My Brief Article is below. I spend most of my time looking at local News, but yesterday I happened to notice that Iraq voted on their constitution, the results were disputed and there was a 10 day recount which cast the results into doubt. Sunni Leaders said things like "The people were shocked to find out that their vote is worthless because of the major fraud that takes place in Iraq," and called the election a "farce". Sunnis are the main force behind the insurgency, and the group who was in power untill the US invasion. In the last election in January they boycotted the vote because they didn't trust the system, this time they voted overwelmingly against the constitution and it passed anyway. leaving them with the impression that their vote doesen't matter (kind of like us in America, but they're not desensitized and jaded yet so it realy pisses them off and makes them want to overthrow the government by force).



Iraq Constitution is a sign of Civil War, not Democracy


The problem is this: the Sunni Arabs (who are the major force behind the insurgency) actually voted this time… and it didn’t work. Despite all of our promises about democracy and freedom, they tried doing it Our Way, and it backfired. If you can’t trust democracy to achieve change, what do you have left? Violence.

Sunnis fear they are being excluded, and left on land that has no oil and no wealth. The new constitution paves the way for a semi-autonomous Kurdish Region in the north and a Shiite region in the south, both of which have large supplies of oil. The Sunnis are becoming an impoverished and desperate minority in the country. This is not a good formula for peace.

Unfortunately the US doesn’t care. As long as the two tribes that do have all the oil are our buddies we make out just fine. We can give them weapons to repress the desperate minority and they can give us oil. It’s a win-win situation, unless you’re concerned about justice. Don’t believe me? Our government isn’t as modern as we might hope, they see the world in terms of survival of the fittest. This is all very practical geopolitical, ‘realist’, state centered strategy.

News Excerpts Below


Reuters - Iraq voters approve constitution
10-25-2005

By Claudia Parsons and Andrew Quinn

“BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi voters ratified a new U.S.-backed constitution despite bitter opposition in Sunni Arab areas where insurgents are battling to topple the Baghdad government, results showed on Tuesday.

Iraq's Electoral Commission, giving final results from the October 15 referendum, said 79 percent of voters backed the constitution against 21 percent opposed in a poll split largely along Iraq's sectarian and ethnic lines.

Several Shi'ite and Kurdish regions voted between 95 and 99 percent "Yes"; in rebellious, Sunni Anbar 97 percent said "No".

Prominent Sunni Arab leaders rejected the referendum as a fraud, warning it could fuel militant violence and discourage Sunnis from participating in future elections.”


AP - Iraq's Constitution Ratified by Voters
10-25-2005

By MARIAM FAM, Associated Press Writer

“The strong negative vote by Sunni Arabs, however, raised questions whether the charter would succeed in luring Sunnis away from the insurgency. Many Sunni Arabs fear the constitution will create virtually autonomous and oil-rich mini-states of Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south, leaving Sunnis isolated in poor central and western regions with a weak central government in Baghdad.

Saleh al-Mutlaq, a Sunni Arab member of the committee that drafted the constitution, called the referendum "a farce" and accused the Shiite and Kurdish-dominated government of stealing ballot boxes to reduce the percentage of "no" votes in several provinces.

"The people were shocked to find out that their vote is worthless because of the major fraud that takes place in Iraq," he said on Al-Arabiya television.
Much will depend on whether Sunni Arabs vote in large numbers in the Dec. 15 elections. A Sunni boycott of the Jan. 30 balloting enabled Shiites and Kurds to dominate parliament and take the lead role in drafting the constitution.”

here is a fantastic article from Buffalo Rising about the casino. Think about it. this is a permanent change to our city. how will it change us? how will it change the downtown urban living and sightseeing environment. Please make a phone call or write a letter, stop this nonsense. you can find contact information in the Buffalo Rising Article.

Downtown Casino: Are We Sheep?
by Figmo

Simply put, putting a casino in Downtown Buffalo is the dumbest and most dangerous idea anyone's had in a while. To give away the center of an area finally in the throes of a residential turnaround to a sovereign nation with no obligation to community development standards and guidelines is stupid. To build a low-budget, third rate casino catering to busloads of sad cases carrying plastic cups filled with loose change in the middle of an area where many developers with vision have taken a chance and sunk significant chunks of capital into high-end residential development-that's the ballgame, folks.

Click for the Rest

the casino in Buffalo... there's a lot to the issue, but one thing about it is really offending me right now... NOBODY ASKED US! The governor woke up one morning and said "I know how I'm going to close the gap in our budget, I'm take a piece of Buffalo and give it away to a sovereign nation. They can take the land right off of the tax rolls and make $150 million off of it each year from a casino." And he didn't even ask the State government, nor the Erie County or Buffalo government. And he sure as hell didn't use a referendum to ask us, the people who live here. I'm offended, in fact it really pisses me off.

