On topic with our afternoon open thread, here's a selection from one of my favorites — Tom Waits.

This past Wednesday was Israeli Independence Day, the 60th, which makes it the diamond anniversary. Naturally, Palestinians saw little reason to celebrate, and they were not alone.

Over 100 prominent British Jews issued a letter proclaiming "We're Not Celebrating Israel's Anniversary." From the letter:

We cannot celebrate the birthday of a state founded on terrorism, massacres and the dispossession of another people from their land. We cannot celebrate the birthday of a state that even now engages in ethnic cleansing, that violates international law, that is inflicting a monstrous collective punishment on the civilian population of Gaza and that continues to deny to Palestinians their human rights and national aspirations. We will celebrate when Arab and Jew live as equals in a peaceful Middle East."

In July 1948, 70,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes in Lydda and Ramleh in the heat of the summer with no food or water. Hundreds died. It was known as the Death March. We will not be celebrating.

In all, 750,000 Palestinians became refugees. Some 400 villages were wiped off the map. That did not end the ethnic cleansing. Thousands of Palestinians were expelled from the Galilee in 1956. Many thousands more when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. Under international law and sanctioned by UN resolution 194, refugees from war have a right to return or compensation. Israel has never accepted that right. We will not be celebrating.

In the stifling heat that surrounds the Israel/Palestine debate, there's one point that, in my mind, is unquestionable; the nuts and bolts of Israeli state-formation were an act of cruelty by Western governments.

Though the Rice-Bush thinks there will be peace in the holy land by year's end, reality is once again at odds with the world view of our nation's most prominent representatives. Unless something truly biblical in its consequences happens, the 61st Israeli independence day will not be celebrated, or protested, amidst peace. Until that peace happens, the violence and bloodshed that ensues will continue on as a testament to the West's arrogance.

Though the equation above draws scorn from most journalists, and a large segment of the U.S. population sneers at the title of "blogger," the profession (occupation? (hobby?) (pass time?)) occasionally gets some credit. Most often this share of praise falls upon foreign shoulders, where blogging is a much riskier endeavor. Por ejemplo,Yoani Sanchez, a Cuban blogger, was given a prestigious Spanish press award.

Indeed, both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have run prominently placed articles on Sanchez, who writes a blog Generacion Y, based in Havana.

As I said, this sort of recognition eludes bloggers in the US, largely because our media here is "free." "What need is there for bloggers when we have a robust media acting as the government and corporate watchdog?" many reason. "They only rant and post stupid pictures of cats."

Well, it's hard to rebut some of that, but given that our mainstream media is so clearly beholden to corporations, and its level of reporting is so often abysmal, the US blogosphere should be getting a lot more credit.

So, for all you Tom Paine's out there, this morning thread is for you.

Colorado's Democratic candidate for Senate Mark Udall is smelling of roses after coming out against the obviously flawed "gas tax holiday" proposed by the faded star that is Hillary Clinton.

Senator Clinton claimed yesterday that I either stand with her on this proposal or stand with the oil companies. To that I say: I stand with the families of Colorado, who aren't looking for bumper sticker fixes that don't fix anything, but for meaningful change that brings real relief and a new direction for our energy policy.

David Sirota, posting at the Denver Post's Politics West, explains the importance of the stance:

Understand that Colorado is a major oil and gas state, with a politically aggressive energy industry. So here we have one of the state's highest-profile politicians running for higher office, and taking courageous step to confront a major politician of his own party (and, by extension, her donors) and to challenge one of the most ruthless industries in his state.

But Udall is going beyond mere criticism; he's proposing his own plan for relieving the toll taken at the pump:

Immediately, we ought to cease filling the strategic petroleum reserve and redirect that oil onto the market. We've done it in the past under the leadership of President Clinton and this President Bush and we saw almost an immediate drop in price from somewhere in the range of .15 to .25 cents per gallon.

Ideally, we'd be dealing with exorbitant gas prices by using less of it — changing stagnant and cancerous habits — but in lieu of that, Udall is recommending we push renewable energies, and stop subsidizing oil and gas with tax credits:

Those subsidies I'd like to see directed into renewable fuels; wind power and solar power and all the opportunities we have in Colorado.

Compared to his opponent, oil company pawn and sweatshop enthusiast Bob Schaffer, Udall is the prince of princes. Let's hope Colorado voters are seeing it the same way.

Bolivia is on edge after more than 80% of voters in the resource-rich Santa Cruz region approved a referendum for greater autonomy. President Evo Morales, who has met with stiff opposition in his attempt to more evenly distribute Bolivia's wealth, dismissed the referendum as illegal. Nevertheless, he has promised to open dialogue with the opposition. Class issues are at the heart of the tension.

The BBC reports:

Mr Morales has promised radical reforms that he hopes will lead Bolivia, the poorest country in South America, out of poverty.
Leaders in Santa Cruz - home to about 25% of Bolivia's population - have demanded more local control over their resources. They feel threatened by a draft constitution that proposes to limit large land holdings.
The proposals voted on in Sunday's poll include giving Santa Cruz more control over land distribution - and rich oil and gas reserves. They also provide for the creation of a local police force.

Clearly Morales is in a tight spot. The wealth generated by the southern regions is vital to his ambitions as president, but his attempts at reform are swelling the enthusiasm for autonomy proportionally.

As the situation develops, Morales will be forced to cede greater autonomy to the regions; a refusal to do so would push Boliva over the brink. Less certain is the amount of autonomy Morales is willing to grant as he attempts to appease dissidents in Santa Cruz, and how his espoused vision of autonomy will reconcile with that proposed in the referendum:

"Let's work together tomorrow for a true autonomy," he [Morales] added. "For the people, and not just certain groups - an autonomy that permits the people to decide their destiny."

