Originally posted by Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar: Easily and mathematically explained. Right on

I suspect otherwise. He is not that hawkish but important constituents of his are hence the tough talk coming out from his campaign. Let's see how he balances his independent credentials with the newly acquired taste of Neconservatism dish! I can't wait how GOP's playbook gets played!

^Hold on to every bit of hope that folks have wisen up and nineties style of Habar-Shiish vs. Habar-Kuuleey will not rear its ugly head again. Talk about having skeleton with lil meat here and there right in the closet! On Oodweyne, Here he goes again. SOL’s professional manure slinger is back! The sort of words that come easily to this man!!! We are ashamed to have a quarrelsome braggart -- a windbag in Rush Limbaugh’s mold -- whose writing style is famed for its unapologetic and extreme partisanship in our midst. I’m trying my best to put up with his never ending vomit. I’m this close to let all out but barely.... I don’t have time to put this clannish lunatic in his place for I’m too busy to do justice on the pathology he so theatrically advances on this board. Suffice to say that the only reason I’m so hastily filing this entry is to serve as a check or rather balance the scale. First thing first, my man Oodweyne knows no facts or very few facts and not much history, judging from the cantrabaqash he writes on this board -- this judgment is limited on the Somali issues. I used to ask myself whether Oodweyne believes in what he writes. Not anymore! I concluded that he hides, or tries to hide, an essential truth for the sake of winning the argument. What happened to Somalis is simply a tragedy -- a one in monumental proportions. To brag about the demise of entire nation and consequences the demise of a nation entails is simply unconscionable!!!!! This is the essential truth. Know this buddy: “D” might have ruled, directly or indirectly, the state since its inception. Yes. Taking arms against unjust rulers is justified provided removal of the malevolent leaders can be achieved without farther worsening what was alreday a bad situation. But by golly liquidating the entire state especially when anarchy is the only alternative is not a defeat for certain segments of the population but defeat for all. The defeat is wall to wall. For you to take a megaphone and hammer this bit day in and day out says a lot about your moral caliber. How Folks who reside in Benadir, Hiiraan, or even in Bay can be characterized as winners in this tragedy is beyond me. To Oodweyne the answer is simple, he got his own fiefdom and as far as he is concerned he wrestled that price from certain segment hence his fixation on defeat-victory dichotomy. He won. They lost. All others should be content for Afweyne is history. Watertight logic huh! You better believe it buddy! What do you make of someone who tries to take credit in the suffering of the thousands and thousands of civilians languishing in the shabby foreign refugee camps? Don’t mince words in answering this simple and straightforward question! That someone is Oodweyne. The depth this man is willing to go -- in online forum putting his sacred honor on the line -- is quite amazing. I don’t know him in person but his views toward some segment of Somalis strike me as being dangerous. I don’t mind if he keeps keeping on the Anglophile and Italophile dichotomy and proceeds from there with his not-so intelligent divisive secessionism which gains its stem from past and now defunct colonial subjugation. That sort of argument is fine by me, really. Two steps backward: The pro-secessionists simpletons on this site confuse opposition to secessionism to envy or even hatred. Let me assure you that’s not the case. There are also those who try to justify an ill conceived political blunder in the larger scheme of things and jump two hoops in arguing that civil strife down the south leaves them no alternative but to embrace separatists drive to revive former and now defunct British colonial legacy. The logic there is circular. The question now becomes are you for secessionism only because of the civil strife in the South or are you for secessionism because you buy the argument that secessionism basically entails restoration of lost sovereignty? What if the will of the people in certain segment of what used to be British Protectorate is against the dismemberment drive as manifested in Sool and Sanaag? How should one go about demarcating clan -- or to be politically correct in this joint clan based districts -- borders? These are pertinent questions that hit the epicenter of secessionists’ project. Two steps forward: Despite Oodweyne’s the doom gloom world he so wishes for everyone else other than his own clan fiefdom, there are hopeful signs that political wing of UIC and TFG’s Nur Cadde are negotiating a scenario in which Tigre’s trrops will be withdrawn from Benadir and be confined to Bay region and in return the UIC guarantees normalcy to return to Benadir. The plan hinges on UIC top brass’ ability to control Al Shabaab wing -- unlikely scenario nevertheless folks on both sides of the aisle are talking which is a good enough sign that the end is near. My feeds say that Nur will replace Tigre’s troops with friendly local clan militia and TFG’s own militia supported by African and Arab peacekeepers. This is a light year from realizing functioning Somali state. However, with phased and gradual withdrawal of Tigre troops replaced by neutral troops there is a chance of having broad based reconciliation attended by all stakeholders held in Benadir. Wish them all the luck. Waa Siday Tahay,

