CommonPrejudice

Socialism and Communism for Dummies

As many know by now Obama was recently asked by a New York Times Reporter whether he was a socialist. It is really difficult to properly relate how profoundly silly that question/topic is.  A return to pre-Bush level taxation while increasing spending during the most severe economic crisis of our generation is about as socialist as ..... global warming.

In New York today those who believe the earth is flat  climate change is not real are meeting to warn others about sailing off the end of the earth discuss the issue. And apparently the competition among world leaders to replace Bush as dimmest light bulb on the planet is heating up. Here for example is Václav Klaus:

... The organisers believe they have pulled off a great success by bringing in Czech and current EU president and Eurosceptic, Václav Klaus.

Klaus maintains that moves to reduce climate change are an attack on individual liberties.

Last night he said European governments are scaremongering and addicted to extreme environmentalists who want to set the human race backwards by some centuries.

He admitted that he was alone in this view but he received prolonged applause.

He said that the global warming debate has not moved forward and he is reminded of the dissatisfaction people experienced under communism ...

If there is one thing that is absolutely clear in the our battle to save our future on this planet it is that the greatest challenge is not technological nor strutural but simply overcoming our own idiocy.

Isratine?

Daily Quiz: Which Muslim leader said this:

The basis for the modern State of Israel is the persecution of the Jewish people, which is undeniable. The Jews have been held captive, massacred, disadvantaged in every possible fashion by the Egyptians, the Romans, the English, the Russians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites and, most recently, the Germans under Hitler. The Jewish people want and deserve their homeland.

Answer on the jump.

The Opinion Page, Punditocracy and Pakistan

While I have enjoyed Glenn Greenwald's posts for some time, I've found him during the last year or so to be about as spot on as any blogger out there in the post-Billmon age. Here he is on the latest Dowd nonsense (excuse the length but it is an important passage):

... in this one short passage, on vivid, revolting display is every repellent attribute that defines the Standard Modern Political Journalist:

*Jaded, bitterly cynical coolness masquerading as sophistication (no emotion, no passion, is even real);

* Vapid, shallow stupidity (political matters judged exclusively by Drudge-like personality distractions);

* Mindless recitation of idiotic, Kristol-like right-wing talking points (we need manly Tough Guys, not Girly Crying, for our Wars);

* The basest and most glaringly obvious strain of sexism (no mention of the endless crying episodes from GOP Warrior-Cheerleaders);

* Their self-absorbed and almost-always-wrong belief that their own insulated biases are how the Regular Folk Think (hence, Hillary's "crying," which voters apparently either appreciated or ignored, was going to doom her candidacy, just as Huckabee's press conference would doom his in Iowa);

* Herd-like adolescent malice rituals directed towards the Hated Loser (NYT reporters grouping together to chortle and cackle oh-so-knowingly at the Wicked Witch).

Brokaw's sudden, embarrassment-driven request for the media to act differently (where has his sermon been for the last 20 years?) will not have the slightest effect on what they do. It can't, because the media stars and their editors and producers who shape coverage aren't capable of anything else. They're selected and in those positions precisely because this is all they're capable of doing.

Are Gloria Borger and Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman and Wolf Blitzer suddenly going to abandon their desire to impose shallow, melodramatic narratives on our elections and spend their time, instead, analyzing the candidates' responses to Charlie Savage's questionnaire on presidential power, or the dominant, corrosive role lobbyists and large corporations play in our political culture, or the widening rich-poor gap, or the strain and stain on our country from our imperial policies? The question is so absurd, so laughable, that to ask it is to answer it. None of them could remotely do that even if they wanted to, even if they were allowed to, and they don't and aren't.

Now I suppose what is most frustrating personally involves as Greenwald states the "Vapid, shallow stupidity." Of course as a progressive I'm naturally going to disagree with, for example, certain types of conservative or anarchist or libertarian approaches, maybe involving economic and social priorities, manners of growth and stability in a society or notions of democracy itself. However ..... what one is so often faced with upon accidently stumbling upon a Goldberg or a Kristol in the paper or on the web is so mind-numbingly idiotic that what gets to you most is not how much you disagree, but that this absolute tripe is simply being published and moreover, that it is influential and these clowns earn a living by it.

