Apparently, race is a birth defect.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that the United States still has trouble dealing with race because of a national "birth defect" that denied black Americans the opportunities given to whites at the country's very founding.

"Black Americans were a founding population," she said. "Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That's not a very pretty reality of our founding."

As a result, Miss Rice told editors and reporters at The Washington Times, "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that."

Source.

Now, I realize she was attempting to be satirical. At first glance, this seems at first like a great line.

But it's really not, because it places the idea of "race" into the neutral ground of happenstance, of nature, when in reality race is really nothing more than a social construct. The average person can attempt to argue against this point (I gladly welcome the challenge; please, try it) but it isn't the main point of this post.

Please note the bolded section, and the two main points: "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start," and "[she] think[s] [we] continue to see some of the effects of that." To which I say: understate much?

This pairing truly infuriates me, for a few reasons. One: she said this at the behest of another, as the token minority in our administration, in response to Barack Obama's smashing speech. This is a politically correct, useless-in-reality comment.

Two: It implies that African-Americans gota head start... this is patently false. Ever hear of Jim Crow? Yeah... and how that didn't really come off the books until the 60s? And how it's still in effect on a de facto basis? Ms. Rice, what's the deal here? Furthermore, by putting it in the past tense it implies that "head start" was enough to essentially equalize things, and is no longer necessary. Once again, appallingly incorrect.

Three: She thinks we see some effects of that? Thinks?! Where the hell did she grow up so that she completely missed out on the whole racial reality of America? Who is spoon feeding her this shit? Does she really believe what is coming out of her mouth?

The blatant, probably willful ignorance of many of the leaders of this country is still astounding to me, even though I try to expect it.

Sweet Irony

If you've been following the democratic nomination, then you know about the war being waged between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Now let me lay down some knowledge that needs to be understood before I make my final point.

• Hillary Clinton has been primarily using her "experience" to say that she deserves to be president. She thinks that her time in the white house as first lady, combined with her experience as a senator is a world of experience. Which is actually probably true to a point.
• She has also said that the president of the United States needs to be "...Ready on day one" and her experience will allow her to do this.
• Hillary has also expressed the notion that if she was given the nomination she'd have Barack Obama on her ticket for vice president.
• She also considers Barack Obama not experienced enough to be president

Now props to my poly sci professor for revealing this contradiction: She doesn't want Barack Obama to be president because he isn't experience enough to lead the country on day one. Yet she wants him as her vice president, who very well may have to lead on Day 2 if anything were to happen. Hopefully he'd learn all he needs to know on Day 1.

Cuba Signs UN Rights Pact

"At the United Nations, Cuba's foreign minister, Felipe Pérez Roque, signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which have been in force since 1976. He announced on Dec. 10 Cuba’s intention to adhere to the accords. He also said then that Cuba would open its doors in early 2009 to regular scrutiny by the United Nations Human Rights Council."

An interesting development since the end of Fidel.

An update on the war in Iraq

I've been beginning to notice that there has been a remarkable lack of news about the war in Iraq in recent weeks. So I did a brief seach on google news for "Iraq" and there has been a lack of news everywhere. There were a few articles though, and more importantly, some of those were actually good news, that explains why I haven't heard about it.

I found this article

"AP Count: US Casualties Drop in February
By JOHN AFFLECK – 2 days ago
BAGHDAD (AP) — At least 29 U.S. troops died while serving in Iraq in February, the third-lowest monthly casualty toll for the U.S. military since the American-led invasion in 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
Troop fatalities declined from 40 in January, and also dropped steeply from February 2007, when at least 81 troops died in Iraq.
But Iraqi casualties increased compared with January, although violence was reduced substantially from a year ago.
The AP count revealed at least 739 Iraqi security forces and civilians were either killed or found dead last month, up from 610 in January, which had the lowest monthly death toll since the end of 2005.
In February 2007, at least 1,801 Iraqis were killed.
The statistics on casualties are considered a minimum, and are based on AP reporting. The actual number is likely higher, as many killings go unreported or uncounted.
Three factors are widely credited with reducing violence in Iraq over the past six months: an increase in U.S. troop levels; a cease-fire by radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia; and the decision by tens of thousands of Sunni fighters to accept U.S. funding and turn against al-Qaida in Iraq.
At least 3,973 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to the AP's count. The figure includes eight military civilians. At least 3,237 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.
Since the invasion of Iraq, only two months have had a lighter U.S. death tolls than February, the AP found. They were last December, when 23 deaths were reported, and the month of February 2004, when 20 American troops died. Last month's troop fatalities included three non-combat deaths. "

Now obviously this isn't saying that Iraq is won, but it's saying a few things. One, the hotly-contested surge has had some effect. More troops, less casualties. Two, the US is doing things that I had no idea about, I had no clue there was a cease fire, or that we were giving people a reason (money) not to join al-Qaida in Iraq.

This is important news to me. I looked into my last few copies of the New York Times, and the only relevant information referring to it was last thursday (February 28th), and it was buried on page A10. It was an article about potential troop withdrawals... I guess it's less important than page A3's article on wine buyers in France.