My five favourite Martin Luther King Quotes

"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important."

"A riot is, at bottom, the language of the unheard."

"Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted."

"I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality."

"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."

How about some first amendment remedies?

A lot of people here in Britain find the obsession among some sections of the US electorate with the 'second amendment' and the right to bear arms a little, well, creepy. Passed in a time of revolution where the population needed to mount an armed defense against a colonial ruler things moved on and it's usefulness has clearly expired.

I'm sure it was right and proper at the time it was passed, but since then it has rarely been used for the purpose it was designed for, ie law abiding citizens protecting themselves from an armed state. The immediate example that springs to mind is the Black Panthers who used the amendment to good effect - so the law was changed and the Party was gunned down or jailed.

The wording of the amendment that "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", also seems to be ignored. So the amendment becomes about individuals with MI6s on their living room walls which seems a million miles away from the community collectively organising a well regulated militia. The order of the day is always zero regulation not collective responsibility.

More than that though, while some gun loving rhetoric has been abhorrent, including high profile Tea Partier Sharon Angle consistently referring to 'second amendment methods' if they failed at the ballot box, I do kind of wonder how some amendments have gained a halo of pseudo-religious fervor and others seem, frankly, abandoned and discarded.

How about the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I can't be the only person to note that many of those who are zealots for amendment number two seem less keen on the freedom to practice the Islamic faith, and who rarely seem to have cared about the right to peaceably assemble if the cause was not theirs.

How about number four"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

How does that fit with the current airport security regime? Or the patriot act more generally?

Those who love the second amendment might like to give some thought to Bradley Manning and amendment number six which reads "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

Or perhaps they don't really care about the constitution - maybe they just like shooting their guns and pretending God told them that was a worth while hobby.

While it is too early to tell whether it will be good or yet more ill that comes out of the Arizona shooting, what is clear is that those gung ho for the gun regard some amendments as more equal than others.

Murder in Arizona

There's been some shocking news tonight that a gunman opened fire on a public meeting in Arizona. At the moment six of the 30 people shot have died, including a nine year old girl, a political aid and a Federal judge. The key target, who was shot in the head, was congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Doctors say they are optimistic for her recovery.

The assailant was a 22-year old Afghanistan veteran who was wrestled to the ground by one of Giffords' aids and arrested.

Giffords has been a target of the Tea Party movement for her backing of health care reform and "supporting immigration control, embryonic stem-cell research and the right to abortion." Ironically she is also a strong supporter of the right to bear arms.

Last year her office was vandalised after a key health care vote and the Tea Party rhetoric about resorting to 'second amendment methods' if they fail at the ballot box has been given new, horrible, meaning today.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Jesse Kelly, the Tea Party Republican rival that Giffords beat at the end of last year seems to have taken the irresponsibility to new levels. The Arizona Star reported;

Jesse Kelly, meanwhile, doesn't seem to be bothered in the least by the Sarah Palin controversy earlier this year, when she released a list of targeted races in crosshairs, urging followers to "reload" and "aim" for Democrats. Critics said she was inciting violence.

He seems to be embracing his fellow tea partier's idea. Kelly's campaign event website has a stern-looking photo of the former Marine in military garb holding his weapon. It includes the headline: "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."

The event costs $50.

Quite in spirit with Sarah Palin's "target" strategy (below) of opponents (including Gabrielle Giffords) that were to be targeted. This is idiotic behaviour on the part of a high profile politician, although I was pleased to see he posted that "Senseless acts of violence such as this have absolutely no place in American politics" after the news emerged at what had happened.

This kind of rhetoric has to stop. It's time for the Republicans to purge the Tea Party from their ranks.

US election links

Last thing from me on the US midterm elections I promise, just a few articles and pieces I think are worth reading;

• The Onion: Last Remaining Politician Must Rebuild Entire Government Following Bloodiest Midterm Election In American History
  
  
• The Slate: Why do Tea Partiers uppercase so many of their nouns?
  
  
• Counter Punch: Alexanda Cockburn writes "Collectively, the election makes clear, the [voters] haven't a clue which way to march."
  
  
• Green Party Watch: ballot access round-up from across the states.
  
