack’s rationalizations share with other terrorist rationalizations for violent acts, is a sense of despair. And “despair”, here, is meant in the psychoanalytic sense.

To say this plainly, “despair” is a psychological state, which results from a sense of meaninglessness, coupled with a sense of being unable to change one’s existence into a meaningful one, in any way.

The result is what Viktor Frankl calls, “existential frustration”. Such “frustration” is experienced as intense anxiety, that results in aggression—which can then result in violence if unaddressed, as per the extreme cases of Bedell and Stack.

As Frankl says, “When there is a sense of meaninglessness, people do meaningless things.” And violence is the “meaningless thing”, par excellence, which can result from such despair. Here is Frankl, on American television, discussing these matters:

All this, of course, does not excuse Bedell and Stack’s violent actions. We are each responsible for the consequences of our own actions.

But personally, I have spoke in previous articles, about the need to have a public discussion about human psychology. And I have spoke, too, of what the resulting conclusions would demand, for changing society accordingly into a saner one—one which meets the needs of human psychological development.

And the very lack of such a discussion is exemplified perfectly in the attacks by Bedell and Stack, as well by the phenomena of terrorism in general. At this moment in history, though, I do not see governments as being able to provide such a sane discussion. It must come from a cultural change from the “bottom up”, so to speak.

Until then, we should expect to see more violence, as a tragic symptom of our faltering society.

Editor’s Note: Stephen Dufrechou is a college professor in Memphis, TN. He is Editor of Opinion and Analysis for News Junkie Post. Please follow this author on Twitter. His archive may be accessed here.

The 82ND Academy Awards will be held Sunday, March 7 at 5:00 PM – US (PST) in Los Angeles. This year ceremony will be hosted by Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin and ABC will be broadcasting the event. 2009 was a good year for the Motion Picture industry both creatively and financially, and the show is likely to do better in the viewing rating than in previous years. Americans will take a much needed  break from the grim reality of our times, and the painful daily grind by watching Hollywood’s “Gods & Goddesses” carousing from the red carpet to the auditorium.

The Academy members have already voted and the results are probably already cautiously tabulated. With just two days to go, the Kodak theater on Hollywood Boulevard is now under intense security, as the preparations are getting finalized.

Today, The News Junkie Post (NJP) is giving you its picks and prognostics in the key categories.

Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role

The nominations are: Jeff Bridges (” Crazy Heart”), George Clooney ( “Up In The Air”), Colin Firth ( “A Single Man”), Morgan Freeman (“Invictus”) and Jeremy Remer (“The Hurt Locker”). The News Junkie Post pick is Jeff Bridges. The NJP prognostic for winner is Jeff Bridges.

Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role

The nominations are Matt Damon (“Invictus”), Woody Harrelson (“The Messenger”), Christopher Plummer (“The Last Station”), Stanley Tucci (“The Lovely Bones”) and Christopher Waltz (“Inglorious Basterds”). NJP’s pick is Matt Damon, NJP’s prognostic for winner is Christopher Waltz.

Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role

The nominations are: Sandra Bullock (“The Bind Side”), Helen Mirren (“The Last Station”), Carey Mulligan (“An Education”), Gabourey Sidibe (“Precious”) and Meryl Streep (“Julie & Julia”). NJP’s pick is Carey Mulligan. NJP’s prognostic for winner is Sandra Bullock.

Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role

The nomination are: Penelope Cruz (“Nine”), Vera Farmiga (“Up In The Air”), Maggie Gyllenhaal (“Crazy Heart”), Anna Kendrick (“Up In The Air”) and Mo’Nique (“Precious”). NJP’s pick is Maggie Gyllenhaal. NJP’s prognostic is a win for Mo’Nique.

Achievement in Art Direction

The nominations are: “Avatar”, “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus”, “Nine”, “Sherlock Holmes”, and “The Young Victoria”. NJP’s pick is “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus”. NJP’s prognostic is a win for “Sherlock Holmes”.

Achievement in Cinematography

The nominations are: “Avatar”, “Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince”, “The Hurt Locker”, “Inglorious Basterds” and “The White Ribbon”. NJP’s pick is “Avatar”. NJP’s prognostic is a win for “Avatar”.

Achievement in Costume Design

The nomination are: “Bright Star”, “Coco Before Channel”, “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus”, “Nine” and “The Young Victoria”. NJP’s pick is “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus”. NJP’s prognostic is a win for “The Young Victoria”.