Hope Obama is taking notes. Isolationist Buchanan takes on McCain's foreign policy attacking him from the right. Source +++++++++++++++++++ Should We Fight for South Ossetia? By Patrick J. Buchanan Tuesday, April 1, 2008 In echo of Warren Harding's "A Return to Normalcy" speech of 1920, George Bush last week declared, "Normalcy is returning back to Iraq." The term seemed a mite ironic. For, as Bush spoke, Iraqis were dying in the hundreds in the bloodiest fighting in months in Basra, the Shia militias of Moqtada al Sadr were engaging Iraqi and U.S. troops in Sadr City, and mortar shells were dropping into the Green Zone. One begins to understand why Gen. Petraeus wants a "pause" in the pullout of U.S. forces, and why Bush agrees. This will leave more U.S. troops in Iraq on Inauguration Day 2009, than on Election Day 2006, when the country voted the Democrats into power to bring a swift end to the war. A day before Bush went to the U.S. Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio, to speak of normalcy returning to Iraq, he was led down into "the Tank," a secure room at the Pentagon, to be briefed on the crisis facing the U.S. Army and Marine Corps because of the constant redeployments to Afghanistan and Iraq. As The Associated Press' Robert Burns reported, the Joint Chiefs "laid out their concerns about the health of the U.S. force." First among them is "that U.S. forces are being worn thin, compromising the Pentagon's ability to handle crises elsewhere in the world. ... The U.S. has about 31,000 troops in Afghanistan and 156,000 in Iraq." "Five plus years in Iraq," the generals and admirals told Bush, "could create severe, long-term problems, particularly for the Army and Marine Corps." In short, the two long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are wearing down U.S. ground forces of fewer than 700,000, one in every six of them women, to such an extent U.S. commanders called Bush and Dick Cheney to a secret meeting to awaken them to the strategic and morale crisis. This is serious business. With the Taliban revived and the violence in Iraq rising toward pre-surge levels, the Joint Chiefs are telling the commander in chief that the U.S. Army and Marine Corps are worn out. Crunch time is coming. And what is President Bush doing? He is flying to Bucharest, Romania, to persuade Europe to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which means a U.S. commitment to treat any Russian attack on Kiev or Tbilisi like an attack on Kansas or Texas. Article V of the NATO treaty declares that "an armed attack against one or more (allies) shall be considered an attack against them all." Added language makes clear that the commitment to assist an ally is not unconditional. Rather, each signatory will assist the ally under attack with "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force." Yet, it was understood during the Cold War that if a NATO ally like Norway, West Germany or Turkey, which bordered on the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact, were attacked, America would come to its defense. Can any sane man believe the United States should go to war with a nuclear-armed Russia over Stalin's birthplace, Georgia? Two provinces of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, have seceded, with the backing of Russia. And there are 10 million Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the east of that country, and Moscow and Kiev are at odds over which is sovereign on the Crimean Peninsula. To bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO would put America in the middle of these quarrels. We could be dragged into a confrontation with Russia over Abkhazia, or South Ossetia, or who owns Sebastopol. To bring these ex-republics of the Soviet Union into NATO would be an affront to Moscow not unlike 19th century Britain bringing the Confederate state of South Carolina under the protection of the British Empire. How would Lincoln's Union have reacted to that? With a weary army and no NATO ally willing to fight beside us, how could we defend Georgia if Tbilisi, once in NATO, defied Moscow and invaded Abkhazia and South Ossetia -- and Russia bombed the Georgian army and capital? Would we declare war? Would we send the 82nd Airborne into the Pankisi Gorge? Fortunately, Germany is prepared to veto any Bush attempt to put Ukraine or Georgia on a fast track into NATO. But President Bush is no longer the problem. John McCain is. As Anatol Lieven writes in the Financial Times, McCain supports a restoration of Georgian rule over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. He wants to throw Russia out of the G-8 -- and talks flippantly of bombing Iran. Says McCain, "I would institute a policy called 'rogue state rollback.' I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments." Wonderful. A Second Crusade for Global Democracy. But with the Joint Chiefs warning of a war-weary Army and Marine Corps, who will fight all the new wars the neocons and their new champion have in store for us?