  
• Washington Post: they go through the candidates Sarah Palin endorsed and check out how they fared. They won the safe seats and lost everything else.
  
  
• New York Times: California rejects marijuana legalisation.
  

US elections: the smaller headlines

Without losing sight of the bigger picture, that the Democrats are sliding back, when you have an election the size of yesterday's in the USA there's always some extra points of interest worth exploring.

The unique talents of Alvin Greene

Alvin Greene is so uniquely unqualified for US Senate he had to find himself some obscenity charges to be had up on just to look a bit more senatorial.

Of course few candidates had a graphic novel of their campaign (pdf) but somehow it was not enough to overcome the fact that his nomination was widely regarded as the product of some sort of dodgy maneuvering on the part of the right.

He was the very definition of an inarticulate non-candidate and, sadly, became a nationally known figure. Stupidly, after questions had been raised about the authenticity of the Democratic Primary result that returned Greene, the Democrats refused to investigate keeping the complete dud in place.

Greene (pictured) managed to drive the South Carolina Democrat vote down to 28% (compared to the 47% they received in the race for governor for instance) although this had the unintended happy consequence of driving the Green Party vote up to 9%, possibly a record for the US Greens, God bless their 9/11 truthing hearts.

Lincoln Chafee independent Governor of Rhode Island

Newly elected Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee's campaign website lead with a video of Barrack Obama giving an anti-war speech. Chafee put up the kind of campaign that most Democrats *should* have but were too gutless to provide.

Winning 36% of the vote (to the Republican's 34% and the Democrat's 23%) Chafeee shows that it is possible to win serious races in the US without the endorsement of the two major parties.

Lincoln ran a clearly progressive campaign talking about a "combined focus on renewable energy, recycling, and re-connecting businesses with sustainability to benefit both the environment and the economy" but he did study at Brown University so what would we expect (apart for him to lose, which he didn't).

What about the Greens?

I'm not a massive fan of the US Greens overall, but I'm sure they're decent sorts overall. The Greens certainly had some very hopeful results last night, and not just their 9% in South Carolina.

In New York Howie Hawkins managed to achieve enough votes to give the Greens 'official ballot lines' in the state. This is phenomenally important for a small party as it can spend less time and money mucking around just getting on the ballot paper and more time campaigning for its ideas.

There were a number of local victories, for instance the Greens' Bruce Delgado won Mayor on Marina, Monterey (the equivalent size of a council ward), and the California Greens seem to have had a good night but these results are far too patchy to pull together from across the ocean.

I have to say though, despite my doubts about the organisation, they produced some really fun election videos. I think this is my favourite so far. Green Watch say they're pulling together the numbers, so check them out.

Charlie Crist, Florida independent

Another independent, Charlie Crist, who ran for Senate in Florida made a good showing with 30% of the vote although he failed to beat the Republican Tea Party candidate despite his campaign slogan "united to defeat the extreme right-wing.

Crist, who is currently governor of Florida, attracted endorsements from high profile Democrats, campaigned on progressive and green issues and an independent minded, non-partisan approach to politics.

Crist's campaign was surprisingly left field for a former Republican and the fact he was explicitly taking on the right with genuinely left-liberal policies makes gaining one in three votes all the more impressive.

Alaskan write in candidate

The curse of Palin strikes again. Lisa Murkowski wasn't even on the ballot paper and it looks like she might win the Alaskan race for Senate. The Palin backed Republican Joe Miller can certainly see defeat from his house as the current vote tally is 41% to Murkowski, 34% to Miller and 24% to the Democrats - although counting is not yet finished so this may not be the final result.

Of course, before we get over-excited I should explain that Murkowski is a current Republican senator who was unexpectedly beaten by Palin's choice Miller to the nomination. Hold on to your stats-hats readers because the vote was 53,872 to 53,878 in Miller's favour - no wonder she decided to mount a 'write-in' challenge for senate!

Miller has not been a great candidate for the Republicans. Not only is he associated with one of the divisive political figures in the country, his bodyguards handcuffed a journalist during the campaign and had to be forced to release him by the police. Whatever his deficiencies he's certainly not been able to raise the kind of money Murkowski has who raised three and a half million dollars for her write-in campaign compared to just under two for Miller.

