In a motion made to U.S. District Judge Joe Billy McDade earlier this month, the Bush administration asked that Mazon be denied the right to argue the most fundamental issues driving alleged corruption in the handling of war-related contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mazon is a victim of the corruption and Halliburton’s drive for greed. But Halliburton is attached at the hip to President Bush. Vice President Dick Cheney, the architect of the illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003, is the former CEO of Halliburton.

But many believe that once out of office in January, Cheney will return to head the company which is currently based in Houston but is moving its corporate headquarters to the United Arab Emirates, which does not have an extradition treaty with the United States.

It is ironic that Cheney’s company is willing to move to Dubai in the UAE, but Bush and Cheney were unwilling to allow Dubai to handle the security of American ports. It’s a great example of the hypocrisy that embraces the Bush administration’s misguided war and confirms suspicions the administration’s foreign policy are based mainly on greed.

And that’s why Mazon’s trial is so important.

The Bush administration has asked in a “Motion in Limine” made Sept. 2, 2008, that Mazon be denied the right to argue the following in this second trial:

- the defendant is being made a scapegoat by KBR, his former employer, and Halliburton Co., KBR’s former parent company, in connection with the charges against him;

- Halliburton, KBR and its executives and managers have framed the defendant or otherwise caused the government to improperly charge him;

- the government has acted in concert with Halliburton and KBR in order to improperly charge Mazon; and d) improper conduct by Halliburton and KBR in their handling of government contracts should exculpate the defendant.

The Bush administration filed this motion because Mazon sought to subpoena Halliburton’s CEO David Lesar. This motion is normally used to prohibit the submission of evidence that might hurt the defense, not the prosecution.

The government argued the issues would “confuse” the jury. But the truth is, the jury was confused by the charge. Mazon’s attorneys argued successfully that the alleged inflation of the contract Mazon controlled was in fact a simple miscalculation involving the conversion of U.S. Dollars into Kuwait Dinars.

This conversion problem has plagued many of the war related contracts. There are about 3.3 Kuwait Dinars for every dollar. When converted, the $1.6 million contract was about 5.5 Kuwait Dinars, except it was listed as $5.5 million “U.S. Dollars.”

Mazon beat the first attempt to convict him when a majority of jurors rejected the government’s argument in a trial that took place in April of this year. The jury was deadlocked.

The Bush administration will try a second time, moving the trial from Rock Island to Peoria. Apparently, the government believed Mazon’s foreign heritage – he is Ecuadorian – and his association with Arab contractors in the Middle East, would make him unsympathetic to the region’s Bible-belt constituency jury pool.

Trying Mazon in Rock Island was also an apparent attempt to take the case out of the scrutiny of the national media. It could have been tried in Washington D.C. insuring high profile media coverage.

But high profile media coverage would have refocused the issues from the weak case against Mazon to the bigger issues of Cheney, the culture of corruption that plagues Halliburton and the corruption that is the foundation of the Iraq War itself.

The Peoria trial, which begins this week, places the trial on a higher public plain. But the government had no choice after losing the first trial. The federal judge in the case, U.S. Justice Joe Billy McDade, is from Peoria and had to drive to and from Rock Island during the first trial. This second trial is convenient to McDade.

The Bush administration knows that if the second trial becomes a referendum on their failed policies in Iraq, the next jury might not deadlock. They might vote to acquit Mazon. A fair jury can conclude Mazon is being persecuted, not prosecuted, to protect Halliburton and Cheney.

Since the charges were first filed against Mazon five years ago, public attitudes about the failed war in Iraq have changed dramatically from blind support to open challenge. The public knows that Bush and Cheney, Halliburton’s former CEO, lied and misled Americans into supporting the Iraq invasion.

Why wouldn’t they also lie to protect Halliburton?

How are they protecting Halliburton? Well, if any other corporation with no national political clout had a similar track record of corruption and mismanagement and suspicions of price gouging, their contract would have been revoked within the first few convictions.