Don't you get caught up with terminology awoowe. If big boys in upstairs deem necessary secessionists will get their way. If not Somaliweyn crew will be happy that the State in the end was able to wheather thru a helluva crisis. That's it! All else are just details. Remember awoowe Bush and et al occupy the room at the top of pyramid.

Sh. Shariif and company are realistic idealists. Chicken Hawk game is indeed a dangerous game. No sane person wants to play that sort of a game. No one wins. It is good to know that both sides are for swerving the car to the curb in order to avoid head on collision. Awoowe caqligu waa inuu shaqeeyaa.

Originally posted by Fahiye: Puntlans is dead; there is only a tolnimo is what holds the H people together. Looks like it. If things proceed this way it will soon be six feet under. Done done.

NPR's 'Talk of the Nation' weighed in on this very issue the other day -- Listen 35 minutes of discussion where privacy gurus dissect the issue in great detial. Get smart and go for more useful social networking site Linkedin. Type your company or school and watch scores of familiar names pop up -- in some cases with fancy titles! You'd be surprised to find out that many of ur classmates and former colleagues use this thing. The other thing is job offers -- you will receive plenty communserate with your profile and credentials. One more thing 60 Minutes of CBS had a good 12 minutes on Facebook. Dig it if interested.

Look at the issue this way. Suppose the camelboy has Somali interest at heart or strike that and replace it Muslim interest at heart. Brace urself for we will drive the equation here a la math style aight. So you care nothing else other than collective interest of the Muslim Somalis. To get there you have a monumental obstacle. You have warring clans the object of the dispute is the control of the state and by extension the resource the state controls. The interest groups are as divergent as they come. You got ideologues such as the nationalists. You have traditionalists -- we are clan X and we lay claim this area and its resources type. You got anarchists -- the ones that don't know what they really want for themselves but have plenty of reasons to oppose other interest groups. There are secessionists. Folks who found unity under the banner of disunity and see their interest in carving their own power base and that way ensure dominance over other interest groups wh go along with them. You have grieving folks in Puntland folks who lost a great deal in the collapse of the state and now want to hold on to their fiefdom as a bargaining tool if things go South. There are cross section of the Somalis that found unity under the banner of Islam and want to force the rest of Somalis to follow suit. They don't see the necessity of getting masses educated or informed about the merits of their conviction. The assumption is Somalis are Muslims and hence Islam or rather political Islam is second to their nature. You got Laba Garaadle group. Politcians who have no loyalty to anyone other than their personal interest. They are willing to use any tool and any third party in order to ennsure they stay in the game. Now we listed all the variables in the eq. The challenge is to get unity. As you now in the math lingo that would be one. Not a trivial exercise huh! Wouldn't you agree? Nevertheless let's give a go. To get 1 on the other side of the equation you camelboy have to sum up all the variables and assign a value to each so that the total will equal one. Fractions! Right? The other challenge here is how you coordinate the assignment exercise so each variable is content the fraction it gets assigned. Take it away buddy. Just gimme watertight equation. Like z + x + y....+n = 1.000 Later,

Pacifist, is the play still running?