If Murkowski has won, and she probably has, this will be the biggest blow against the Tea Party movement because it will be incontrovertible proof that they are splitting the party integrity of the Republican base and their politics are the kiss of death in any tightly fought race. I don't share much politics with Murkowski but her victory will be a very, very good thing.

Tea Party holds back Republican advance

As predicted the US midterm elections saw the Democrats lose control of the House of Representatives and slip back in the Senate. This is bad news for anyone who wants to see moves, no matter how timid, towards health care reform, gay equality and a host of other crucial issues.

However, while pundits were either cheering on or quaking in their boots at the sight of the Tea Party in fact the Republican right's ginger group has been a double edged sword and has arguably held back the Republican advance rather than deepened it.

It's certainly true that Tea Party candidates won some races, like the candidate for South Carolina governor who becomes the country's first ever black woman governor. Nikki Haley, is a Sikh born to Indian immigrants, and was publicly backed by Sarah Palin. Her policies are focused on 'fiscal conservatism' and she fits well within the Tea Party family.

However she won on 51% of the vote (to 47%), cutting the Republican lead by two thirds with an estimated 12% of registered Republican voters voting for her opponent. The Tea Party managed to turn a safe seat into a marginal.

The only Gubernatorial seat that the Democrats managed to take off the Republicans last night was in California where I had predicted that high profile Teabagger Meg Whitman was in danger of losing the race to Democrat Jerry Brown most famous, to me, for being the subject of punk classic California Uber Alles.

Whitman's controversial and divisive campaign drove the Republican vote down from 55.9% in the 2006 race to a pitiful 41% on a night when the Republicans were sweeping the board across the country! The Tea Party lost the highest profile Governorship in the USA for the Republicans, and for that we must thank them.

In Colorado everything is pointing to the Democrats narrowly holding on to the Senatorial seat despite another high profile Teabagger opponent Ken Buck who is, as you might expect, anti-abortion, anti-gay, denies man made climate change and is very pro-gun. This is a seat that, had it followed the national trend, would have been won easily by the Republicans - but the butterfingers Tea Party snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Delaware senatorial race had been marked as a race to watch but, again, the Republican vote fell to 40% from 48% in 2008. The Republican candidate? Christine O'Donnell, who is definitely not a witch.

It looks like the higher profile a Tea Party candidate is the more Republican support they manage to lose - and that's on a night of Republican victories, imagine how they'd have done in a tough election for the right.

So what's the conclusion?

It seems to me that the Democrats are losing the enthusiasm of their supporters because those supporters don't think they are delivering. I'd suggest most Democrats want to see the economy turn around, an end in sight for the Afghanistan occupation and reforms that live up to the promise of the Obama candidacy. The Democrats are letting their people down.

While the Tea Party have injected enthusiasm into the ranks of the most vociferous section of the Republican Party more moderate Republicans are feeling a similar dissatisfaction with their party. We need to remember that the Tea Party was a movement that began to germinate under Bush, not Obama, and they were just as unhappy with him.

The right of the Democrats has consistently held back any agenda of real change and that has become a national problem for the left. The Tea Party is dangerous and ideologically repellent, they are a divisive faction on the right with the capability of tearing the Republicans to shreds as they try to pull it further to the right.

The Million Moderate March

After what has seemed like an eon of ill tempered and bizarre politics in the US, where any crazy accusation can be leveled at the administration with a straight face at last, the middle ground has a champion. Jon Stewart (of the wonderful Daily Show) has called 'The Million Moderate March', and about time too.

Also known as the 'Rally to Restore Sanity' it's aim is to provide an antidote to the increasingly frantic rhetoric of the Tea Party right. Rightly it's aimed to bring in moderate Republicans, sick of what's happening to their party, as well as the left.

In America the national discourse can, at times, seem dominated by those who are happy to label President Obama a Nazi, Muslim or Communist in every other breath, and where plain and simple lies are becoming common currency (like the idea that the health reforms included death panels, which genuinely terrified simple minded people). Any move to create more space for real political dialogue and marginalise these voices must be welcome.