Despite 36 war related corruption convictions, Halliburton continues to enjoy a near exclusive headlock on hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan war spending.

(Ray Hanania is a Chicago-based columnist and radio talk show host. He can be reached at rayhanania@comcast.net.)

It’s a discussion about politics in Japan, where people have seen the election of four Prime Ministers in the past two years, but the article calls “remarkably well-governed” because the professionalism of the so-called professional class, the bureaucrats who actually run the country.

Satyemva Jayate's analysis:

Might such a thing ever happen in India? I doubt it…

What would people say about the United States? Have the regulators, these so-called professional bureaucrats who work above the political fray handled the economy better than the political class?

We will soon find out. In the news, Congressional leaders claim they have finished work on the Wall Street Bailout Bill, an estimated $700 billion outlay intended to put an end to two weeks of turbulence in the United State’s financial and credit sectors. The House of Representatives, where a potential rebellion of conservative Republicans may stall the proposal’s passage, is due to vote Monday, Sept. 29. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the plan shortly thereafter.

In a country where political acronyms have become an artform, the 106-page bill creates another: TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, interpreted by the Washington Post as:

“empower[ing] the [Treasury] secretary to buy “toxic” assets from financial institutions with taxpayer money. By removing such assets from the balance sheets of crippled companies, the bill's architects hope to reduce pressures on the credit market, thereby making it easier for Americans to get mortgages and other types of loans.”

The Post story quotes Republican Senator Judd Gregg that once the plan jump starts the American economy, U.S. taxpayers will make money from the measure.

Ian Welsh from Fire Dog Lake in Australia has a great explainer on the components of the bill. Short take: 90 percent of the suck you were expecting.

A skeleton version of the long take:

- The $700 billion will be staggered, giving U.S. Treasury Secretary $350 upfront, another $350 released in January.

- No change in bankruptcy laws: “Yes, banks will be helped not to go bankrupt, but if you go bankrupt judges won't be able to allow you to keep your house.”
- “Treasury to help people avoid foreclosures if it owns their mortgages.”
- “Treasury has the authority to issue insurance.”
- “If it doesn't pay back in 5 years, Treasury to levy fees on the financial industry to get the money back.”

Here’s his explainer:

…[W]hile this plan is an improvement on the original Paulson plan, which is saying, well, almost nothing. It's still a plan that, at the end of the day, won't work. That doesn't mean we won't see some short term benefits. Throw 700 billion bucks at the economy and the financial sector and it will do something. That's still a ton of money. But it won't fix the problem permanently, it will only patch it for a time and even during that time, things will continue to get worse. (For example, expect this to cause oil inflation.)
It's a bad plan that won't fix the economy or the financial sector. So we'll be revisiting this issue in 6 to 9 months or so when it becomes clear that the problem hasn't been solved, and that not solving it is costing a hell of a lot of money which could have been used to actually fix things.

With Congressional leaders — and presidential candidates — in both parties at least mildly supporting the bill, the odds are in favor of the bailout passing. Let's be snarky for a second and imagine what happens if it doesn’t pass. Here’s an interesting explainer intended to counter the do-nothing rhetoric (let the cake-eaters eat cake?) coming from certain corners. But Katz, a commenter on the Australian blog Larvatus Prodeo is having none of that argument. Warning: upcoming War on Terror analogy.

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have proven the efficacy of suicide bombing.

“Give us what we want or we’ll take all of you with us.”

Memo to suicide bombers everywhere: you need bigger bombs.

So, where, exactly, is this bailout money going to come from? Darryl Mason writing in Your New Reality in Australia claims the buyers of American debt will be the very institutions who already own the country: The governments of Japan and China.