Frontline: Too Timid, Too Little, Too Late by Ray McGovern Source Frontline's "Bush's War" on PBS Monday and Tuesday evening was a nicely put-together rehash of the top players' trickery that led to the attack on Iraq, together with the power-grabbing, back-stabbing, and limitless incompetence of the occupation. Except for an inside-the-Beltway tidbit here and there – for example, about how the pitiable former Secretary of State Colin Powell had to suffer so many indignities at the hands of other type-A hard chargers – Frontline added little to the discussion. Notably missing was any allusion to the unconscionable role the Fourth Estate adopted as indiscriminate cheerleader for the home team; nor was there any mention that the invasion was a serious violation of international law. But those omissions, I suppose, should have come as no surprise. Nor was it a surprise that any viewer hoping for insight into why Cheney and Bush were so eager to attack Iraq was left with very thin gruel. It was more infotainment, bereft of substantive discussion of the whys and wherefores of what in my view is the most disastrous foreign policy move in our nation's history. Despite recent acknowledgments from the likes of Alan Greenspan, Gen. John Abizaid, and others that oil and permanent (or, if you prefer, "enduring") military bases were among the main objectives, Frontline avoided any real discussion of such delicate factors. Someone not already aware of how our media has become a tool of the Bush administration might have been shocked at how Frontline could have missed one of President George W. Bush's most telling "signing statements." Underneath the recent Defense Authorization Act, he wrote that he did not feel bound by the law's explicit prohibition against using the funding: "(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq … "(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq." So the Frontline show was largely pap. At one point, however, the garrulous former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage did allude to one of the largest elephants in the living room – Israel's far-right Likudniks – and their close alliance with the so-called neoconservatives running our policy toward the Middle East. But Armitage did so only tangentially, referring to the welcome (if totally unrealistic) promise by Ahmed Chalabi that, upon being put in power in Baghdad, he would recognize Israel. Not surprisingly, the interviewer did not pick up on that comment; indeed, I'm surprised the remark avoided the cutting room floor. Courage No Longer a Frontline Hallmark Frontline has done no timely reportage that might be looked upon as disparaging the George W. Bush administration – I mean, for example, the real aims behind the war, not simply the gross incompetence characterizing its conduct. Like so many others, Frontline has been, let's just say it, cowardly in real time – no doubt intimidated partly by attacks on its funding that were inspired by the White House. And now? Well the retrospective criticism of incompetence comes as polling shows two-thirds of the country against the Iraq occupation (and the number is surely higher among PBS viewers). So Frontline is repositioning itself as a mild ex-post-facto critic of the war, but still unwilling to go very far out on a limb. Explaining the aims behind war crimes can, of course, be risky. It is as though an invisible Joseph Goebbels holds sway. Too Late On Monday evening I found myself initially applauding Frontline's matter- of-fact, who-shot-John chronology of how our country got lied into attacking and occupying Iraq. Then I got to thinking – have I not seen this picture before? Many times? It took a Hollywood producer to recognize and act promptly on the con games that sober observers could not miss as the war progressed. Where were the celebrated "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD)? Robert Greenwald simply could not abide the president's switch to "weapons of mass destruction programs," which presumably might be easier to find than the much-ballyhooed WMD so heavily advertised before the attack on Iraq. You remember – those remarkable WMD about which UN chief inspector Hans Blix quipped that the U.S. had one hundred percent certainty of their existence in Iraq, but zero percent certainty as to where they were. Robert Greenwald called me in May 2003. He had read a few of the memoranda published by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) exposing the various charades being acted out by the administration and wanted to know what we thought of the president's new circumlocution on WMD. I complimented him on smelling a rat and gave him names of my VIPS colleagues and other experienced folks who could fill him in on the details. Wasting no time, he arrived here in Washington in June, armed simply with copious notes and a cameraman. Greenwald conducted the interviews, flew back to his eager young crew in Hollywood and, poof, the DVD Uncovered: The War on Iraq was released at the beginning of November 2003. So Frontline is four and a half years behind a Hollywood producer with appropriate interest and skepticism. (Full disclosure: I appear in Uncovered, as do many of the interviewees appearing in Frontline's "Bush's War.") Actually, the interviewing by Frontline occurred just a few months later. I know because I was among those interviewed for that as well, as was my good friend and former colleague at the CIA, Mel Goodman. I was struck that Mel looked four years younger on this week's Frontline. It only then dawned on me that he was four years younger when interviewed. Have a look at Uncovered, and see how you think it compares to Frontline's "Bush's War." Safety in Retrospectives It also struck me that producing a Frontline-style retrospective going back several years is a much less risky genre to work with. Chalk it up to my perspective as an intelligence analyst, but ducking the incredibly important issues at stake over the next several months is, in my opinion, unconscionable. The troop "surge" in Iraq, for example. Only toward the very end of the program does Frontline allow a bit of relevant candor on a point that has been self-evident since Cheney and Bush, against strong opposition from Generals Abizaid and Casey (and apparently even Rumsfeld), decided to double down by sending 30,000 more troops into Iraq. A malleable new secretary of defense would deal with the recalcitrant generals and pick a Petraeus ex Machina of equal malleability and political astuteness to implement this stopgap plan. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist/author Steve Coll, with typical candor, put the "surge" into perspective: "The decision at a minimum guaranteed that his [bush's] presidency would not end with a defeat in history's eyes; that by committing to the surge, he was certain to at least achieve a stalemate." Given this week's fresh surge of violence as the U.S. surge is scheduled to wind down, even a stalemate may be in some doubt. But, okay, small kudos to Frontline for including that bit of truth – however obvious – and for adding the grim background music to its final comment: "Soon Bush's war will be handed to someone else." Rather Not, Thank You Intimidation of the media is what has happened all around, including with Frontline, which not so many years ago was able to do some gutsy reporting. Let me give you another example about which few are aware. Do you remember when Dan Rather made his Apologia Pro Vita Sua, admitting that the American media, including him, was failing to reveal the truth about things like Iraq? Speaking to the BBC on May 16, 2002, Rather compared the situation to the fear of "necklacing" in South Africa: "'It's an obscene comparison,' Rather said, 'but there was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tires around peoples' necks if they dissented. In some ways, the fear is that you will be neck-laced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck.' "Talking to another reporter, Dan told it straight about the careerism that keeps U.S. journalists in line. 'It's that fear that keeps [American] journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions and to continue to bore-in on the tough questions so often.'" The comparison to "necklacing" may be "obscene" but, sadly, it is not far off the mark. So what happened to the newly outspoken Dan Rather with the newly found courage, when he ran afoul of Vice President Dick Cheney and the immense pressure he exerts on the corporate media? We know about the lies and the cheerleading for attacking Iraq. But there is much more most of us do not know and remain unable to learn if Rather and other one-time journalists keep acting like Bert Lahr's cowardly lion in The Wizard of Oz before he gets "the nerve" and courage. For Dan Rather, the fear would simply not go away… even after leaving CBS for HDNet and promising that, on his new Dan Rather Reports show, viewers would see hard-hitting and courageous reporting that he said he couldn't do at CBS. Will it surprise you that Dan Rather cannot shake the necklace? I refer specifically to a program for Dan Rather Reports, meticulously prepared by award-winning producer Kristina Borjesson. The special included interviews with an impressive string of firsthand witnesses to neocon machinations prior to the U.S. attack on Iraq, and provides real insights into motivations – the kind of insights Frontline did not even attempt. Nipped in the Bud by the "Dark Side" Last year Borjesson's taping was finished and the editing had begun. Borjesson's requests to interview people working for the vice president had been denied. But, following standard journalistic practice (not to mention common courtesy), she sent an e-mail to John Hannah in Cheney's office in order to give Hannah a chance to react to what others – including several of the same senior folks on Frontline last evening – had said about him for her forthcoming report. At that point all hell broke loose. Borjesson was abruptly told by Rather's executive producer that by sending the e-mail, Borjesson could have "brought down the whole (Dan Rather Reports) operation." The show was killed and Borjesson sacked. For good measure, she was also accused of "coaching" interview subjects and taking their words out of context. Since neither Rather nor his executive producer would provide proof to substantiate that allegation, Borjesson took the unprecedented step of sending her script and transcripts to all her interview subjects, asking them to confirm or deny that she had coached them or taken their words out of context. Not one of them found her script inaccurate or said they were coached. She has the e-mails to prove this. This sorry episode and Frontline's careful avoidance of basic issues like the strategic aims of the Bush administration in invading and occupying Iraq are proof, if further proof were needed, that the White House, and especially Cheney's swollen office, exert enormous pressure over what we are allowed to see and hear. The fear they instill in the corporate press, and in what once was serious investigative reporting of programs like Frontline, translates into programs getting neutered or killed outright – and massive public ignorance. Some consolation is to be found in the good news that, in this particular case, Kristina Borjesson is made of stronger stuff; she has not given up, and was greatly encouraged by how many of the very senior officials and former officials she had already interviewed consented to be re-interviewed (since the tapes belonged to the "Rather Not" folks). Now who looks forward to being re-interviewed? Borjesson's original interviewees took into account her problems with the cowards and the censors – and her atypical, gutsy refusal to self-censor – and went the extra mile. A tribute to them as well, and their interest in getting the truth out. Borjesson is now completing the program on her own. Look for an announcement in the coming months, if you're interested in real sustenance rather than the pabulum served up, no doubt under duress, by Frontline. This article originally appeared on ConsortiumNews.com.

