Venezuela is a democratic state

I'm not kidding you. I feel this needs to be said. As of February 23, 2007 the CIA Factbook says Venezuela is a "federal republic".

I recently came across a thread on the BlackPlanet.com forums where someone gave praise to China for aiding African nations. He heralded it as the end of European domination, which is true if the west doesn't get its act together, and ended by blessing Hugo Chavez.

A resident righty that patrols the forum who types much and often says nothing accused the thread creator of supporting all communists and dictators across the globe. The guy had an African user name with no location under it so I thought he might actually be from Africa. I posted a link to a story about China's mishandling of copper fields in Zimbabwe asking his opinion on it. I also replied to righty by saying Chavez helps low income people in the United States with low priced heating for homes and said Venezuela is not a Communist country, which it isn't. No Big Deal, right? *rolleyes*

A brainwashed military blow hard asks me why I don't move to Venezuela and "be a Commie". I "politely" tell him I'm a patriot (Actually I say I'm the most patriotic human being on the Earth. Though that is not true as long as Jack Bauer lives) and I speak against ills this country perpetrates. In fact think of it as a relationship between 24's Jack Bauer and his father. Jack loves his father but does not want him to harm innocent lives. Then righty returns practically saying nuh uh telling me "get with the program".

I responded by accusing him of being the same type of person who thought FDR was Communist. I supplied a link to the CIA Factbook showing Venezuela is a federal republic and an article by Josef Cohen showing why Venezuela will not be a Communist country any time soon. It in fact leans capitalist and the country's people favor democracy more than any other nation in South America.

I've invited the righty several times to state his position on political candidates in the 2008 elections and he never accepts my invitation. He just likes to roam around making baseless statements a la Rush Limbaugh.

How do you get through to these people?

Obama Criticizes Australian Prime Minister

Barack Obama rips Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, after Howard suggests Obama would be popular among terrorist leaders because of his promise to recall troops from Iraq if he wins.

The Democratic presidential hopeful said if the Australian prime minister was "ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq," he needs to send another 20,000 Australians to the war.

"Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric," Obama said.

In addition, Australian political opponent Kevin Rudd warned Prime Minister Howard that he should take care not to strain the 65 year alliance that has existed between the U.S. and Australia. Kevin Rudd. The ACNielsen poll in the Age and Sydney Morning Herald newspapers has found Mr Rudd is the most popular Opposition leader in the past 35 years.

Criticism toward Howard has come from both Republicans and Democrats in the U.S.

Senator Jon Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said Howard should have kept quiet. "I would prefer that Mr. Howard stay out of our domestic politics, and we'll stay out of his domestic politics," Cornyn said. Ron Wyden, Democratic Senator from Oregon said "We'll make our own judgments in this country with respect to elections" after saying Howard's comment is at best "bizarre".

I'm disgusted a world diplomat would assume directive in a situation where his contributions, even as "significant" as he claims them to be, are meager compared to the 140,000 troops the United States has allocated to Iraq. Australia currently has 1,400 troops in and around Iraq, mostly in non combat roles. Even at the height of the Iraq war Australia had fewer soldiers than we've had die in Iraq to date.

Howard tried to claim 1,400 troops is significant considering the Australian population. Unfortunately he understands ratios just as well as he understands staying out of another country's politics. We a population of 300 million people vs his 20,000,000. 15:1 ratio right? We have 140,000 troops to his 1,400. 100:1 ratio. Does anyone see me not smiling? He owes us 8,000 more troops before I'll declare a "significant contribution". Even that won't be enough after Bush's surge.

Howard doesn't seem to understand that he is interfering with the election process of the United States. When critics from his own country said it was inappropriate for the Prime Minister to comment as he did Howard mistakenly drew parallels to Opposition criticism of George Bush in 2003, when he was already an established national leader. Considering the Prime Minster's ties to George Bush, his similar lack of discerning and status as a national leader, he has no business making comments pertaining to our elections.