Especially since Buffalo is not doing bad right now, there's actually a lot of old architectural gems being renovated and turned into mixed use apartments and commercial buildings. And new buildings are even starting to fill in the parking lots. The nice areas of the city are actually growing, as more people are moving into the downtown neighborhoods. Main St is improving from the theatre district past the medical campus and all the way up to the Artspace lofts project near Summer St. There's also the interesting Health Now building right behind City Hall and all kinds of stuff is happening. All we need is for the government not to screw up real bad. You can read about it at Buffalo Rising's City page . Now is not the time to be giving pieces of downtown real estate away to a sovereign nation.

The jobs argument is bullshit, look at other cities that have tried this, like Atlantic city, Detroit, or Niagara Falls, yes even in Niagara Falls at least two hotels and a restaurant have closed, and they actually have tourists! By contrast 80% of the money that the casino makes in Buffalo is going to come from us, the local economy, and it's not staying here, it's going to the Senecas.

The casino will also be nicely situated at the center of all the bus routes, Downtown, where people who can't afford cars can easily get to. Not so with the Niagara Falls or Salamanca casinos. The poor in Buffalo are going to get poorer. I live in an inexpensive Allentown apartment, most of my neighbors in this building are poor, both white and black, I thought about them. Who would go, would they spend more money than they could afford, and what would they do to try and get that money back? What would happen to our neighborhood because of their poverty? I don't like what I see, really.. more theft, more drugs, more broken car windows and missing stereos, more people outside bothering you for change, or asking you to buy their crap, electronics and fake drugs. It won't be as nice of a neighborhood. This is one of the most pedestrian friendly and architecturally beautiful sections of the city, but people will enjoy it less, and less often, because they will be harassed and confronted by the struggling poor.

It's not good, I mean seriously if you want numbers here's some stuff from Donn Esmonde's recent article :

The casino will make $150 million a year

About 80 percent of the people who will gamble at a Buffalo casino live within 50 miles of Buffalo,

The casino brings about 1,000 jobs (although at a cost of some existing jobs), with those workers taking home about $25 million a year.

The state gets about $30 million of the annual casino profits,
With the City and County splitting about $7 million.

But $25 million in take-home pay and a $7 million local cut doesn't balance the nearly $150 million we'll pay for it.

"The number one casino spinoff business is a gas station," Thompson said. "Maybe a restaurant within walking distance . . . Most people going to the casino won't do a single thing in Buffalo other than gamble."



If you read this whole thing you definitely care enough to call some representatives and say that if a casino is proposed the public should have a say,
tell them to introduce a bill to their legislature so that they have to address the issue and hear from their constituents about it.
Or encourage them to sponsor a referendum for the people to vote on. This process is going way too fast, it needs to be properly deliberated. We are handing over a chunk of our city.
You may have read in my last post that there is a public comment period from now until November 7th, you have to fax (FAX# 202-208-6950) or e-mail (webteam@ios.doi.gov) Gale Norton, the Interior Secretary, she's the one who approves land transfers. I encouraged my representatives to send her a fax as well.

You can find your city reps here:
County reps here:
State reps here:

I'd like to point out a couple things about the anti-torture amendment to the latest $445,000,000,000 War spending Bill.
The amendment was spearheaded by John McCain. A good guy in my opinion who unlike most of our Washington officials actually SERVED in the military, and he was a war prisoner. Meaning essentially that he understands what life is like in war. he gets his information from experience instead of movies like Bush and most everyone in his cabinet. interesting.
also the wording of the amendment is not as ambiguous as I originally thought. It bans "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" which as honorable a policy as it is vague. "Cruel" or "degrading" mean a million things to a million people. but McCain and his cosponsors were not looking for a feelgood amendment they actually are looking to set standards at the federal level, and to learn exactly what those standards are the amendment refers you to the "Army Field Manual". standards the army has already agreed upon.

interesting facts.

I got a kick out of this article in the NY Times today.

---

Senate Moves to Protect Military Prisoners Despite Veto Threat

WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - Defying the White House, the Senate overwhelmingly agreed Wednesday to regulate the detention, interrogation and treatment of prisoners held by the American military.

The measure ignited a fierce debate among many Senate Republicans and the White House, which threatened to veto a $440 billion military spending bill if the detention amendment was tacked on, saying it would bind the president's hands in wartime. Nonetheless, the measure passed, 90 to 9, with 46 Republicans, including Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, joining 43 Democrats and one independent in favor.

More than two dozen retired senior military officers, including Colin L. Powell and John M. Shalikashvili, two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, endorsed the amendment, which would ban use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in United States government custody.

---

The President wants to veto a bill banning the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" That speaks volumes about this administration. seriously, what kind of America is this guy from?!?!