It remains to be seen if Morales' version will approach what is desired by the wealthy southern regions. If their politicians are resolute, Morales' vision for Bolivia's future may be irreparably compromised.
 

Ladies and gentlemen, the inimitable Al Green.

Continuing with the theme of our afternoon open thread, here's a choice bit from a Washington Post article:

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Herb has less deleterious effects on one's health than alcohol and nicotine, and yet we lock up thousands every year for its mere possession. Those possession arrests cost taxpayers an estimated $4 billion a year.

Are we doing this because politicians legitimately believe that keeping marijuana illegal, thereby pushing its sale outside the government's reach and enriching dealers and growers both here and abroad, is the smartest policy? Or are we doing it because the government needs bodies to legitimize the tragedy that is our prison-industrial complex?

Some staggering statistics: one in 100 American adults are in prison, one in every 9 black men between the ages of 20 and 34 is locked up, and, though the United States has less than 5% of the world's population, it provides 25% of its prisoners. In this area, the US is by far the world leader.

It begs the question — why is America a nation of criminals? Naturally, people differ in their explanations. This comment thread on the topic offers some common examples; "higher crime rates are just part of our national character," "it's due to our strong, general ideas of individualism," and "violence seems to be worshiped in American society."

Rather than scrutinize the government and its institutions that lock up our men and women, these individuals attribute our world-leading prison population to "national character." This is pure folly.

To even speak of a national character is absurd; the Northeast is not the Northwest, is not the South, is not Texas, and so on. And the nation's character is not only divided geographically — sub-groupings of the population within each of these regions differ considerably in character.

But, even if one accepts the state-propagated myth that there is such a thing as a "national character," the statistics don't back up that ours is, and always has been, inherently criminal. From the International Herald Tribune:

The spike in American incarceration rates is quite recent. From 1925 to 1975, the rate remained stable, around 110 people in prison per 100,000 people. It shot up with the movement to get tough on crime in the late 1970s.

Was our government letting criminals off the hook until 1975? Did we change our national character in the turbulent decade of the 70s? Of course not. After 1975, our government simply started changing the definition of a criminal in order to get more on the hook?

Again, from the IHT article:

Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

Notice that this recent approach to crime and punishment coincides with the implementation of Reagan's neoliberal policies, which included a roll-back of state spending on social programs, and a roll-out in state spending on more belligerent programs like national defense and our prison-industrial complex. Prisoners need to be fed, watched, clothed, and sheltered, meaning prisons need to be built, staffed and maintained. Economies are built around the devastation of the lives of young men and women.

It's no surprise that our government prefers building state-sponsored economies that hurt our population over ones that help it, but it is surprising that more people don't connect the dots. It's the character of our government, not our population, that's criminal.

Ever vigilant in its role as protector of the poor, the tired and the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the United States is urging Arab nations to make good on their pledged aid contributions to Palestine.

US officials say that of $717m promised by Arab League members, only $153m of Arab pledges have been delivered, all from three countries: Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Algeria.

Their failure to deliver has tangible consequences:

British aid agencies warned that ordinary life in Gaza was becoming "intolerable".

"Only a trickle of medicine, food, fuel and other goods is being allowed in," warned a statement from agencies including Oxfam and Christian Aid.

"It has made people highly dependent on food aid, and brought the health system and basic services such as water and sanitation near to collapse."

Condoleeza Rice did not single out any nations, but said "clearly when you make a pledge you ought to fulfill it."

That's sage advice, but it reeks of hypocrisy coming from an official of the United States government; in what is perhaps an attempt at manifesting the impotent image the US government paints of the United Nations, it has repeatedly failed to deliver timely payment of its dues.

This too has tangible consequences in the world community, and "reflects on US credibility on everything."

Egypt and other developing countries argue that the American arrears are illegal. "It is not an act of charity," said Ahmed Darwish, an Egyptian diplomat.

US arrears force the United Nations to borrow against peacekeeping funds. "We are deprived of getting reimbursed for doing our part in peacekeeping," said Darwish, whose country is owed $22 million for troops and equipment. The United Nations owes India some $51 million …

If the United States wants to be remain anything more than a self-proclaimed world leader, a change of habits is in order. That's my obvious statement of the day, what's yours?

Trouble was brewing in Bolivia long before Evo Morales came into office. The stove was lit soon as the Spanish read the Requerimiento. Morales' election simply upped the burner.

Not long after he came to office, wealthy Bolivians in Santa Cruz and the resource-rich southern regions have been looking for the exit, pushing for autonomy from the central government. Now, with a May 4 referendum on the issue approaching, Morales and his closest allies — Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega and Cuban vice-president Carlos Lage — got together to denounce the vote, and highlight the economic motive behind it;

If we look at history, we see that there have always been demands for federalism when the rich minority have lost control of central government, but when they get it back again, they forget all about autonomy.

Indeed, this move should be interpreted as fearful Bolivian power-brokers trying to shore up their power, nothing more. While it's still too early to know how this will play out, it does raise interesting questions regarding secession.

In the case of Kosovo, Chechnya, or Darfur, most individuals on the Left enthusiastically support autonomy. I've even heard declarations that any group desiring autonomy should be granted it. But cases like this (as well as the American civil war) work against that argument. It's clear that secession can be used to either promote or undermine justice.

So where do we draw the line? As Alex previously noted, "somewhere between the stance of 'no border changes' and 'every ethnic/national/religious group should form their own country if they want' is some middle ground." This case is clear cut–Bolivia should remain intact. The overriding question, however, remains the same; where is that middle ground?