Or maybe that's just me.

Anyways, as today's exhibit I give you James Pinkerton. Usually with these "deep thinkers" I can only get a few paragraphs before their simplemindedness forces me to stop reading in order to protect my sanity (btw, I don't think Greenwald gets enough credit for his strong stomach, daily sifting through the sewer that is the right wing blogosphere and much of the mainstream punditocracy). A couple of paragraphs was about as far as I got with Pinkerton's column today entitled "I'll Love America More":

My New Year's resolutions:

• I resolve to worry more about Pakistan's 75-weapon nuclear stockpile than about global warming. I am more worried about being incinerated by a loose nuke than I am about the water table rising a few feet.

• Yet, I also resolve to worry more about global warming than about democracy in Pakistan. Democracy is wonderful, but only for people who want it and who are willing to play by its rules. Democracy without self-discipline is a formula for, well, Pakistan.

Obviously, as any 3rd grader could tell you, we as humans are capable of dealing with two serious issues simultaneously. But Pinkerton also manages to display - what was that phrase again? - oh yes, "vapid, shallow stupidity" in his childish manner to minimize the gravity of a rise in sea-level. So, just for the record:

...It is not only small island states that need to worry about sea level rise. More than 70 percent of the world's population lives on coastal plains,  and 11 of the world's 15 largest cities are on the coast or estuaries...

...There are many variables – including how much the expected increase in precipitation will add to snow packs and, most importantly, our greenhouse gas emissions over the next decades.  What we do know is that even a small amount of sea level rise will have profound negative effects...

Even this comparatively modest projected sea level rise will wreak havoc. Coastal flooding and storm damage, eroding shorelines, salt water contamination of fresh water supplies, flooding of coastal wetlands and barrier islands, and an increase in the salinity of estuaries are all realities of even a small amount of sea level rise. Some low lying costal cities and villages will also be affected.  Resources critical to island and coastal populations such as beaches, freshwater, fisheries, coral reefs and atolls, and wildlife habitat is also at risk.

But Pinkerton goes that extra yard. After claiming he will worry more about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, he unbelievably states he will worry less about democracy in that same country. Let's look at a real analysis, one actually worthy of print. (Again an extended citation, as usually when addressing issues as difficult as the current situation in Pakistan is, you need more than a few trite and contradictory remarks)

...There is certainly an openness to Pakistan’s dictatorship compared with other Islamic states, and some westerners have appeased Musharraf as “our” dictator, operating a “doctrine of necessity”. But there is nothing in this man’s track record to suggest that he is not a paid-up member of the dictatoring classes. His agents treat democrats with contempt and he funnels huge sums into his pockets and those of his generals. About 80% of US aid to Pakistan since Musharraf came to power has gone on military assistance, less than a quarter of it used even remotely against the Taliban. The virtual collapse of the state school system has followed a fall in education spending from 4% to 1.8% of GDP, one of the lowest in Asia. In its place have mushroomed the free madrasas, from a few hundred to over 10,000, financed by Wahhabist Saudi money and formerly in league with American-financed mujahideen training camps. Intended to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, they have since become a network of “faith training” for the poor, teaching little but the Qur’an. This is Musharraf’s (and America’s) most lethal bequest to Pakistan’s political economy.

America’s clodhopping sponsorship of Musharraf drove him to renege on the treaties with the tribal states, fomenting a Pashtun insurgency. The Afghan frontier has duly proved al-Qaida’s juiciest hunting ground, aided by every American bombing raid and every Pakistan army atrocity. The Pashtun mujahideen (whose American backers are well-documented in the film Charlie Wilson’s War) is a Frankenstein monster that has turned its vengeance on Musharraf, Afghanistan and Washington alike.

Whatever the defects of democracy, and in Asia they are legion, it remains the least worst way of curbing authoritarian power. There is no alternative. America’s handling of Musharraf since 9/11 - essentially to capture one man, Osama bin Laden - has rendered swaths of his country, from Baluchistan in the south to Swat in the north, wholly insecure. Even the Grand Trunk Road from Islamabad to Peshawar is patrolled by the Taliban. The idea that Musharraf’s troops, let alone the CIA or the US airforce, might suppress a people who have worsted every empire from the Mughals to the British is ludicrous. Modern armies are no agents of pacification. Civilian negotiation in a context of democratic assent is at very least worth a try.