Stewart described the march on his show as "a clarion call for rationality". Their slogans wont necessarily be as slick as the right's though because they say "If we had to sum up the political view of our participants in a single sentence... we couldn't. That's sort of the point."

Of course, there is a simultaneous rally in the same place. 'Keep Fear Alive' which says "America, the Greatest Country God ever gave Man, was built on three bedrock principles: Freedom. Liberty. And Fear -- that someone might take our Freedom and Liberty. But now, there are dark, optimistic forces trying to take away our Fear. They want to replace our Fear with reason. But never forget -- "Reason" is just one letter away from "Treason." "

The march takes place on October the 30th in Washington DC and I'm wishing it the best of luck.

Ground Zero Mosque Protesters only a little bit racist

You might like to check out this footage of a protest at 'Ground Zero' in New York (the site of the 9/11 attacks). The crowd doesn't like the idea of a Mosque being built in the area, one sign says that 'Mosques support Hamas' which is a strong point, well made - even if entirely inaccurate.

Anyway things get interesting when the crowd detect a Muslim in their midsts. One fella in a hard hat tries to have a fight with him, others shout abuse, someone shouts something about pigs ("eat pig" perhaps?) and the man has to be escorted away for his own safety.

The fact that he was a guy named Kenny who happened to be in the area because he's just a carpenter working on the site and not a Muslim counter-protester at all might be regarded as slightly embarrassing. The fact that he appears to be the only black guy in the area might be seen as revealing the the crowd consider lynching him.

On the other hand perhaps he's Bin Laden and the crowd were totally justified, maybe that steward who got himself in between hard hat man and Kenny just destroyed the free world.



Charlie Brooker also has things to say, like the fact that no-one is trying to build a Mosque there. Well, I'm sure these guys are right about something. Don't know what though.

Time magazine on whether America has a Muslim problem.

JR goes solar?

I've just seen this inspired ad for some US company or other. Ah.... eco-friendly nostalgia.



Glad to know we've got JR on our side...

Rioting as an absence of democracy

In the last two days there have been two community riots provoked by outrage at reactionary movements.

Yesterday in Belfast three police officers were shot and around two hundred people took part in throwing missiles and petrol bombs at the police. A total of twenty seven police officers were injured during the disturbances, although the press seems to think that none of these injuries is life threatening.

Facing water cannon and baton rounds residents were opposing the loyalist twelfth of July parades that commemorate the killing of Catholics by the forces of William of Orange and the 'traditional' bonfires held on the night of the eleventh.

Over the years these marches have resulted in civil disturbances, violence and an escalation of community tensions. It's understandable that many residents see these celebrations as a deliberate provocation and are consistently frustrated that they seem to have no say about whether they are allowed to take place in their neighbourhoods.

It's no surprise that when people feel they have no democratic option available to them some resort to undemocratic and violent actions. Last night's events really should be a sign that the state's attitudes towards the Orange marches has to change for facilitating their celebrations to regarding them as inciting violence.

However on Friday, in Oakland, California, the rioting was in response to far clearer state complicity in racist violence. Police officer Johannes Mehserle found himself acquitted of murder after he shot an unarmed black man dead.

The court accepted that Oscar Grant was unarmed, and lying face down at the feet of Officer Johannes Mehserle while surrounded by a ring of police officers when Mehserle took out his service revolver and fired a fatal round into his back. The court accepted that because they had no choice, it was all filmed by a by-stander, and yet it still found that the officer had not committed murder, nor had he intended to kill Oscar Grant.

I mean who would expect a man to die after being cold-bloodedly shot in the back at point blank range? And just because grant was unarmed and prone there's no reason to think that this white officer was safe from this extremely black man at his feet. I'm surprised they haven't given Mehserle a medal frankly.

A demonstration of over a thousand people marched after the verdict of non-guilty was announced bearing signs saying "Oakland says guilty". The demo turned into a riot with shops smashed and police lines attacked.

You can watch video here that shows locals speaking for themselves about what they feel about the verdict. The video goes on to show the police response to the peaceful protest although it cuts short before the riot begins.