The message is clear. BushCo. will secure China's holdings of American debt, by staking the financial future, and health and education, of American children as collateral. Or China will drop the hammer. In case BushCo. didn't get the message, queen takes knight :

…The Federal Reserve and the Treasury do not really need to ride to the rescue of its debt-savaged financial institutions if only they really believed in their own shattered mantras of “Free Market Forever” and “Let The Market Decide.” China, the Saudis, the Russians are all eager to snap up some huge chunks of America at bargain basement prices. In a truly globalised, free market world, all these financial institutions should be up for sale to the highest bidder (with a few restrictions).

But they won't be doing that. So instead its a betrayal by BushCo. of almost everything principle claimed to stand for, and preached, and it's America Fleeced.

From Kuwait, Kill That Damn Patient, has a second option: buy up toxic debt through legalizing marijuana. Before you spill your bong water, wait. It makes medical sense — the author works in hospital — and legal marijuana will certainly help patients by creating mass markets for less expensive, natural pain relief. The economic benefits are obvious:

…[Y]ou see weed is (for the time being and for a long time coming) considered an illegal substance which may be harmful and because it’s an illegal substance law enforcers have to find the people who trade in it and erm …. arrest them.

Hiring people to do this costs money …. about $34,433,700,162 (this figure is the amount of money spent on the war on drugs, not weed specifically) a fair portion (about 7.7 billion annually) of which could have been put to better use.

Legalizing weed would also bring in an estimated 6.2 billion in tax revenue (raking in a grand total of 13.9 billion); it would also mean that organised crime would loose a fair chunk of their cash-flow (and for that matter so would big tobacco).

Saturday Night Live (SNL) has had a long a tradition of mocking politicians ever since Dan Aykroyd put on his game face to portray Richard Nixon. In the past 25 years, no major political figure has escaped SNL's clutches; therefore, it wasn't long before people started asking if Tina Fey would be returning to SNL to play her doppelganger, Sarah Palin.

And indeed she did. On Saturday, September 13, Fey made her triumphant return for the show's season opener. Although she was only featured in the opening sketch (which pitted Palin against Amy Poehler's Hillary Clinton), that sketch made waves across the Internet over the weekend.

European Avenue was amazed at the resemblance:

She looked like her, Moved like her, Talked like her … It is making love both even more. The Comedian and the Character that is Sarah Palin.

Blogger American Taíno, who identifies as an American Latino, declares that “Tina Fey IS Palin on SNL” and goes on to say:

Tina Fey returned to SNL yesterday to play a dead on Sarah Palin. Fey's enormous comedic talents soar as she captures Palin's flat accent, looks, dominionist certitude and Alaska sized vacuousness. Bravo!

Canadian blogger Pelalusa remarks on the effect SNL might have on the media:

The biggest effect of the ongoing SNL skits through the election will be to continue to mock the hypocritical sexist and elitist media coverage of Palin. Most in the media still haven't realized just how far they've jumped the shark with their pathetically biased coverage. They're slow learners though. Extreme arrogance tends to have the effect of obscuring facts that otherwise would be blatantly obvious.

Kuwaiti blogger Jandeef hopes that Fey will return again as Palin:

It was fun watching Will Ferrell and Darrell Hammond debate each other as Bush and Gore in 2000.

I suspect it'll only get more fun this year!

Yet not everyone is excited. Canadian Scrawled in Wax implies that the hullabaloo over Fey's return was simply too much:

You are, no doubt, aware of the timeline. First, John McCain announces Sarah Palin as his running mate. Then the internet-o-sphere immediately remarks on the physical similarity between Governor Palin and comedian/writer Tina Fey. There is a feverish build-up - and no, feverish is not too strong a word - to the season premiere of Saturday Night Live as people wait, with bated breath, to see whether ex-SNLer Fey would impersonate governor Palin. Sure enough, as if they almost didn’t have a choice, Tina Fey appears with Amy Poheler in the opening sketch doing a bang-on impression of Palin. The internet goes wild.

Fair enough. What I’m a bit baffled about is why we all seem to care so much. Are we so desperate for a repeat of Dana Carvey’s four year run as Bush Sr. that we now are salivating at the prospect of Fey as Palin? Are we so giddy at the coincidental resemblance between the two that everyone from CNN to a local Toronto news station felt it newsworthy to report - shock of shocks - that a contemporary comedian did an impression of a politician suddenly thrust into the international limelight?

