I haven't written for a while, I know, I've been a bit preoccupied with other summer activities that are less politically focused.  Just checking in to say that I do plan to keep up this blog!  Hopefully!

Most of my understanding of WWII history comes from the American perspective, so I know very little about the European side of things - little enough that I can't even make a bulleted list that doesn't include such insightful statements as "Hitler was evil."

So, I shall investigate.

• The first military engagement of WWII was Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939.
• Hitler did not anticipate a larger war, as he expected to swiftly defeat the Polish forces and figured that Chamberlain and Daladier (French PM) were weak and wouldn't start a war.
• The annexation of Czechoslovakia gave this idea of intimidation.

Very interesting.  It's amazing how little of this I learned.  Looks like the BBC - History website has a ton of information about various wars, so I'll be back there in the future.  For now, I'll just stick to that Poland invasion for the topic today.

Sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/invasion_poland_01.shtml

Thanks to Chris Matthews and YouTube, I have some of an idea on this one.

• Appeasement is NOT talking to people you don't like
• Appeasement IS when you (Neville Chamberlain) give part of a country (Czechoslovakia) to an evil leader (Hilter)
• Bush apparently implied that Obama would be an appeaser.
• Bush's spokesperson is a dumbass.

Alright - so what really happened?  Wikipedia!

• Neville Chamberlain was a British Prime Minister before WWII. Winston Churchill succeeded him.
• He signed the Munich Agreement, allowing Hitler to annex part of Czechoslovakia.

Thank you cable news for educating me!

Other information I didn't know...

• The Knesset is the legislative branch of Israeli government.
• There is misunderstanding over whether Bush was referring to Obama or Jimmy Carter.  Private White House sources say that he was referring to many Democrats in general.

The statements in question:

• "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history,"
• "As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century"
  

Sources:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_chamberlain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/15/bush.dems/index.html

Sunni.  Shiite.  Okay, I have no flipping clue on this one.  All I (think I)know is:

• Both are factions of Islam
• They apparently don't get along.
• McCain confuses them (so I don't feel too bad)

Google leads me to my least favorite website in the world, About.com, but it was kind of helpful here.

• It's a mostly political difference, but they share the same beliefs for the most part.
• Difference originated following the prophet Muhammad's death
• Sunni's believe that the next leader should be selected based on who is most capable for the job.
• Most Muslims are Sunni.
• Shia's believe that leadership should have stayed with the prophet's family.
• Therefore they follow their own set of Imams, believed to be descended from Muhammad and ordained by God.

Okay, well that's all well and good, but it doesn't help me with the important question.  What's going on in Iraq?  A "gotcha" article in the New York Times explains a little more.

• Iraq and Iran are mostly Shiite while the rest of the Muslim world is mostly Sunni.
• Al Qaeda is Sunni.

I want more info!  This was the first link, but I didn't know what HNN was so I skipped by it.  Apparently it's the "History News Network" for George Mason University.  Sounds good to me.

• They claim that the problems in Iraq are due to leaders (Winston Churchill) who didn't know enough about Islam and its factions drew arbitrary borders around the Middle East following WWI.

Ugh, I'm going to Wikipedia.

• Governing regimes of Iraq were mostly Sunni (Saddam Hussein) before the 2003 Iraq War.  Shiites were persecuted.
• Now much of the fighting in Iraq is between the two factions.
• The current Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is Shiite.
• Hezbollah is Shiite.

I am thoroughly confused.  I think I may have bit off a bit more than I can chew with this post, but the basics have been covered.

• Al Qaeda = Sunni
• Hezbollah = Shiite
• Hussein = Sunni
• al-Maliki (current PM) = Shiite
• We're apparently helping out the Shiite.
• Most other Muslims are Sunni.

Alrighty, that's enough of that.  As always, if any of this is wrong, let me know.

Sources:

http://islam.about.com/cs/divisions/f/shia_sunni.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/opinion/17stein.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://hnn.us/articles/934.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni-Shia_relations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouri_al-Maliki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

Here's my current level of understanding about the McCain-Feingold Act.  It's likely to be, at best, incomplete, but probably incorrect in some places as well:

• It has to do with money used in political campaigns.
• You need to tell everyone where you got your money from.
• It's pretty bad if you take it from corporations.
• According to the news, McCain himself is trying to circumvent it.
  

Okay, so that's what I think I know.  Let's see what's really the case.  I did some Googling and of course found the Wikipedia page.  I know that Wikipedia is all changeable or whatever, but I couldn't find anything better of a source that was readable in the first few pages of hits.  Sue me.  Anywho, I skimmed it and this is what I've gathered:

• aka Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, sponsored by McCain (R-AZ) & Feingold (D-WI), laws became effective January 2003.
• Okay, good to find out who Feingold was.  Didn't really know that he was from Wisconsin, though I assumed he was a Democrat.
• regulates Soft Money - so you can't raise or spend unlimited amounts of money anymore.
• advertisements can't be paid for by corporations, including non-profits, or unions
• McConnell (R-KY) vs. FEC, December 2003 - upheld the law, found it constitutional.
• 527's work around it - "Political organizations" not  "Political committees" so they can do the whole soft money thing.
• Ah, so this is where the Swift Boaters fit.
• Apparently this is where the "approve this message" thing came from.
• Funny, I thought this was much older.
  

Hm...well I was kind of right, but not really.  It looks like the law was just about ads and money sources (not disclosure though - I guess that was from a long time ago.)

Well, that's what I know.  I still am not quite sure where the McCain going against his bill thing came from, but I'll ask my uber-political source later.  We shall call him Deep Throat.

(Crappy) Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mccain-feingold
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McConnell_v._FEC