Waa la sarifay awoowe. Forces at work here are bigger than poor Riyale. Down in the sub-clan excel sheet there are those who claim to be “state less” sub clans. They point out the fact that districts as the SNM and later Igal’s separatist council inherited them had been altered exactly because of sub clan considerations. Saaxil is case in point. Argument at hand: leave the districts as they were founded or else if you are going to go down the “sarifaad” lane see to it that all local “interests” are taken into account. A solid argument and practical demand that can be easily met by the admin noh? The irony here is that very secessionists who base the existence of an unrecognized fiefdom on three dubious pillars namely a) grievances committed against their clan -- them being a known tribe and only one tribe out of three main ones -- by regime that no longer exist, b) historical anomaly -- we are one of the original indigenous loose tribes colonized by one of the imperial powers (moral of the argument being because we’ve been subjugated by entirely different European power the current world order owes us recognition) and c) because of unfortunate calamity -- fed on and exploited by foreign vultures bent to shape the future of this failed state to their liking (they call them friends and lobby hard to get their blessing), -- descended upon helpless and quarreling clans have no end in sight, our young institutions have no recourse to do international transactions without having the privileges recognition confers upon the state -- these secessionists are now objecting to the "give sub clans their corner" policy!! Believers in this nonlinear and some cases circular argument in which at its center is vindictive clan seeking to avenge the oppression they endured by carving out their own fiefdom are now up in arms and blame the guy whose hand had been twisted by some of the important constituents whose participation are key to the success of the big picture goal they passionately support. What gives? The funny thing is that act of giving the sub clans mentioned their own corner is perfectly inline with the founding principles of the fiefdom itself.

