A small step in the worldwide scope of things, but an encouraging one nonetheless. Maybe other countries will follow suit.

From gather.com:

Former President George W. Bush is now an international war criminal. Just last week he and several members of his administration were convicted of war crimes — the first conviction of its kind ever.

Bush, former V.P. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were all convicted in abenstia by a Malaysian tribunal in Kuala Lumpur. Granted, this isn’t a powerful country who held this trial, and the conviction won’t do much, and it’s mostly symbolic…but it will send a clear message to the United States that it is not above international law. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission convicted the eight men after a five-day hearing where witnesses testified regarding torture techniques used on prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

One of the prosecutors was Francis Boyle, international law professor at University of Illinois College of Law. Of Bush, he said, “We tried three times to get Bush in Canada but were thwarted by the Canadian Government, then we scared Bush out of going to Switzerland.”

From NBC Connecticut on April 25:

The state of Connecticut no longer has a death penalty, effective today.

Gov. Dannel Malloy signed the bill that lawmakers recently passed.

Malloy said one factor that led him to sign the bill was the “unworkability” of Connecticut’s death penalty law.

“In the last 52 years, only 2 people have been put to death in Connecticut – and both of them volunteered for it,” Malloy said in a statement. “Instead, the people of this state pay for appeal after appeal, and then watch time and again as defendants are marched in front of the cameras, giving them a platform of public attention they don’t deserve. It is sordid attention that rips open never-quite-healed wounds. The 11 men currently on death row in Connecticut are far more likely to die of old age than they are to be put to death.”

The bill affects only future sentences and not the 11 men currently on death row, including the two men recently sentenced to death for killing a mother and two daughters in a gruesome home invasion in Cheshire.

Most liberals have had the following experience, or one similar to it.

You debate an issue with a conservative. You present evidence that in your mind conclusively proves your side of the argument. But the more you talk, the more you realize that no evidence will change this person’s mind because he does not see changing his mind as a valid option. He will either claim that you are lying, or that the points you make aren’t valid anyway. He might present new evidence of his own, often of a dubious nature. Or he will just maintain his position for no reason at all. You walk away shaking your head, deciding that arguing with conservatives is a complete waste of time.

I’m sure conservatives have their own version of this story, about how its useless to debate with liberals.

Is this because one side or the other is dishonest, ignorant or stupid? In some cases, yes. But not in all. I’ve become more convinced over time that conservatives and liberals just see the world differently, and not just for ideological reasons. I have a hunch it’s related to our brains and the way we process information and make decisions.

A new book by Chris Mooney titled The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science–And Reality deals with this idea.

A recent episode of the AlterNet Radio Hour includes an interview with Mooney. It’s fairly short, but worth checking out.

I didn’t start this blog with the idea of constantly writing about controversial shooting deaths of unarmed people. But such tragedies have become more prevalent in the news recently. I’m not sure that such incidents are increasing in frequency, but public attention to the Trayvon Martin shooting has led to increased interest in other such incidents. Hopefully this attention will lead to more awareness of the danger of making mistakes in judgment when guns are involved.

From The Los Angeles Times:

The lawyer representing a man who police claim set off a chain of events that ended with the fatal shooting of a teen in Pasadena said his client is being used as a scapegoat by the police.

Oscar Carrillo, 26, allegedly lied to police about seeing one or more guns in the hands of two men whom he accused in a 911 call of taking items from his car on March 24.

Pasadena authorities said Carrillo’s story led officers to believe Kendrec McDade was armed and ultimately prompted officers to shoot and kill the 19-year-old.

Pasadena police arrested Carillo on suspicion of involuntary manslaughter but the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office has so far declined to file charges.

Attorney Andres Bustamante said blaming his client for the death is a stretch.

“The [police] chief had to do some damage control because of the anger from the community and family, and passed some of the responsibility on [Carrillo],” Bustamante said. “It’s hard for me to conceive that the causation of the shooting was Carrillo.”