The Prime Minister of Australia Criticizes Barack Obama

The Prime Minister of Australia criticized, wait? Australia? The Prime Minister of Australia....The Prime Minister of Australia...The Prime Minister of Australia..The Prime Minister of... Australia?

What does the Prime Minister of Australia have to do with American elections? I think he's supposed to butt out and pay attention to what's actually happening with his own country. Everyone knows he's chummy chum with George Bush on the Iraq war and anyone with that type of mindset has no credibility anyway.

If Mr. Prime Minister is interested in letting the few number of people he has provided to occupy Iraq get shot at, go ahead. But stay out of the United State's business. Australia? Really?

The Value of Black Life in General

The Value of Black Life in Maryland

By Parris Glendening
Sunday, December 18, 2005; B07

In the eight years I served as governor of Maryland, I found the power to decide which condemned prisoners would live and which would die the most awesome and emotionally grueling of all my duties. I faced this decision four times.

I believed in the death penalty when I became governor and took seriously my constitutional responsibility to uphold Maryland law. I presided over two executions, those of Flint Gregory Hunt and Tyrone Gilliam. Both were black men whose victims were white. I heard from many civil rights leaders who rightly pointed out that this racial combination dominated cases on our state's death row, even though African Americans were and continue to be the victims in nearly 80 percent of homicides.

So in 1999 I commissioned a study of race and death sentencing from the University of Maryland, believing it my responsibility to ensure that justice was truly blind when applying this ultimate punishment.

A few months later I faced yet another execution of a black man with a white victim -- that of Eugene Colvin-el. I was not yet convinced that a moratorium on executions was necessary. But I was also not 100 percent certain of Colvin-el's guilt, so I commuted his death sentence to life without the possibility of parole.

The last execution I faced was that of Wesley Baker -- whom Maryland ultimately executed on Dec. 5. His was the fourth case to come before me in which an African American man was condemned to die for the murder of a white Marylander. And as with two of the three condemned men before him, he had been sentenced to die in Baltimore County.

I could not, in good conscience, go forward with another execution of a black man for killing a white person. I stayed Baker's execution in May 2002 and imposed a moratorium on all executions pending the results of the University of Maryland study.

Days before I left office in January 2003, the study was released. Examining the records of more than 1,300 death-penalty-eligible cases between 1978 and 1999, criminologist Raymond Paternoster concluded that both geographic and racial disparities existed.

Baltimore County was singled out as having a significantly higher rate of death sentences than other jurisdictions in the state. Murderers in Baltimore County were 26 times more likely to be sentenced to death than killers in Baltimore City and 14 times more likely than murderers in Montgomery County.

The significant racial disparities are troubling. Cases in which the victim was white were almost twice as likely to result in the death penalty as cases in which the victim was black, and blacks who killed whites were 2 1/2 times more likely to be sentenced to death than whites who killed whites.

These results lead to the unfortunate conclusion that we value white life more than black life. Intentional or not -- and I believe it is not -- this is an indefensible and untenable position for the state. Whether one supports or opposes the death penalty in principle, all reasonable people understand that before we exercise the ultimate sanction, we must be confident that the system is, at a minimum, fair and accurate.

The University of Maryland study received a great deal of attention and should have been a call to action for state leaders, but no solutions have been implemented. The General Assembly, despite conducting hearings on the issue, never passed legislation to deal with the inequalities highlighted in the study.

Gov. Robert Ehrlich, who lifted my moratorium on executions after assuming office despite acknowledging that race "plays a part all the way through the process," named Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele as the new administration's point man on the issue. The lieutenant governor promised to conduct an assessment of our state's death penalty. To date, he has not.

Despite being ignored by the current administration, issues raised by the study remain. Maryland still faces serious questions about the impact of race and geography in capital sentencing.

I implemented the moratorium to allow for the thorough and fair study of our death penalty system and to allow for action to be taken to prevent racial and geographic discrimination. The study was completed, but the corrective action was not. It is time for our state to honestly and openly consider these findings and to find constructive remedies. To carry out executions under this scenario is simply wrong.

The writer was governor of Maryland from 1995 to 2003.