Backing Musharraf has always seemed “a good idea at the time”. The next person to be cursed with Washington’s favour appears to be Musharraf’s successor as army chief, General Ashfaq Kiyani. However, by opting for the realpolitik of dictatorship the west has not just repressed democracy but aided insurgency and terror. It has yielded no security benefit to anyone. If Pakistan becomes a “failed state”, the failure will, in large part, be one of democratic imagination in Washington and London. We simply refuse to practise what we preach.

This Simon Jenkins article in the Guardian is a very good summation of the paradoxes and complexities of Pakistan. However, when I flipped open today's opinion page in the paper here in Miami I was greeted with the buffoon Pinkerton. He is not some obscure RW blogging nutjob but rather a nationally syndicated columnist. I'll say it again. This isn't about ideology. This is about having to read (and dispute if you're a blogger) columnists' claims that I personally wouldn't publish in a high school newsletter, because somehow, someway, they make it into the biggest newspapers in the country.

Real Danger

The last thing in the world I'm doing is advocating a military intervention - nevertheless I can't help but point out that the highly perilous situation now in a country ruled by a dictator,  is among the nuclear powers and has a very significant radicalized segment of the population replete with a violent anti-Westernism is oh, I don't know, maybe ten thousand times more dangerous than Iraq in 2003.

Wingnut Logic

The extreme right's argument regarding terrorism, epitomized by the cliche driven, simplistic,and mendacious Michelle Maglalang (Malkin), can be essentially understood by the following analogy.

A patient is diagnosed with a life-threatening disease that needs surgery urgently. The doctor, with little forethought, cuts open the patient and removes whatever they can find. Then they rush through the closing procedure so as to be free to operate on someone who has a mild case of appendicitis, when surgery in this case was probably the worst alternative.

In the subsequent procedure, the doctor does such a poor job that now the new patient has a host of infections and related illnesses and is on deathbed. Meanwhile the original patient, whose disease could have been treated if extreme care had been used, is also knocking on death's door and the potential for the disease to spread has increased manifold.

But on the sixth year anniversary of the discovery of the original disease Malkin and her ilk proudly point out that the disease that rendered the first patient critical will never be forgotten. Oh, and for anyone who looks like they might be a carrier of the disease to be denounced to the health authorities. After all, a search for a cure would just be "justifying" the disease.

I guess the 'do no harm' thing doesn't apply when dealing in war. Do as much harm as you want - whether it means seeing hundreds of thousands die and millions more become refugees while at the same time creating a substantially higher risk of more attacks - as long as you do not forget about the original attack while inexpertly pointing out people who may be after you based solely on their appearance.

Yeah, that's the way to go about it.

[To learn about the absurdities of Maglalang's John Doe Movement see here and especially here. This is the psuedo-populist movement designed to protect the American populace from terrorist attacks by having good old American whites reporting every foreigner who looks suspicious and in the process keeping community swimming pools safe from Shari law. You know, the movement named after Frank Capra's movie about "contemporary realities: the ugly face of hate; the power of uniformed bigots in red, white, and blue shirts; the agony of disillusionment, and the wild dark passions of mobs."]

Friedman and Extremism

Living within the beast it is sometimes difficult to determine the actual degree of lunacy, delusion and extremism that exists, not just among the wingnuts and their media whores like Fox and Limbaugh, but in mainstream society and mainstream media as well ... ok, not so difficult in the media.

Atrios and The Editors have been discussing that so-called liberal hawk little Tommy Friedman's insane commentary a few years back on Charlie Rose (video below) (btw I know Atrios calls him little Tommy now but I have been calling him this for years).

So let's first check out some of the seriousness of the Fried Man.

This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things “martyrs” was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such “martyrs” was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die....

You think we are going to let this bubble fantasy go. Well suck on this...

Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don’t believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government — and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen — got the message.

"Suck on this?" "Because we could?" What, is he ten years old? Yes, that kind of psuedo machoism by multimillionaire pundits is totally effective when dealing with international crises, dictators, terrorism and  protracted and entrenched grievances between sovereign states.