Bustamante said his client was not present during the shooting and had no knowledge of what took place when the officers fired.

“You have a guy who calls 911 and says they’re armed,” Bustamante said. “We don’t know if the suspect they stopped is the actual individual who robbed the car. There’s a big causation issue.”

“He was the victim of a crime and made a report,” Bustamante said. “He regrets exaggerating.”

Speaking through his lawyer, Carrillo had this to say to McDade’s family: “I’m very, very sorry for the tragedy that happened to your son, I regret having exaggerated … it never crossed my mind that he would’ve been killed.”

Kenneth Chamberlain Sr. was fatally shot last November by White Plains, NY, police who had responded to a medical alert. The story has gotten increased attention recently. As with the Trayvon Martin case, I think we should withhold judgment until we have as much information as possible. Still, there are plenty of disturbing elements to Chamberlain’s shooting death. It shouldn’t be considered business as usual when a 68-year-old with a heart condition is gunned down in  his own home by police who are there not for a criminal complaint but for a medical alert.

Here are two recent New York Daily News articles on the case:

Marine veteran Kenneth Chamberlain Sr. killed after clash with police who responded to his medical emergency

Sources identify White Plains cop Anthony Carelli as triggerman in fatal shooting of retired Marine

In recent years, I’ve found myself spending more time listening to podcasts. One that I’ve become quite fond of is called “Reasonable Doubts”. It’s produced by a group of atheists who talk about religion and philosophy, usually in a scholarly manner that some would find to be nerdy. Their most recent episode was done in a different format and was devoted to an interview with a former Mormon named Sophie Hirschfeld. This two-part interview is fascinating and covers a variety of topics. In a nutshell, Sophie was once a young Mormon bride and is now an atheist who’s a dominatrix, writer and activist. I highly recommend listening to the interview with this articulate woman.

On its surface, the Trayvon Martin case, and the fact that the admitted shooter has not been arrested, seems worthy of outrage. And many are demonstrating their anger and demanding justice across the country. I understand the anger. I’ve felt it myself.

But what is justice in this case?

Such a question should not be answered in a knee-jerk fashion with emotion or vitriol, especially when a tragedy like this may have been caused by a knee-jerk reaction made for the wrong reasons.

What we have now is outrage borne of frustration, but to whom should the anger be directed? The shooter? Florida’s stand-your-ground law and its proponents? The local authorities who chose to make no arrest? Gun manufacturers? Racists everywhere? A culture in which a “hoodie” can by itself make its wearer suspicious?

Again, what is justice in this case? What is the best possible outcome?

To me, justice is more a process than an outcome. Justice is a public, fair airing of the evidence in a jury trial. It is allowing George Zimmerman his say in a courtroom. If there is a reason this should not at least go to trial, we should be willing to hear it. But the evidence needs to be presented fairly and publicly.

The publicity generated by this case is encouraging, especially since the sides seem less drawn on racial lines than one might have expected. People of all colors are angered by the killing, and the lack of an arrest. The anger is understandable. What is not justified is letting that anger determine what would be a proper and just resolution to this case.

I was disheartened to see that Dennis Kucinich lost a primary race in Ohio on Tuesday and will thus not be a member of the next Congress. One of the few politicians I felt I could count on, Kucinich was a voice for peace no matter what the so-called conventional wisdom dictated. He will be missed, but I think he will still make an impact on the national discussion. He will also make an impact through those he has inspired.

Check out a post-election interview with Kucinich at the beginning of the latest Truthdig podcast.

The following video, uploaded to You Tube by Class War Films, offers a scathing critique of the “American myth” and ends with a call for revolution. I agree with many of the points made, but the language will immediately turn off many, if not most, Americans.

