Abdul Qayum Zakir, also known as Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, is from Helmand Province, the massive district in southwestern Afghanistan from which 42% of the world's opium originates. He joined the Taliban in 1997 when he felt "called" to take part in Jihad. His exceptional organizational skills propelled him up the ranks until he found himself a senior fighter in the Taliban in 2001 facing the world's most advanced and capable armed forces, frothing mad and hot on the heels of the masterminds of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. As the Taliban regime crumbled under the coalition onslaught he quietly surrendered to U.S. forces in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif.

Shuttled around various facilities under military custody, he landed in Guantanamo Bay in 2006. His tenure in prisons hadn't softened his zeal one bit. During an administrative review a memorandum was submitted that stated Zakir had made it clear that "it would be fine to wage jihad against Americans, Jews, or Israelis if they were invading his country." He was eventually transferred to the custody of the Karzai administration in Afghanistan in 2007.

And then, for some reason, a little over a year ago he was released.

Intelligence sources have indicated that Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar appointed Zakir as a senior military commander in mid-2008, which would suggest that he was drawn directly into the ranks of the trusted upon his release, and that his freedom may have in fact been negotiated by Taliban sympathizers within Karzai's government.

He has since reappeared on the radar of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, according to a recent NY Post article. Zakir's ongoing efforts to restructure the Taliban to his liking has resulted in the firing of a number of incompetent or corrupt Taliban commanders, creating a flood of disgruntled former employees that coalition intelligence organizations hope to exploit for solid information. Information on Taliban troop movements, resources, the whereabouts of Mullah Mohammed Omar, or perhaps Osama Bin Laden himself.

None of which is relevant to the most pressing question that comes to mind: why did the U.S. turn him over to Karzai (this was on Bush's watch), and why the hell did Karzai let him go?

What

I

Wouldn't

Pay ...

So we at least have some information on the meeting, which is being downplayed by the official Russian state news organs.

( Kasparov's statement to Obama, with subsequent interview )

NOTE: What some of you may be unaware of is that Garry Kasparov left professional chess four years ago to support the United Civil Front, a progressive movement opposed to Putin's administration.

The culpability flow chart on why the international juggernaut to assist Ethiopian famine victims failed so completely in 1984 is a twisted, dusty mess. Over the years pundits have laid the blame with such varying reasons as government corruption, successive insurgencies, communism, villager stubbornness, and the fact that they all live in a fucking desert. One hard lesson certainly learned by many citizens of the world in the ensuing years, however, was quite simple: one does not just give large amounts of cash to hardened, militant governments and expect them to follow your instructions on what to do with it. I'm also looking at you, Congress.

But I had no idea the USA For Africa project still existed.

It not only exists, but with the global market place being whipped bare by the hurricane of Michael Jackson-related products flying from the shelves in the wake of the artist's death, the project is experiencing renewed interest, and was featured in CNN's well-meaning-yet-vapid "Impact Your World" section this very morning.

I noted with pleasure that, in recent years, the charitable organization has ostensibly moved to funneling donations to a short list of relief and education organizations concentrating on work in Africa. I also noted that this list is interesting as much for who it mentions as for who it does not. Oxfam and Africare are prominent, but the UNHCR, ICRC, Doctors Without Borders, UNICEF, and others are conspicuously missing. That having been said, the charity is taking the right approach in funding experienced NGO operations -- galaxies removed from the swaying, glazed-eyed celebrity-driven mindlessness that characterized relief efforts of the 80s.

Misleading introductions claiming that the project is "still helping Africans" notwithstanding (it may be now, but it certainly wasn't when everyone knew its name), there is something to be said for philanthropic efforts that spin off as their own entities. Projects such as these garner much media attention and do little good while under the care of celebrities, but when they fly the nest they must quickly learn how to be effective on their own terms in the confusing and occasionally deadly world of international relief.

Fantastic article by Abbas Milani of Stanford on the philosophical roots of the cracks now showing in Iran's politico-religious structure. For a more detailed look at the evolution of religion and politics in the region, as always I recommend Chapters 1-4 of Ali Allawi's The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace.