I'm tempted to say I don't welcome the riots, but frankly I think it's far more important to say that I far from welcome the institution bigotry that allows the Orangemen to dominate Catholic areas with their hate, or the courts that allow police officers to shoot unarmed men in the back just because they're poor and black.

What is Schwarzenegger playing at?

Interesting news has come out of this week's US primaries (a process which selects the parties' candidates for the major elections later this year). In California Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger has come to the end of his allotted time as governor and will soon be passing on the baton.

You might assume that he's automatically endorsed the Republican nominee. Not so. You see there's a problem because the Republicans have selected a Tea Bagger, one of the new right and follower of Sarah Palin, whose politics are decidedly at odds with Arnold's more moderate Republicanism.

Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay, was personally endorsed by Dick Cheney, and her selection was greeted with glee among the right-wing commentators.

According to her website she plans to create two million new private sector jobs in California by 2015 using targeted tax cuts alone, including abolishing capital gains tax. She's either a genius, a fool or a liar - or perhaps a bit of each. Of course, while she's creating jobs with her magic beans she'll also be laying off state workers with her proposed $15 billion cuts in public spending.

However, I'm sure this kind of conservative economic plan is not what's putting the current governor off. Rather it's her social conservatism that has him worried. Her anti-immigration stance, her pro-death penalty approach to law and order and most of all her approach to climate change.

It's her threat to suspend climate change legislation that has particularly smarted the current governor. He's been passionate about the need to tackle climate change and reduce our emissions and, in difficult fiscal circumstances, he has tried to carve out a strong reputation on the subject. This put him at odds with many in the party and saw the oil industry lobby hard against his proposals, a fight which, to his credit, he won. Now Whitman threatens to undo all the fruits of what was a colossal political fight.

It's no wonder Schwarzenegger is unwilling to leap to endorse her, and has even started saying nice things about the Democratic candidate. Could he really be preparing to endorse the opposition in order to save his legacy?

She will be facing a heavy weight opponent in former Democratic governor Jerry Brown (who was nick named "Governor Moonbeam" for his supposedly left-liberal approach). His main claim to fame as far as I'm concerned is that The Dead Kennedys ditty "California Uber Alles" is actually sung from the fictionalised perspective of Jerry Brown during his time in office. How cool is that?

Both Democratic and Republican primaries were evenly matched with 1.7 million people voting in each with Brown the runaway favourite for Democrats (84.1%) and Whitman more controversial among Republicans (64.2%).

Of course she still won a strong victory over her Republican opponents, which is a good job seeing as she used $80 million dollars of her own money just to secure the nomination, a sum which exceeds the combined spend of Republicans and Democrats on the entire 2006 Gubernatorial race. Astonishing.

Schwarzenegger spoke to the Washington Post telling them that "You're assuming I'm going to endorse the Republican". The Post went on;

"The governor did say he could change his mind "and endorse someone 14 days out. I don't know." ... he pulls back a little and suggests it's likely he would endorse Whitman -- if he endorses, that is. But he also said in the session with the editorial board that Brown had done some good things and some bad things during his two terms as governor. Schwarzenegger didn't elaborate, but the mere fact that he had a nugget of niceness for the Democrat two days into the general election is stunning. I can't wait to see how the party elders in California and here in Washington react to this."

Of course he may well end up endorsing his Republican successor, but can you imagine that happening here? A Labour or Tory MP explicitly refusing to endorse fellow party members standing for election. It speaks to the growing split in the US right between a vocal and, frankly, moronic Palinite movement and more traditional Republicans who are often less theological in their approach to climate change, gay marriage and not bombing foreigners.

The Democrats have got a good chance of beating Whitman who is likely to polarise Republicans without winning many friends in the Democrat camp, but Whitman still has her billion dollar fortune to draw on so if they want to save California's climate legislation they better make sure they take her seriously.

Katrina victims are suing oil companies

The Telegraph is reporting that some of the victims of Hurricane Katrina are suing companies including Shell, Exxon Mobile, BP, American Electric Power and Chevron because of their role in promoting climate change. The class action suit states;

"The plaintiffs allege that defendants' operation of energy, fossil fuels, and chemical industries in the United States caused the emission of greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming [when they had a duty to] avoid unreasonably endangering the environment, public health, public and private property."