And we can see how that attitude has been working out.

Anyway, this made me think of a conversation I had the other day with an American who had once been involved in the media and is a self-described independent along with a guy from Peru. We were talking about Reagan and his legacy. Me...I'm not exactly a big Reagan fan. (From Empire's Workshop, Greg Grandin)

All told, U.S. allies in Central America during Reagan's two terms killed over 300,000 people, tortured hundreds of thousands, and drove millions into exile (pg 71)

Reagan still took every opportunity he could to laud the Guatemalan regime, even though his administration had full knowledge that troops had orders 'to eliminate all sources of resistance" and were engaged in "large-scale killing of Indian men, women and children." Just a day before the Guatemalan army committed a particularly gruesome massacre (over the course of three days soldiers in a small village called Dos Erres killed more than 160 people, including 65 children who were swung by their feet so their heads were smashed on rocks), Reagan met with Efrain Rios Montt, the president of Guatemala and one of the principal architects of the genocide. Reagan complained to the press that his Central American counterpart, an evangelical Christian with strong ties to the fundamentalist movement in the United States, was getting a "bad deal" from his critics and assured reporters that Rios Montt was "totally committed to democracy." (pg 109-110)

What was significant about the conversation I had was not that my depiction of Reagan's actions were disputed, rather that both the American and Peruvian talked about the "greater good." One of them stated that in Iraq - displaying the same logic as little Tommy - that the Sunnis had to be wiped out ... for the greater good.

The greater good argument is absolutely appalling. Of course the first thing to ask is what gives anyone the right to kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people for some notion of a future "greater good." Whose greater good is this? Who gets to decide?

Further, note the parallel between this position and the one Friedman attributes to "the Muslims," - that it is Ok to fly a plane into a building in New York (or for that matter smash children's head on rocks, or drop bombs indiscriminately killing thousands. (Though in typical Friedmanese, he manages to refer to the bubble as a source of proclamations. Later in the interview the magic bubble becomes capable of "leveling" things)

This is no different whatsoever from Ward Churchill's nonsense of "little Eichmanns." The logic is the same, but Churchill (rightfully) is considered a nut and his attempt to justify the murder of the innocent people on 9/11 is almost universally condemned. In fact, in a sense invoking the "greater good" argument is worse. There is not even an attempt - unlike Churchill - to lay some guilt on the innocent. It really boils down to that we can kill thousands of innocent and you can't because we are thinking of the greater good and we are on the side of justice and nobility (or god - which of course is what Al-Qaeda argues as well). This is not only illogical and hypocritical but morally repugnant as well.

What is equally striking is that this somehow considered acceptable discourse. The kill them all (for the greater good of course) and let god sort them out  argument is no longer considered the ramblings of the loony fringe, but to me appears to be a position thoroughly defensible in mainstream society. Obviously I don't base this observation solely on the conversation I had the other night. Rather afterwards, it occurred to me how that discussion was not untypical.

And notion is seriously scary.

Agent Provocateurs Again

(Updated below)

Those who are not, and usually never have been, involved in a street protest, typically form their opinions of the protesters and their causes by watching the news on TV. The  protesters, meanwhile, have sworn for years - from the Genoa to Quebec City to Miami and everywhere in between - that agent provocateurs have infiltrated their ranks in order to give an excuse for the police to implement their heavy handed techniques.  Unfortunately all the average person sees by watching the evening news is the mainstream media's portrayal of the violence as being orchestrated by countless trouble makers within the actual protest movement.

And those who decide to make their voice heard protesting various injustices get labeled as wacked-out extremists determined to cause violence. Usually, though, this is not the case.

Take this account of the protest in Genoa in 2001:

...the police routinely plant infiltrators and agent provocateurs in the crowd. Four men masked-up and dressed all in black, as if they were Black Bloc members, were filmed getting out of the back of a police van and smashing up a bank. A prominent Italian Socialist MP told of how he observed a large number of similarly dressed men armed with various different weapons in a police station the morning of Friday 20th. I heard from another Irish protestor how, wearing a black t-shirt, he had felt something on his back at the GR protest early on Friday morning. He turned around, and there was no-one there. Later that day, when changing his clothes, he noticed that a large white X had been chalked on his back. A number of other black-clad protestors had been marked or covertly sprayed with red and yellow paint, being marked out for police snatch squads, presumably assumed to be members of the Black Bloc.