I also find Saddam Hussein's conversations with FBI interviewers particularly interesting. To a point. Some would contend that he should have been spared to facilitate future such illumination, but I draw my academic pursuit boundaries at the point where they suspend justice to glean details from a murderous tyrant.

Excellent NPR applet on the national energy grid, energy sources, concentrations and flows of power, etc.

http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2009/apr/electric-grid/

Yoinked from pr0ject on TS list:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31490968?slide=1

The 15 Most Recession-Resistant Cities in America.

11. El Paso, TX
7. McAllen, TX
5. Dallas, TX
4. Austin, TX
3. Houston, TX
1. San Antonio, TX

I may have shared our reasons for moving to this state, or I may not have. But I'd like to take this opportunity to point how how incredibly right right RIGHT RIGHTY RIGHT I was.

1. Pei Wei has online ordering capability for the location closest to my work.
2. Bulgaria sucks even worse than I thought.
3. Many of the supposed national security risks to the U.S. arising from its importation of foreign oil are overstated.
4. The late Richard Nixon, who was passionately opposed to abortion, believed that it was necessary in the case of an interracial pregnancy.

Watching the debate on the Senate floor has, as usual, aroused more questions in me than anything else.

For instance: ignoring whether or not we believe that humans can actually raise the temperature of the planet we inhabit, politicians are using evidence of rising temperatures and CO2 levels to call for people to stop doing things that might cause these numbers to grow.

But 1) CO2 is necessary for vegetation to properly photosynthesize and 2) increased heat is necessary in order for plants to absorb increased levels of CO2, and 3) current historically low atmospheric CO2 concentrations are the single most limiting factor to continued flourishing of planetary vegetation (it's true, look it up). So why are global warming and increased CO2 levels a bad thing for planetary flora?

Somebody clue me in as to what the current "hip" wisdom is (if that's what the Senators are invoking, I really don't know), it changes so often and my aged brain can't keep up.

Reposted from an IRC channel:

If anyone is on twitter, set your location to Tehran and your time zone to GMT +3.30. Security forces are hunting for bloggers using location/timezone searches. The more people at this location, the more of a logjam it creates for forces trying to shut Iranians' access to the internet down. Cut & paste & please pass it on.

Any intractable capacity planning problem is invariably ignored by architects so as to become an intractable engineering implementation and/or integration problem instead.

I'd write the Murphy's Law people were I not so certain that this had already been expressed more elegantly already.

My most bitter memories from my religious youth arose from the conflict in our faith between on the one hand being honest and on the other hand being good examples to others. Our excuse was the biblical passage about "avoiding even the appearance of evil" (I Thess. 5:22) to avoid causing someone to "stumble." (Romans 14:13)

This was a flagrant license for hypocrisy.

And every one of these conservative Republican politicians that are outed and disgraced for engaging in extramarital affairs, accepting bribes, substance abuse, and FSM knows what else merely hammers the point home that I thought I'd learned from my childhood in the church. "Everyone is fucked up inside. You can be a good example, or you can be genuine, but you can't be both." I abused substances, I drank (drink) to excess, I use language you can't use on TV. I didn't give a shit what anyone thought about my behavior either.

Problem is, the longer I'm a Dad, and the more I sacrifice for my children and my family, the more I believe that being honest to our children about who we are in turn fixes character flaws, but not in the way that some might think. It doesn't make me drink less or suddenly talk nice, but rather honesty is how we show each other that we're all in the same battle; and also that how we entertain ourselves and how explicitly we communicate are productive and acceptable things. Alcohol and other recreational substances are blessings if enjoyed responsibly, sensitivity to other's feelings makes "swear words" an imaginary threat.

The truth is beautiful and brilliant, the facade we paint by guessing everyone else's "good example" is ugly and wooden.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating: now I ironically care very much what others think, but in the sense that if they want to know me, I will make sure they know the real me.

You know who you are!

Do NOT use the Simplegrout line of pre-mixed grout products unless you're sponging off excess grout immediately after finishing each tile. The shit otherwise dries in a heartbeat, leaving you to purchase one of their line of cleaning products to remove the dried grout.