It has taken four years for judges to rule that this case can be heard.

Although I wont be holding my breath that this goes anywhere it does raise an interesting point. This may be a slightly controversial point but I don't blame the oil companies specifically for climate change, when it is in the nature of our economy as a whole.

I worry about the idea of "bad capitalists" who can be brought under control in order to make our economy fair again. Oil companies, banks, arms companies are obviously stuffed to the rafters with people who do bad things for a living - but the solution to the problem of climate change does not lie in punishing miscreants but changing the way we go forward.

Endorsed by Lech Wałęsa

Of all the elections I'd expect Lech Wałęsa to get involved in I have to say that of Illinois Governor was possibly the least expected. Lech is a historic figure who led a mass independent trade union movement, Solidarnosc, against Polish Communism.

He's even got a Nobel Peace Prize, although everyone has won of those these days.

He was an inspiring figure once although the less said about his later behaviour as President the better. Anyway, this working class hero has popped up in the US to back his guy Adam Andrzejewski who was running in the Republican Primary.

So what sort of guy is this Andrzejewski chappy? Shipyard worker? Solid trade unionist? Well, not quite - in fact he's a confirmed tea bagger, one of those ultra-conservatives who find the Republican Party just a touch too wishy-washy and liberal.

Even heavy weight scumbags like Rush Limbaugh had given this guy airtime, I wonder if there are other views he shares with the ex-President of Poland?

Sadly Republican voters were not wowed by Lech, who they don't seem to have heard of, and placed Mr Andrezejewski in fifth place out of six. In fairness to him, he did describe himself as a 'true outsider' throughout the campaign. Still, thank God Lech was in town otherwise he'd had clinched that last place and been humilated.

Haiti: children kidnappers

Before I begin: If you didn't donate to Haiti and regret it it's not too late. You can still check out my earlier post for suggestions on who to send your cash to.

Ever since it was revealed that religious groups were sending people to take 'orphans' out of Haiti to give them a 'better life' I've had a heavy feeling in my stomach on top of the heavy feeling created by seeing the suffering the people of Haiti have had to endure over the last period.

I'm more than happy for religious groups to mobilise people to help out and do good deeds. There's a question about how useful that can be, but without being on the ground it's difficult to know how (in)effective that help is and I'm not willing to criticise the aid effort.

However, when it comes to people trafficking it's another matter frankly.

There's a number of reasons why, even before we get to the specifics of this case, stealing children is wrong. First of all most orphans have living relatives. Taking kids out of the country means creating a permanent separation. There is no reason why you should be allowed to own children and indoctrinate them into your sect whilst denying them a reconciliation with their blood.

Second of all, during a disaster there is a fog where people lose people. It may be that people you thought were dead weren't, and it certainly is the case that kids that are lost because they have been taken away will be untraceable to their surviving relatives. Using the word orphan about a child creates the impression they have no one, but it's not necessarily true and the missionaries certainly do not know whether it's true - it's an assumption.

Third, waltzing into someone else's country and taking their children because you've decided they will have a better life isn't ok just because you're American. There is no entitlement that goes with US citizenship that says you have the right to circumvent the authorities in any country you go to.

The specifics

When you get to the details of the case it is even more worrying though. The missionaries might say they are "completely innocent" and they were legitimately taking 33 kids out of the country to a new life in their Idaho Baptist inspired utopia where they would also be eligible for adoption.

However, it transpires that many of the kids have at least one living relative, they were told that the kids were simply going to be schooled and would be able to return, not if they've been adopted they wouldn't. It is also clear that the group had no authorisation from the Haitian authorities, and don't even appear to think they needed any.

That's even though they were told before the attempt that they could not take the kids across the border. The Wall Street Journal reports that;

"the Dominican Republic's consul general in Port-au-Prince, said in an interview that he met with the group's leader, Laura Silsby, on Friday at the consulate in the Haitian capital and told her she lacked the documents to transport children."