One of my problems with many conservative politicians and media types is their breathless warnings against liberalism, and sometimes even moderation, claiming that impending doom and destruction of all that is good is right around the corner unless Obama, the mainstream media and their evil comrades are stopped. This video strikes a bit of the same tone from a different perspective, even if the content may be more closely aligned with reality than the hyperbole offered up by Fox News, Sarah Palin and their ilk.

The irony is that many of those who trust and admire Fox News have a lot in common with those who would applaud this video. But the Fox News conservatives will not stand to be told their country’s history is rife with evil and hypocrisy. Likewise, those who like the message of this video don’t want to hear that liberals are evil and seek the destruction of America and apple pie.

For the many to overturn a system that disproportionately benefits the few, the many must join together. Messages like the one created by Class War Films are powerful, but can they unite those divided by social issues and partisan loyalties? If not, what can? That is the question with which we should all grapple.

Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party groups have sprung into high prominence, and the Occupy sentiment has transcended American politics to make an impact in other countries. Indeed, the two movements in many ways appear to be motivated by similar grievances, destined to be natural allies. Yet many who associate with one despise and distrust the other.

The first step in bridging the divide? Maybe people like me need to look at Tea Partiers as more than ignorant tools of the right and try to understand their complaints and desires. Some of them may indeed be ignorant tools of the right, but many are sincere Americans looking for a better future. Yes, they may be  motivated by fear (in some cases fear of liberals like me), but they are not evil. They are not the enemy. Some of their ideas deserve resounding defeat, but they themselves do not deserve to be crushed. They are humans, searching for answers, just like me.

I am not endorsing weakness or acquiescence. Dishonesty should not be tolerated. Leaders who seek to reap a financial reward by dividing and exploiting others should be criticized and ridiculed mercilessly. But many of our perceived enemies are not looking for a quick buck or an easy path to power. They’re just searching for answers, and hope.

I believe critiques of American history and policy are necessary, but they should be factual and detailed. The dilemma is that you can offer a detailed analysis that will turn off many who find it “boring” or “too intellectual”, or you can construct broad attacks such as that delivered in this video, which will offend many as simplistic and venomous.

Maybe the answer is that there is no easy answer, not if you want to win over more than just those on one side of the partisan divide. The first step is to understand what you believe and why, for not doing so will make you an uncommitted, ineffective and unworthy advocate of any cause. Trying to reach and articulate such an understanding is a major reason I started this blog.

I highly recommend viewing this video, but in no way endorse every word of it. I wouldn’t encourage taking it all to heart, or rejecting it entirely, but it can and should be used as a catalyst for inspecting and refining your own views.

I greatly recommend the recent Rolling Stone article headlined “One Town’s War on Gay Teens – In Michele Bachmann’s home district, evangelicals have created an extreme anti-gay climate. After a rash of suicides, the kids are fighting back.”

Be prepared for some graphic language; this is certainly no feel-good story. Anti-gay bullying has been in the news a lot in recent years, but a story like this is especially moving because you learn a bit about the victims and their experiences. I’m not sure the villain here is homophobia as much as it is fear and hatred. Therefore, the solution has no place for fear or hatred.

Many people speak of the need for “tolerance” of homosexuals. That word bothers me, because there is nothing to tolerate. A human being isn’t an uncomfortable situation to be tolerated. Maybe “acceptance” is a little better, “understanding” better yet.

Hateful attitudes like those described in the Rolling Stone piece are at least partly learned. In our own lives, we can all try to ensure we are not teaching or promoting hatred to any children over whom we have influence. And if we ever witness bullying, we can try to stop it.

I see the fight for equality for those in the LGBT community as my generation’s version of the fight for equal rights for racial minorities. Many of the same people who stood on the wrong side in the civil rights struggle of the 60s, or their ideological descendants, are on the wrong side once again. And again, they will lose.

As more and more people discover that someone they know and love is homosexual, the number of Americans favoring equal rights for gays, including the right to marry, continues to grow. While my faith in progress and humanity gives me no doubt of the eventual outcome of this war, I am greatly concerned by the casualties that will pile up along the way.