You've been warned.

The following may only be funny if you're familiar with J. Fuego cigars:

[ One of the cigar shops I patronize ] Presents
  
    a Jesus Fuego Event!
 
Jesus is Coming!  We'll have a Scotch tasting ... 

I'm cracking up. NY Democrats are crybabies and Golisano is my new hero.

I'm having trouble believing I actually read something so centered on the subject of marriage equality from my political party. Noted Republican hit man and fashion mogul Roger Stone wrote the following article on in his blog, reproduced here as the article has no direct link.

( Same Sex Marriage and The Great Disclaimer )

Note: when I say "centered" I mean "excellent, incisive, common-sense, free of leotardation."

The opinions and musings of our founding fathers are often invoked by conservatives and liberals alike as though our forebears were all of one mind and commonly incapable of error. This is of course utter bullshit. Even the most illustrious figures from our nation's birth disagreed sharply and publicly with one another over the limits of federalism, forms of taxation, the necessity for standing armies in peacetime, presidential term limits, and everything in between. The state delegations to the constitutional convention, however, were of a single mind on one peculiar issue.

Express limitation on congress' legislative power.

Glowering suspicion for federal powers colored the debates between the delegations, the attendees uneasy with the prospect of venturing beyond the Articles of Confederation that had served them so well throughout the bitter War of Independence. But they were eventually worn down. By time. By stubbornness. By maneuvering.

As a eulogy to the jewel of federalism traded away in 1791 for the sake of expedited ratification, here I offer a series of rather lengthy quotes. All emphasis is mine.

"That the powers of the government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but that such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or are inserted merely for greater caution."
Ratification of the Constitution by the Convention of the State of New York, July 26, 1788

"First, that it be explicitly declared, that all powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution, are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised."
Ratification of the Federal Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachussetts, Feb. 6, 1788

"1st. That it be explicitly declared, that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid constitution, are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised."
Ratification of the Constitution by the Delegates of the People of the State of New Hampshire, June 21, 1788

"Resolved, That the states respectively, do retain every power not expressly delegated by this Constitution to the general government of the Union."
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of South Carolina, May 23, 1788

"We, the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will; that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the senate or house of representatives acting in any capacity, bt the President or any department of officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes ...
...
"1st. That each state in the Union shall respecively retain every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the Federal Government."
Form of Ratification, which was read and agreed to by the Convention of Virginia, Sept 17, 1787

"1st. That each state in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the Federal Government.
... Each State in the Union shall, respectively, retain every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the General Government; nor shall the said Congress, nor any department of the said government exercise any act of authority over any individual in any of the aid States, but such as can by justified under some power, particularly given in this Constitution; but the said Constitution shall be considered at all times a solumn instrument, defining the extent of their authority, and the limits of which they cannot rightfully in any instance exceed."
State of North Carolina In Convention, August 2, 1788

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"My initial reaction was strong and direct -- perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court have been critical of my word choice. With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word 'racist' should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted)."

If one wishes to make the point that the wisdom that comes from the rich experience of adversity etc can engender better jurisprudence than the lack thereof, I'm with you 100%. Couching it in first person terms and injecting a racial contrast is harmless. Conservatives don't like it because it's 1) probably true, and 2) not reversible to favor them.

Sandra Day O'Connor remarked that Thurgood Marshall's race gave him a "special perspective" which in turn made him a more effective judge in several cases, and that her own female nature did the same for her as well.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Amen sister. And congratulations.

I haven't wrapped up this series of posts due to being insanely busy at work and at home, but this latest supreme court decision hit the news today:

Supreme Court action upholds California's medical pot law

The Supreme Court rejected appeals today from two hold-out counties in Southern California that object to the state's 13-year-old medical marijuana law and claimed it should be struck down as violating the federal drug-control act.