She told Mr. Castillo she had applied to Dominican authorities for a permit to cross the border, he said. But Mr. Castillo checked and found no such application. "I told her I could authenticate Haitian documents but she had no Haitian documents of any sort,"

I'm afraid I've no sympathy for these people languishing in a Haiti jail. I'm not a hang them and flog them sort of person but I was very pleased to hear that they would be charged and face trial. It simply cannot be right for organisations to use their wealth and the weight of their government to determine the fate of children just because they live in a poorer nation.

ps good piece from Mike Gonzalez at the Guardian on Haitian reconstruction.

Gil Scott Heron

It's funny, I was only thinking of Gil Scott Heron last night as I heard that Obama had scrapped further moon missions in favour of public spending down here on Earth. Scott Heron's classic song 'whitey on the Moon' had a deep impact on me the first time I heard it and it seems particularly apt now.



Anyway, Gil Scott Heron, all these years later, has a new album out and there is an exclusive preview of it at the Guardian. Well worth checking out in my opinion.

Democrats take a knock at the polls

A year ago today the American people came out in unprecedented numbers to elected a liberal President who was on record as opposing the Iraq war, in favour of equal rights for gays and who actually thought that the climate was changing and this had something to do with us humans.

This contrasts somewhat with election results out today that show Americans in Maine, New Jersey, New York and Virginia had begun to shift back to the right. However, all is not lost.

Maine: set back for equal rights

Voters in Maine overturned the state's newly written gay marriage law by 52.75% to 47.25%. When the state legislature brought in the right for gay people to marry earlier this year it sparked a reactionary, well, reaction led by the Catholic Church who petitioned for a referendum on the issue before it could be implemented.

Although this defeat is extremely disappointing we should note how close the vote actually was and I wonder if we had such a referendum in London, for example, would over 47% of people vote in favour of gay marriage? We should also note that voters in Maine also chose to expand the medicinal uses of Marijuana on the same night, so there is still hope for them.

Incidentally, in Washington State voters were asked to approve same sex civil unions (essentially everything up to, but not including, the word marriage) which it seems that they have done.

New Jersey: Republican takes safe Democrat governorship

The biggest blow of the night for the Democrats was the loss of New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, in what should have been an easy contest. However, he was a candidate mired in scandal and who was widely seen as mishandling the economic crisis even while promising the moon.

We should also note that his victorious Republican rival is a state prosecutor who'd made his name locking up politicians, you can see why people liked him!

Virginia: Republican take governorship

It was the battle of the right wingers in Virginia where the "pro-life, pro-family" Republican candidate beat his anti-health care reform Democratic rival. A fair few lazy journalists have been discussing this result as a rejection of Obama but seeing as he wasn't on the ballot paper and the Democratic candidate disagreed with the prez on most major issues of the day we enlightened few shall exercise a little more caution.

New York: the right comfortably win Mayoralty

Republican-leaning independent Mike Bloomberg was re-elected as Mayor of New York defeating his rivals handily. The election campaign came at a reputed cost of $100 million for Bloomberg compared to a measly $8 million spend from the Democrat camp so I'm left wondering why he didn't do even better.

The news is not all bad though. In New York the Republicans managed to lose a safe congressional seat through that time honoured election losing technique of having a civil war. The Republican Dede Scozzafava was a moderate, pro-choice candidate who so offended the right by her refusal to be barmy that titans like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck waded in to hound her and support a mad dog rival candidate.

So vile were the attacks that Scozzafava took the late decision to stand down from the race and endorse the Democrats who then managed to take the previously unassailable right wing stronghold.

Can we draw conclusions?

While the results were certainly bad for the Democrats last night they were just a snap shot of the electorate in very specific areas - massively influenced by local events. The voting out of scandal ridden or anti-reform Democrats can't just be laid at the door of Obama's record in office but is very much about the fact that these were very weak candidates that were completely unable to mobilise left of centre voters.

I think the results show two main things. Firstly that the Republican right exists and is on the offensive. Secondly that where they overplay their hand they split their own side and lose the fight. We can see this happening in the health care debate where all their talk of death panels and equating Obama with Hitler has actually driven many moderate Republicans into the Democrat's camp - literally in the case of Dede Scozzafava.