Achievement in Directing

The nominations are: “Avatar”, “The Hurt Locker”, “Inglorious Basterds”, “Precious” and “Up In The Air”. NJP’s pick is Kathryn Bigelow for “The Hurt Locker”. NJP’s prognostic is a win for Kathryn Bigelow.

Achievement in Film Editing

The nominations are: “Avatar”, “District 9″, “The Hurt Locker”, “Inglorious Basterds” and “Precious”. NJP’s pick is “District 9″. NJP’s prognostic is a win for “District 9″.

Best Foreign Language Film

The nominations are: “Ajami” (Israel), “El Secreto De Sus Ojos” (Argentina), “The Milk of Sorrow” (Peru), “Un Prophete” (France), and “The White Ribbon” (Germany). NJP’s pick is “Un Prophete”. NJP’s prognostic is a win for “Un Prophete”.

Achievement in Makeup

The nominations are: “Il Divo”, “Star Treck” and “The Young Victoria”. NJP’s pick is “The Young Victoria”. NJP’s prognostic is a win for “Star Treck”.

Achievement in Music (Original Score)

The nominations are: “Avatar”, “Fantastic Mr. Fox”, “The Hurt Locker”, “Sherlock Holmes” and “Up”. NJP’s pick is “Avatar”. NJP’s prognostic is a win for composer James Horner for “Avatar”.

Achievement in Music (Original Song)

The nominations are: “Almost There” (The Princess & The Frog), “Down in New-Orleans” (The Princess & The Frog), “Loin De Paname (Paris 36), “Take It All” (Nine) and “The Weary Kind” (Crazy Heart). NJP’s pick is “The Weary Kind” original theme for “Crazy Heart”. NJP’s prognostic is a win for “Crazy Heart”’s theme song.

Best Adapted Screenplay

The nominations are: “District 9″, “An Education”, “In The Loop”, “Precious”, and “Up In The Air”. NJP’s pick is “District 9″. NJP’s prognostic is a win for “District 9″ written by Neil Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell.

Best Original Screenplay

The nominations are: “The Hurt Locker”, “Inglorious Basterds”, “The Messenger”, “A Serious Man” and “Up”. NJP’s pick is “Inglorious Basterds”. NJP’s prognostic is a win for “Inglorious Basterds” written by Quentin Tarantino.

Best Motion Picture of The Year

The nomination are: “Avatar”, “The Blind Side”, “District 9″, “An Education”, “The Hurt Locker”, “Inglorious Basterds”, “Precious”, “A Serious Man”, “Up”, “Up In The Air”. NJP’s pick is “District 9″. NJP’s prognostic is a win for “Avatar” directed by James Cameron.

Please read The News Junkie Post’s film reviews for  District 9, Avatar, Crazy Heart, Up In The Air and Julie & Julia.

To visit the official web site of the Academy Of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences click here.

Editor’s Note: Please follow The News Junkie Post on Twitter.

In a razor thin  vote of 23-22, the US House House Foreign Affairs Committee formally recognized the genocide of ethnic Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Turks nearly a century ago. Turkey recalled it’s ambassador for consultation. The measure may be brought before the full House floor in a matter of weeks.

This issue has been highly contentious for decades, with swift condemnations from the Turkish government every time is has been brought up in the past. The Foreign Affairs Committee approved another genocide measure in 2007 with the new Democratic Congress, prompting Turkey to recall its ambassador as well. Worried that diplomatic reprisals such as denying US access to Turkish air bases used in Iraqi operations could follow, President Bush put immense pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who capitulated and refused to bring the measure for a full vote on the House floor.

Despite pledging to recognize the Armenian deaths as a genocide during the campaign, President Obama has discouraged the resolution as well, claiming that it has the potential to hurt relations not only between the US and Turkey, but between Turkey and Armenia itself. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also against the measure, instead supporting a Swiss effort to resolve the historical dispute.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) agreed, “I do not minimize the horror that took place, [but] now is not the time for this committee of the American Congress to take up the measure that is now before us.”

Edward Nalbandian , Armenia’s foreign minister, disagreed. “This is another proof of the devotion of the American people to universal human values and is an important step toward the prevention of the crimes against humanity.”

The Armenian National Committee of America added “Turkey doesn’t get a vote or a veto in the U.S. Congress.”