But, as the same writer continues it is often the authorities in charge of security who initiate the violence.

...As we sat around the campsite fire drinking wine and discussing the days events, spirits were high following what has since been hailed as the largest peaceful protest of our generation (the like of which has not been seen since the Sixties). The mood quickly turned as we were told of events at the Indy Media Centre that night by a clearly frightened and out of breath witness. A large squad of Carabinieri [military police of Italy] had stormed the IMC and the school beside it, also part of the IMC, and after locking the doors, had proceeded to violently beat all inside before arresting them on trumped up charges of resisting arrest and possession of weapons. They had claimed it was the headquarters of the Black Bloc; the real reason for this flagrant abuse of human rights was that much video and photographic evidence against the illegal actions of the police were contained within. They confiscated video cameras and tapes, computer hard-drives and photo films. I downloaded a video from the internet, filmed by one of the 6 who had escaped out a window at the back of the building, which showed a woman holding her hands above her head pleading "Non violencia, non violencia" repeatedly as a Carabinieri approached her. He drew back and smashed her in the face with his baton, and proceeded to kick and beat her as she fell to the ground. Another joined in, and continued to beat her until she stopped screaming. As the police left, photographs were taken of the blood-drenched walls and floor. 90 people from the IMC were arrested and badly beaten while in police custody. In a report written by an Italian police officer, we are told of the way in which those arrested were treated: "They lined them up and banged their heads against the walls. They urinated on one person. They beat people if they didn't sing Facetta Nera [A Fascist hymn]. One girl was vomiting blood but the chief of the squad just looked on. They threatened to rape girls with their batons." These actions were sanctioned by the State, and still have not been officially condemned, thus abolishing the thin veil of democracy under which we supposedly live. And still little concerning these atrocities has been reported in the mainstream media.

So what does the average person forming his opinion based on media accounts believe?

Those who write the news would have you believe that the protests were little more than an unruly gang of youths and hooligans smashing up shop-fronts with completely apolitical motivations. Although discouraging, it is hardly surprising that the media focused on 2000 rioters rather than over a quarter of a million non-violent protesters marching peacefully against the global ravages of capitalism on Saturday 21st July.

I have been to a couple of protests like these, in Argentina, and in Cancun, and I can assure you that those who are agent provocateurs are well-known and easily identified - though try convincing the average couch potato that they even exist. Further, I can assure anyone that the vast majority are not there to undertake any violent action whatsoever.

Well now more evidence has surfaced - much to my embarrassment in my own country - that sleazy behavior by police continues.

Protesters are accusing police of using undercover agents to provoke violent confrontations at the North American leaders' summit in Montebello, Que...

A video, posted on YouTube, shows three young men, their faces masked by bandannas, mingling Monday with protesters in front of a line of police in riot gear. At least one of the masked men is holding a rock in his hand.

The three are confronted by protest organizer Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. Coles makes it clear the masked men are not welcome among his group of protesters, whom he describes as mainly grandparents. He urges them to leave and find their own protest location.

Coles also demands that they put down their rocks. Other protesters begin to chime in that the three are really police agents. Several try to snatch the bandanas from their faces.

Rather than leave, the three actually start edging closer to the police line, where they appear to engage in discussions. They eventually push their way past an officer, whereupon other police shove them to the ground and handcuff them.

Late Tuesday, photographs taken by another protester surfaced, showing the trio lying prone on the ground. The photos show the soles of their boots adorned by yellow triangles. A police officer kneeling beside the men has an identical yellow triangle on the sole of his boot...

...The three do not appear to have been arrested or charged with any offence.

With the advent of YouTube hopefully the criminal actions of the authorities will become much more publicized and understood. Here is the video of the despicable scene from Quebec.

How pathetic is that?

Update: The Quebec provincial police now admit it:

Quebec provincial police are defending the actions of its three agents who posed as protesters during this week's North American Leaders' summit in Montebello, Que.

Insp. Marcel Savard defended the three agents today at a news conference in Montreal and insisted they were not there to provoke demonstrators.