It seems to me that if the Democrats want to keep winning elections they need to stick to a radical and principled agenda whilst leaving the door open to the more moderate supporters of the Republican cause. Most Republicans are not Glenn Beck style foaming ideologues and can be won be over - but ironically not by those Democrats who are indistinguishable from the Republicans, and there are many of them.

Give that man a medal

Good to see Stephen Hawking getting a Presidential Medal of Freedom from the Obama administration.
Obama said of the recipients of the honours; "What unites them is a belief... that our lives are what we make of them, that no barriers of race, gender or physical infirmity can restrain the human spirit, and that the truest test of a person's life is what we do for one another."

Quite.

It must be particularly welcome because Hawking has been used and abused recently by the Investors Business Daily who, in the course of an anti-health reform rant, said "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

Of course, they've taken that bit out now but the problem is obvious. Not only does Hawking live in the same town as me (Cambridge, UK, where I sometimes spot him wheeling around) and has had top notch care from the NHS all his life, the idea that in the UK, unlike the US, the health care system evaluates your worth before treating you is the exact opposite of the truth.

It is the US where your worth literally makes the difference between life and death. What's interesting is the IBD did not change their editorial position of spouting rubbish about the NHS, they just edited out the bit where they made themselves look like fools.

Hawking has now had the opportunity to wade in to defend our national health system rather than one based on rationing by wealth. "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS, I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

All treatment offered to him regardless of his ability to pay. Can the US system that rations the poorest say the same? Of course not. Maybe those Democrats who are wavering about reform might learn a lesson from the great man - it's not the size of your wallet that matters but the size of your ambition.

Happy Birthday Mr Obama

click to enlarge

Ex-Governor Palin

Sarah Palin has resigned as Governor of Alaska. The New York Times clearly thinks that this could be the start of her Presidential bid, if so it's damn early to clear her diary.

Palin was a governor for three years which, if she does go for the Presidency, would make her one of the least experienced serious applicants for the job in US history. One of her opponents said that "Either Sarah Palin is leaving the people of Alaska high and dry to pursue her long shot national political ambitions or she simply can't handle the job now that her popularity has dimmed and oil revenues are down".

Assuming she is going for the top job she's probably thinking that Alaska is far too small a pond in which to make a national name - but quitting part way through her governorship is going to make her look like a political opportunist without staying power and means she wont have the time to build up a base of real political weight in office. Time will only tell whether she made the right decision for herself - and us!


If you have a Sarah Palin action figure - keep it safe - it could cost a bomb in years to come! I wonder what Tina Fey is thinking right now?

Palin's resignation speech: here. One part stands out...

But you don’t hear much of the good stuff in the press anymore, do you?

Oh... I don't know.

You can watch it here. Also check out the Huff Post.

In memory of George Tiller

Murdered by a member of a right wing militia yesterday as he served as an usher in church, Dr George Tiller was no stranger to suffering violent attacks for providing women the choice over their own reproductive health.

Anti-abortionists (sometimes misnamed pro-life) had picketed his clinic for years, there was a bomb explosion at the clinic in the 80's and he was shot twice in 1993 at a time when a whole number of people involved with reproductive health had been assassinated. Anti-abortionist activists even turned up to a service in remembrance to him today (right) even whilst paying lip service to the 'love of Jesus'.

Despite the intimidation he continued to provide this service to the community having been inspired at an early age by the case of a woman who had died during a back street abortion. He was fully aware that he was in danger by doing what he was doing but he had the courage to continue and it is impossible not to admire him for that.

The anti-abortion movement in the US, which is also opposed to sex education and freely available contraception, is overwhelmingly right wing in nature and is based upon intolerance rather than any religious teaching. Everyone should reject it, religious or atheist, for the hypocritical and hate filled movement that it is.

President Obama, who was heckled by 'pro-life' students earlier this month, has sent in US Marshals to protect other clinics round the country. The following news report covers the community remembering Dr Tiller;



George Tiller, in his own words;




Other physicians murdered in this sick cause include David Gunn, Barnett Slepian, and a whole number of others. You may also like to visit Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.