Angel McClary Raich had suffered medical problems for as long as she could remember. At the tender age of 12 she was put in a full-body brace to correct miscurvature of the spine. She developed asthma and had several cysts removed while still in high school. Diagnosed simultaneously with an inoperable, if slow-growing, brain tumor as well as scoliosis, the normally effervescent Stockton native was confined to a wheelchair before she was even 40, unable to move any muscle on her right side. Her two teenage children watched their mother whither before their eyes, and were aghast at modern medicine's inability to help her. Unable to cure the pain except with narcotics, which made her nauseated, she couldn't keep food down, and she was wasting away,

In 1997 her doctor, Frank Lucido, had heard enough about the unique medicinal properties of cannabis after the 1996 success of California's Medical Marijuana bill to decide that, as a saving throw, it was worth a shot. Two years later Angel was walking again and undergoing treatment for her other conditions without issue!

It was a coup.

By 2000, Angel had moved to the Bay Area and befriended a number of other patients and grower co-operators, among them Diane Monson, who became one of Angel's co-op cannabis providers. But everything was about to change.

In late summer 2002, Diane was tending to her six cannabis plants in her backyard garden in the verdant foothills of Oroville when a party of DEA agents arrived at her doorstep with several Butte County Sheriffs. They questioned her about cannabis growing on land she'd let to renters, about which she claimed to know nothing. In response, the DEA agents threatened to confiscate her backyard crop on the spot.

The Butte County Sheriffs would have none of it, and thus started a 3-hour standoff while Butte County District Attorney, Mike Ramsey, asked the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, John Vincent, to call off the raid. His entreaties failed, and the plucky Diane Monson read aloud the text of Proposition 215 while the DEA agents produced machetes and spitefully hacked her cannabis plants down.

A furious battle ensued, with the implacable Angel Raich at the helm.

There were small victories at the outset. On December 16, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, relying heavily on our aforementioned United States v. Lopez, granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the federal government "from arresting or prosecuting Plaintiffs Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson, seizing their medical cannabis, forfeiting their property, or seeking civil or administrative sanctions against them with respect to the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation, possession, use, and obtaining without charge of cannabis for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician and in accordance with state law, and which is not used for distribution, sale or exchange."

The Bush Administration, with John Ashcroft spoiling for a fight, kicked the injunction to the Supreme Court.

Rhetoric filled the air and amicus briefs clouded the skies as anti-drug alliances and conservatives lined up on one side, with the Cato Institute, NORML, and even anti-cannabis southern states fighting for states' rights lined up on the other.

There were massive gaffes and admissions as well, for those listening closely. The Department of Justice at one point filed a brief arguing that "Excepting drug activity for personal use or free distribution from the sweep of the Controlled Substances Act would discourage the consumption of lawful controlled substances." By which they mean prescription medications. It would also undercut "the incentives for research and development into new legitimate drugs." By which they also mean prescription medications. This jaw-dropping admission to being beholden to large pharmaceutical companies escaped almost unnoticed in all the furor.

There were also moments of startling clarity. The government's language regarding medicinal uses of cannabis was laden with words like "purportedly," "assertedly," and "allegedly." Cutting through this haze like a lighthouse was Dr. Frank Lucido's declaration that medical cannabis very likely saved Angel Raich's life, and depriving her of it would certainly kill her.

In the end, however, the case law mentioned in these posts until now built a solid wall over which the Supreme Court, now headed by Albert Gonzales, had no impetus to climb. They felt no need to "determine whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a 'rational basis' exists for so concluding."

In the end, the decision that one farmer's reaping of more wheat than was allotted in 1942 by the sordid manipulation of market forces in 1933 was the cornerstone on which many bricks had been laid. The Supreme Court saw that there existed an interstate market for marijuana, albeit an illegal one, and a portion of the minuscule number of plants grown to aid ill patients in the Bay Area's co-op could find their way into this market, although it admitted that this was highly unlikely. Either way, this brought the private intra-state growth and distribution of cannabis firmly under the purview of the federal government -- via the Commerce Clause. On June 6, 2005 they remanded the appeal and gave the DEA full primacy over California state law.

The 10th amendment was officially dead.

The rant isn't over yet. Read the next one.