Whatever bloggers think about the skit, there's no doubt that many are waiting with bated breath to see if Fey will return this coming Saturday as Palin. Only time will tell.

The blogosphere reacted swiftly to the news. Czech blogger the reference frame thinks McCain's choice of Palin improves his prospects:

Sarah Palin (44), the governor of Alaska, and her life surely look fascinating and she will probably make McCain's GOP ticket much stronger (and certainly much younger! McCain is 72 today) but some of her attitudes make it slightly less clear what is she doing in the Republican Party (besides whistleblowing). ;-)

The Cuban author of
Babalu Blog is clearly pleased with McCain's choice. Referring to Palin, she says:

She is a conservative Republican, pro-life, a free-trade capitalist, an NRA member. Oh, and she's a woman, if you missed that.

This should re-define the Obama's CHANGE slogan. The Republicans have a little change of their own up their sleeves, huh?

Russian blogger Laurence Jarvik wonders about the role gender will play in the election, saying:

At least McCain picked a fresh face…although how many Democratic women would cross party lines to vote for Sarah Palin is unclear. Ironic that Obama seems to be targeting the bitter white working class clinging to their guns, while McCain appears to be going after feminists.

Meanwhile, Turkish blogger talkturkey is annoyed that Palin's nomination has raised the gender card again:

Palin is a Governor, with executive branch experience, and brings a non-legislative approach to the race, since all three remaining males are Senators. But I am not sure if having a white female (and a virtual unknown) is going to persuade white women (possibly Hillary supporters — or whatever is left of them) to vote Republican instead of a man. Since it will still be a man at the top job . . .

In Kuwait, Teach the Masses is more interested in the example Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have set for young women:

So history will be made: for the first time either a) a black American will be in the white house as president or b) a woman as Vice president.

All in all this is a good lesson for the girls in our schools- they have seen through Hillary Clinton and now Sarah Palin what a woman with an education can do.

Finally, Egyptian Chronicles reminds us of the fact that no matter what happens, this year's election is making history:

She was the surprise of the day and the evidence that this race of the American elections 2008 is one of the most interesting races ever. All People expected after the huge of celebration of Obama in the NDC and choosing a foreign policies vet like Joe Biden as his Vice that the race was over and the republicans got nothing new to offer , even the expectations on who would McCain’s vice were not interesting.

However, I’m unsure that someone who shares a surname with a Monty Python actor could make a purposeful Vice President.

And how can she possibly bring up 5 children properly and be governor of Alaska? Mind you looking at her husband, I’m surprised she has only five children………… I’d vote for him, in or out of a suit. And with her anti abortion policy and his good looks- how has she stayed not pregnant? Are there separate beds?

Looks like the Republicans are leading in the good looks stakes.

So history will be made: for the first time either a) a black American will be in the white house as president or b) a woman as Vice president.

All in all this is a good lesson for the girls in our schools- they have seen through Hillary Clinton and now Sarah Palin what a woman with an education can do.

The story started at the end of May when seven Fulbright winners from the Gaza Strip had their grants withdrawn, as the US State Department was concerned that it would not be able to get them out of the Gaza Strip to the American Consulate in Jerusalem for visa interviews. Condoleezza Rice made sure the scholarships were reinstated, and because Israel would not allow three of the seven, Zuhair Abu Shaban, Fida Abed and Osama Daoud, to leave Gaza because they were 'security risks', American officials made exceptional efforts and interviewed the three on the Gaza border. All three were subsequently granted visas, on 30 July. Two days later, however, their visas were revoked. Fida Abed had already flown to Washington, but was turned away at the airport and sent straight back to Amman, Jordan. State Department officials will only say that ‘new information' was received about the three, along with a fourth, Ahmed Ma'arri, a 14-year-old high-school student who was the recipient of a separate scholarship.