Wikipedia states: [the Armenian Genocide] was the deliberate and systematic destruction (genocide) of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire during and just after World War I. It was characterized by the use of massacres, and the use of deportations involving forced marches under conditions designed to lead to the death of the deportees, with the total number of Armenian deaths generally held to have been between one and one-and-a-half million. Other ethnic groups were similarly attacked by the Empire during this period, including Assyrians and Greeks, and some scholars consider those events to be part of the same policy of extermination.

An estimated 1.5 million Armenians were killed between 1915-1923.

Many historians contend that the lack of world outrage at the actions of the Ottoman Turks in and after WWI towards ethnic minorities, particularly the Armenians paved the way for the Jewish Holocaust in WWII.

“Who remembers the Armenian genocide today?”
-Adolf Hitler

The Armenians remember. Every April 24, Armenians worldwide observe a day for those killed.

The House vote took place in front of several Armenian Genocide Survivors, including Charlotte Kechejian (98 years old), Yeretzgeen Sirarpi Khoyan (105), and Onorik Eminian (97), as well as leaders in the Armenian international community.

HOUSE RESOLUTION 252

The full text of the resolution of HR252 as read by House Foreign Affairs committee chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) is:

Turkey is a vital and, in most respects, a loyal ally of the United States in a volatile region. We have also been a loyal ally to Turkey, and should continue to be so. Be that as it may, nothing justifies Turkey’s turning a blind eye to the reality of the Armenian Genocide. It is regrettable, for example, that Turkey’s Nobel-Prize-winning novelist, Orhan Pamuk, was essentially hounded out of his native country for speaking out on this subject. Now I don’t pretend to be a professional historian. I haven’t scoured the archives in Istanbul looking for original documents.

But the vast majority of experts – the vast majority – academics, authorities in international law, and others who have looked at this issue for years, agree that the tragic massacres of the Armenians constitute genocide.

In a letter to members of congress two years ago, the International Association of Genocide Scholars stated the following, and I quote:

“The historical record on the Armenian Genocide is unambiguous and documented by overwhelming evidence. It is proven by foreign office records of the United States, France, Great Britain, Russia, and perhaps most importantly, of Turkey’s World War I allies, Germany and Austria-Hungary, as well as by the records of the Ottoman Courts-Martial of 1918-1920, and by decades of scholarship.”

“As crimes of genocide continue to plague the world, Turkey’s policy of denying the Armenian Genocide gives license to those who perpetrate genocide everywhere.”

The Genocide Scholars urged the House to pass a resolution acknowledging the Armenian Genocide because, they said, it would constitute – and I quote again — “recognition of a historical turning point in the twentieth century, the event that inaugurated the era of modern genocide. In spite of its importance, the Armenian Genocide has gone unrecognized until recently, and warrants a symbolic act of moral commemoration.”

Professor Yehuda Bauer, a highly respected scholar at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has written that the Armenian Genocide is, in his words, “the closest parallel to the Holocaust.”

In a 1985 report, a subcommission of the UN Commission on Human Rights found that the massacres of the Armenians qualified as genocide.

And Raphael Lemkin, the Polish lawyer who coined the word “genocide” and drafted the international genocide convention, told an interviewer that, quote “I became interested in genocide because it happened to the Armenians.”

Nearly two dozen other countries – including France, Canada, Russia, Switzerland and Chile – have formally recognized the Armenian Genocide. So has the European Parliament.

As the world leader in promoting human rights, the United States has a moral responsibility to join them.

The Turks say passing this resolution could have terrible consequences for our bilateral relationship, and indeed perhaps there will be some consequences. But I believe that Turkey values its relations with the United States at least as much as we value our relations with Turkey.

And I believe the Turks, however deep their dismay today, fundamentally agree that the U.S.-Turkish alliance is simply too important to get sidetracked by a non-binding resolution passed by the House of Representatives.

At some point, every nation must come to terms with its own history. And that is all we ask of Turkey.

Germany has accepted responsibility for the Holocaust. South Africa set up a Truth Commission to look at Apartheid. And here at home, we continue to grapple with the legacies of slavery and our horrendous treatment of Native Americans.

It is now time for Turkey to accept the reality of the Armenian Genocide.

This will most likely be a difficult and painful process for the Turkish people, but at the end of the day, it will strengthen Turkish democracy and put the U.S.-Turkey relationship on a better footing.

I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Editor’s Note: Please follow The News Junkie Post on Twitter.