Tug of War in Uzbekistan

An event that got some, but not much, press last week appears to confirm some suspicions I had about Russia and China's long-term foreign policy goals. As hard as this may be to believe, I really think they want to re-start the cold war and make an attempt at world domination. To illustrate my suspicion, I beleive a brief recap of recent events is necessary. On March 29, 2004, NATO was expanded into Russia's backyard. Vladimir Putin was uncharacteristically calm compared to his past public statements. In retrospect, this might be because he decided on a plan. In September of 2004, the tragedy at Beslan happened and that gave Putin the pretext for the first part of his plan- consolidate power and destroy democracy in Russia. Then, that December,sudenly Russia and China become the best of friends and Russia agrees to support China's "one China" policy, which we all know means invading Taiwan as soon as China thinks it has a chance to succeed and continuing the brutal repression in Tibet. In April of this year, Putin asuaged any doubt about his true colors when he lamented the fall of the Soviet Union in no unclear terms. And this past week, China and Russia muscled Uzbekistan, who's own leader, Islam Karimov, has a disasterous record on democracy and human rights, into giving the US 180 days to vacate it's base there and hand it over to the Russians. Uzbekistan's leadership was swayed by 1) criticism from the US over Uzbekistan's murder of up to 750 anti-government protesters in may of this year, and 2) Pressure from a little-known alliance called the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation . I know, I know, but this really isn't 1963. This is all happening in 2005. I'm afraid that there really might be a new Cold War that is just beginning to start now. The last one wasn't pretty. The new one might turn out to be uglier than George Bush's environmental record. Comments welcome.

Apparently There's a Cosmetics, Toiletries and Fragrance Association

And Bush Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was a lobbyist for it. (Can anyone say Caviar Conservative?)

That's not necessarily a reason to make someone unfit for service on our nation's highest judicial body.

But being an opponent of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is. As a young attorney in the Reagan Justice Department, Roberts supported watering down that landmark piece of Civil Rights legislation by requiring lawsuits brought under it prove intent to discriminate instead of just discriminatory effect. If these efforts were successfull, racial minorities in the US would have to basically find a smoking gun to prevail on claims of their disenfranchisement. Luckily today they don't have to, but unluckily today we just did.

John Roberts is unfit to surve on the Supreme Court of the United States. At best, he is ignorant and insensitive; at worst he's a damn racist.

To adapt an old prhase to modern realities, I guess elephant droppings don't fall too far from the elephant's ass.