Emily, writing at the Arab-American blog KABOBfest, is not really surprised:

Three of the seven Fulbright grantees from Gaza have had their visas canceled finally by the US: one, after flying to Washington only to be told by border security that his visa was no longer valid. The saga of the journey to Jordan strikes me as a remarkably hallmark Palestinian travel experience. If Israel finally had information in the end to send over to the US authorities to cause them to cancel the three visas, it strikes me as publicly admitting that the seven were originally denied based on no information whatsoever. (Whether that information is accurate or not… I mean, clearly, the kid just out of high school is a terrorist planning to use his education to bomb and kill.) I'd like to see the security information forwarded by Israel. Who wants to place a bet that it says “Palestinian, male, born in Gaza= DENIED.”

Israeli-American blogger Jerry Haber, writing at The Magnes Zionist, believes Israel wanted to save face:

Meet Fidaa Abed and Ahmed Ma'ari. Abed was headed to the University of California at San Diego for a graduate degree in computer science. Ahmed is a high school student. Both won Fulbrights to study in the US. Both had their Fulbrights cancelled, then reinstated, then US visas issued, then revoked. Now, let me get this straight. At first they weren't a security threat; they were just kept in Gaza because of Israel's stranglehold on that territory. It's called “collective punishment” – if we hurt the Gazans enough, they will rise up and throw out Hamas. Gee, that's a smart strategy. Certainly has worked. […] What's a better explanation for the reversal of fortune? That Mr. Abed and Mr. Ma'ari are the victims of a face-saving ploy that Israel was desparate to pull off, and that America has agreed to, for the moment. You know the drill – the US decides to let some of the Fulbright students in (to make Condi happy), and decide to keep some of that out (to make Israel happy). That resolves the diplomatic mini-crisis. On the backs of the Palestinians.

Ms. Missive, an American living in Israel, writing at Patriot Missive, thinks the US handled the situation badly:

It wouldn’t be first time we’ve looked so clumsy. I’m still waiting on details of the security concerns though.

In a follow-up post, she points out that some Arab students currently studying in the US have just paid a trip to the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C.

DesertPeace, an American living in Jerusalem, is concerned that just opposing Israeli policies would be enough to prevent travel:

‘Are you now? Were you ever?' Obviously two questions that weren’t asked of the Gaza recipients of Fulbright grants when they applied for travel permits. In the ‘good-ole’ McCarthy era those questions were in reference to membership in the Communist Party, today it refers to any organisation you may belong to that is opposed to the genocidal policies of Israel. Condoleeza Rice, herself, took a position that helped these young students get their travel permits in order…. but it seems that the powers of AIPAC are even stronger than the office of the Secretary of State.

However Carl, an American-born Israeli writing at Israel Matzav, thinks the decision was right:

And the [denied] three apparently have closer connections to Hamas and terrorism than Condi was willing to admit two months ago. Don't hold your breaths waiting for Condi or anyone else at State to apologize.

A number of bloggers look at the long-term implications of such a decision. Arab-American blogger Edmund, writing at The Philistine, asks:

What “new” information could there be? By denying education to the masses and even the few all you do is give extremist more recruits. Now you understand why white slave owners denied education to their “workers.” The less you know the easier you are to control and the US and Israel fear the prospect of an educated Arab (Palestinian) society.

Teach the Masses in Kuwait echoes the sentiment:

Yes, no doubt the ‘new information' was fabricated as a cover for the plain fact that the Israelis want as few well-educated Palestinians around as possible – makes containment easier.