The things that pass as news nowadays. No wonder voter ignarance is as high as they say it is. Corporate media is killing this democracy big time.

Jim, the one I saw is black and white. Got it from the local library. I watched it for my kids -- friend recommended me to watch it as there are tidbits that serve as good pointers for parenting. Love it. I then went back and read the book. I then borrowed the audio version from the local library to have the narrator read it to me, in my car, during long trips I used to take every wkend. Awesome just awesome.

Another superdelegate for Obama. Hope he closes the deal soon. Source

An investigative work by one of the best journalist team out there. Fellas get informed -- no conspiracy crap -- about what happened. This one is the real deal in my opinion. It is a balanced view on the whole drama. Watch it Online

I second that NG. To Kill A Mocking Bird book ( & audio version -- about 8 cds) as well as the movie is a one of a kind.

Hambalyo to LSK family. Wish them happiness and joy.

Touchdown!!!! Two points for secessionists. Nil for Laba-Garaadle crew. I gotta give it to secessionists power play...impressive. Remarkable indeed.

If McCain only served one term, Hillary would have one last shot. On Election Day in 2012, she’d be 65. Bingo!

^Maybe so. Still this GO editorial has legs to stand. Can you refute the crux of the editorial instead of impeaching the owners of the portal? The trouble with folks is not that they don't know anything in any given topic -- to paraphrase Twain -- but they know too much that ain't so. Boowe this particular editorial is closer than close to the truth. Greed is the mother ship of all ills and my man Cadde and his minions are thick of it. I know so buddy.

The damage has been done. No doubt the speech was significant one but triangulators have succeeded to wrap this young man with the race garb. It is unfortunate that the Blue Color America give credence to the racial myth that blacks are not fit for duty. It has become an urban myth taking hold where it hurts the most -- a huge junk of the middle class. Just before I set off to xamaali this morning I checked the news. Pundits have issued a new poll: McCain leads Obama 9 pts in Independents. Clinton leads the race nationally. Will see how it goes.

Those of u who are familiar with Writers Almanac -- Keillor's 5 min program featuring poems and writers bios which regularly airs on NPR -- I say good for you. The rest try this one you may like it. It is very popular progrma in some circles. If you like poems, literature, books, and what not I'm sure you would love this one. Keiller's voice and soothing jazz like way he delivers the content is a plus. Aight here it is. Make sure u listen -- reading doesn't cut it. Also iTunes has a podcast - for free. NPR's Writers Almanac

^ The "pain" allegedly stems from the sct of spending itself.

Who's complaining?