He also says one of the officers was given a rock by protesters but the officer had no intention of using it.

After originally denying it, the force has admitted the trio were involved in the protest after a video clip of the them showed up on the popular website, Youtube.com...

But don't worry, the Quebec provincial government will not let this type of conduct slide.

A spokeswoman for Quebec Public Security Minister Jacques Dupuis says the minister won't comment on the actions of the officers because he doesn't get involved in police operations.

Well, local governments sure don't seem to have a problem getting involved in "protest operations." But no need to worry. The Canadian federal government will certainly look into this.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day has already rejected opposition calls for an inquiry.

Ok, not so much. Well, then, maybe now the media will vastly change its portrayal of protesters, focusing instead on the unethical and sleazy behavior of those who are supposed to be on the side of law and justice but instead do anything to tarnish the opposition to the status quo image while protecting the most powerful interests in society.

But then again, I'm not holding my breath.

In principle, I have nothing against police surveillance work. Those sorts of operations can be perfectly viable, especially at events where a small group of rabid, anarchist protesters have been known to incite full-fledged riot scenes. But there is fine line between reconnaissance operations and inciting protesters so that you can make the big arrest. The story at Montebello clearly appears to be a case of the latter, and, worse still, the pitiful work of amateurish incompetants.

The author of this editorial rightfully portrays this protest as one of older folks determined to keep the peace. But notice that by the end of the article he brings up once again the "rabid, anarchist protesters." Sure they exist, but does he really think that this is the first time police have sent in undercover cops with the express reason to stir it up and give security forces a chance to bust some heads? There will be some small repercussions but in the end it will always be the protesters who are blamed for any violence. You can count on it.

Paying three agents to go undercover. Price: a few hundred bucks.

Defending this as a legitimate operation: Priceless

New UN Leader

Ban Ki-Moon took the oath of office today as the new UN Secretary-General. For a decent perspective on the challenges the South Korean faces, see here.

A Rummy

A couple of days ago in an opinion article in the Toronto Globe and Mail this was the lede:

In the past few months, we have seen a serious deterioration of the situation in Darfur, which has now reached into neighbouring Chad. Massive militia attacks against civilians and displaced people have been reported, as well as indiscriminate aerial bombing of villages on both sides of the border.

Whether it be Iraq, or Afghanistan or Darfur, why does it seem that for years we have "seen a serious deterioration of the situation" "in the past few months."

We already have the appropriately named "a Friedman" to indicate the "critical period" of next six months, beginning at the moment the column or post is written, whenever that may be. Perhaps we need a simple term to refer to "a serious deterioration of the situation in the past few months."Nothing says "a serious deterioration of a situation" more than Donald Rumsfeld, and, besides, we need something to honour his outstanding performance as the Secretary of War now he as been relegated to the proverbial dustbin of history.  So it would be like, In Iraq there has been a Rummy and we have a Friedman to turn it around.

Much easier to type every couple of weeks.

(btw, in the column cited above the writer, Jean-Francois Thibault states:

But what was until recently a serious, yet limited, humanitarian crisis has now developed into a regional crisis threatening to extend farther into the Central African Republic and even, on the other side of Chad, to Niger, where Chadian rebels are seeking recruits to fight in Darfur.

Of course, a regional crisis would be worse and whenever the MSM notes the ongoing tragedy in Darfur that is positive. But, what exactly is Thibault's definition of a "limited humanitarian crisis?"

In September I noted how a study indicated that there could be 400 000 killed in Darfur, never mind the hundreds of thousands who have had to leave their homes. I really don't believe "limited" is the right word there.)

A Little Sensitive to Name Calling Are We

So Bush goes to visit speaks to the leader of India, a member of the nuclear club in Asia. What do you think Bush would choose to talk about?

Chavez of course.

On Monday, October 16, President Bush spoke to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The Indian side was expecting reassurances about the fate of the nuclear deal, still stuck in the mire of the American legislative system. But, apart from a perfunctory reassurance on the matter, President Bush chose to concentrate on another issue -- the United Nations Security Council.

No, it was not about India's presence or absence at the high table, but the identity of the next representative from Latin America...

Seem a little schoolyard to you? (Syria was a member of the previous Security Council you may recall)