US blogger Richard Silverstein, writing at Tikun Olam, despairs at the short-sightedness of the decision:

At this rate, the U.S. is lucky that any Gaza students have an interest in studying in this country. Certainly, the Israeli “evidence” is designed to promote obstacles for Palestinians to study abroad. It is not in Israel’s interests for Gazans to do so. God only knows what academic knowledge and expertise they might bring back with them to improve the lot of their fellow Gazans when they return. Who knows what new theories they might advance, new businesses they might create, new political ideas they might implant? It’s all certainly too much for Israel, which prefers an impoverished, poorly educated society as one that is supposedly easier to dominate. […] These Palestinian young people are learning a lesson from this – that the U.S. is not to be trusted, that it is little better than Israel in fabricating reasons to suspect Palestinians. Such lessons last a lifetime, and not just in those of the specific victims, but in the lifetimes of young Palestinian children who would be the Fulbright applicants of the future. At this rate, we’ll be lucky next year if ANY Palestinian wants to apply. And we wonder why Arabs hate us.

We end with some comments by Hassan, the teacher of the high-school student Ahmed Ma'arri who was prevented from going to the US. Hassan was commenting on an article in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz:

I want to add that Ahmed is only 14 years old , one of the best students at a program called ACCESS sponsored by AMIDEAST, he went through so many exams and interviews to gain this scholarship, he is a mere boy. He has nothing to do with politics or Hamas. He just dreamed to be a good, distinguished student. He has been taught in a course for two years how to love the world and how to be an open minded student. He did so many presentations about the American culture and the cultures around the world. You are just frustrating our kids and want them all to be as you call it “terrorist or martyrs “. PLZ. What threat does this 14 -year-old student have for the security of the USA or Israel?

And in response to another commenter who asked if Ahmed had celebrated when the World Trade Center was destroyed, Hassan said:

Thanks indeed you all who support Ahmed and I really sympathize with those who are still misled by the media. Firstly, at 9 /11 Ahmed was only six years old. Secondly, Ahmed belongs to an educated family… You should know that most people decline the idea to let their sons travel for one year especially at this critical age. Thirdly, we have lots of political diversity. […] Plz, Let Our Kids Lead a Healthy life.

I think the concept is good, but the money should go for aid instead of balloons that will mean nothing and fade away in the distance after 3 minutes.
Click on the link for the actual website

It's as if being Muslim or having anything to do with Islam is AIDS in the sense that it's destructive and life threatening… Or worse. I wish people would be informed about Islam and Muslims from real sources like the Koran and not the stupid media, since it has it's own warped agenda. Alas, people are too condescending to even attempt that.

A few FAIR tidbits about my faith that are not taken out of context like most cases (DONE by both Muslims and Non-Muslims):

Men and women are equal whereas women in the West had to FIGHT to get their natural rights, Muslims women had them already
Women can own property
Women can inherit property, money, etc from relatives
Women have the right to seek divorce from their husbands and NOT go to Hell
Women can seek education, in fact, encouraged to
Women are not permitted to change her family name to her husband’s name upon marriage. She is always known by her father’s name, as a mark of her own identity

Women in Islam cover by choice and to submit to Allah and no one but Allah. Women are not objects and are not looked at with lust by men as they seem to be elsewhere. Women are a prize that no man gets unless he deserves her knowing that she will not drag his name through mud. Of course, I am being fair and talking about devoted members of the Islamic society, not of those who chose to take the wrong road and claim to be atypical and “Woe is me! I am a poor victim who chooses to live against this generous religion and yet, will never be accepted ANYWHERE because, no matter how much I insult ISLAM and MUSLIMS, I am one of them and will never leave it and even if I forget, others won't and I will get the same racist treatment.” To those people, I say, suit yourself. You're shoving yourself into places that do not welcome you.

The fact is, even if we pretend and hope we're essentially one and the same, the OTHER isn't open to it. So, save your breath.

I am offended because it opens a wound I have by a member of the crazy media and I'm so sick of it. Even with all what I've said, there still are so many Christians, Jews and Buddhists who treat Muslims and Islam with respect and dignity and they deserve a mention. It gives me faith in this world, even when Muslims and others give Islam an unfair representation. The fair media members (however few there are), should also be mentioned because they work the hardest and sacrifice a lot to represent people fairly.

End of rant.