It was great to start downloading and listening to Wes Clark's "clarkcast" podcasts. I was especially pleased to hear the first one say that they would take a non-partisan tone, but that the policies of the Republican administration and Congress had to be gotten rid of. Listening to Clarkcasts is going to be a priority for me from now on.
I was also glad to hear that Clark had joined the increasing calls of other retired generals for replacement of Donald Rumsfeld. I'd like to add an additional reason for getting rid of Rumsfeld that I haven't seen offered by others yet. Rumsfeld is a Republican.
No, I'm not suggesting that Bush's cabinet should be replaced with Democrats. I'm still in favor of replacing Bush with a Democrat. When that Democrat (and I hope it's Wes Clark) takes office, I hope he replaces the Secretary of Defense with a Republican. We're at war.
It makes good political sense for the President and the Secretary of Defense to be from opposite parties, but no one figured that out before Honest Abe Lincoln appointed Democratic politician Edwin M. Stanton his Secretary of War. Secretary Stanton not only helped rally Democrats to the war effort but he eventually became a Republican himself.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt imitated Lincoln by appointing William Howard Taft's old Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, as his own Secretary of War as the United States prepared for World War II. Again this paid off by helping assure Republican support for the war.
Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson appointed a non-political technocrat, Robert McNamara, as Secretary of Defense. He may not have been the best Secretary, but he did help to keep the Republicans on board during the Vietnam War. Nixon had Republican Secretaries of Defense, Melvin Laird, Elliot Richardson, James Schlesinger, and (gasp) Donald Rumsfeld, but that only left Democrats more free to oppose the War.
Woodrow Wilson also had a Secretary of War from his own party, Newton D. Baker, during World War I. Of course the Republicans weren't about to oppose World War I. They'd been screaming for it when Wilson was campaigning as the guy who kept us out of it. But they sure weren't going to cut him any slack about his "League of Nations" idea when he came home from France with the Treaty of Versailles. He may have sold it to the Europeans but he couldn't sell it to the Republicans, not after he left them out of both the war cabinet and the peace negotiations. Reductionists might blame World War II on Wilson's decision (and it should bear part of the blame - it did doom US participation in the League of Nations, which might have helped stop the war before it got out of hand) but that would be going too far. Hoover's Secretary of State Henry Stimson (yes, the same Stimson) offered to help the League stop Japanese aggression in Manchuria if they would grow a backbone, but they turned him down. Still, it's easy to find fault with Wilson's "my way or the highway" attitude and most historians today would.
The lesson of history in this case? Yes, we need a Democrat president to replace Bush, but we also need a non-partisan administration that can unite the country afterwards. That means whichever of the Democrats who wins in 2008 should appoint a sane, honest, qualified Republican (assuming one can be found at this late date) as Secretary of Defense for the duration of the War against Al-Qa'ida and possibly beyond.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Need more proof that "Ann" Coulter is a man?
Try her "blame the victim" attitude to rape:
"Also, you can severely reduce your chances of being raped if you do not go to strange men's houses and take your clothes off for money."
Personally I don't mind seeing beautiful women take off their clothes. I've seen it before and I hope to see it again. I do mind that some people think that's an excuse to rape the women who do it. That would severely discourage women, especially beautiful women, from taking off their clothes.
"Also, you can severely reduce your chances of being raped if you do not go to strange men's houses and take your clothes off for money."
Personally I don't mind seeing beautiful women take off their clothes. I've seen it before and I hope to see it again. I do mind that some people think that's an excuse to rape the women who do it. That would severely discourage women, especially beautiful women, from taking off their clothes.
Friday, April 21, 2006
More double standard?
"WASHINGTON, April 21 (UPI) -- The CIA has fired an employee for leaking classified information to the news media, the agency announced in Washington Friday."
So . . . when does the leaker in chief get fired? Don't tell me it's legal when he does it. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. That shouldn't be the issue. The issue should be that he is not interested in the national interest, or even national security. He is interested in his own short-term political future, in taking revenge on people who cross him, and his own crackhead delusions.
So . . . when does the leaker in chief get fired? Don't tell me it's legal when he does it. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. That shouldn't be the issue. The issue should be that he is not interested in the national interest, or even national security. He is interested in his own short-term political future, in taking revenge on people who cross him, and his own crackhead delusions.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Darfur and the Chad insurgency
Chad has been providing refuge to refugees and rebels from Darfur in Sudan, probably less from sympathy than from inability to do anything about it. Wadai in Chad is right over the border from Darfur. Wadai and Darfur used to be neighboring kingdoms. The capital of Chad is all the way across the country, near Cameroon. Chad itself has never had a democratic government and is one of the most artificial, unviable and ungovernable states in Africa.
The government in Chad has accused the government in Sudan of supporting the rebels in Chad, as Sudan has accused Chad of supporting the rebels in Sudan. Maybe they have, maybe they don't have enough control of, or enough concern with, the area to do anything about it. Modern states in Africa are often more a way to get money from the International Community (OECD? G8+? what does that term mean?) in foreign aid, especially in French Africa where La France pays for the government expenses in order to maintain French as the official language.
The Chad rebels are promising a national conference, which has worked in many other Francophone countries, but as long as French is the official language, and as long as literacy rates (measured in French of course) are miniscule, there is not much hope for democracy.
The government in Chad has accused the government in Sudan of supporting the rebels in Chad, as Sudan has accused Chad of supporting the rebels in Sudan. Maybe they have, maybe they don't have enough control of, or enough concern with, the area to do anything about it. Modern states in Africa are often more a way to get money from the International Community (OECD? G8+? what does that term mean?) in foreign aid, especially in French Africa where La France pays for the government expenses in order to maintain French as the official language.
The Chad rebels are promising a national conference, which has worked in many other Francophone countries, but as long as French is the official language, and as long as literacy rates (measured in French of course) are miniscule, there is not much hope for democracy.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Is the tide turning?
I decided to take a listen to wingnut talk radio yesterday, just to see what the other side was saying. I went to Shoutcast, got the list of talk streams, and clicked the most popular one that looked most clearly right wing. Sure enough there were ads for right wing bumper stickers, and ads telling me how to put my money into gold because the Federal Reserve Board was a bunch of conspirators trying to make away with my hard earned money. But what were they talking about?
IMPEACHMENT!
Yes, I couldn't believe it. They had a some guy from Vermont on the air talking about how to impeach Bush, and people were calling in wanting to know more. The news that President Bush himself had been behind the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame all along had finally gotten people to realize that this administration was not about national security at all.
IMPEACHMENT!
Yes, I couldn't believe it. They had a some guy from Vermont on the air talking about how to impeach Bush, and people were calling in wanting to know more. The news that President Bush himself had been behind the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame all along had finally gotten people to realize that this administration was not about national security at all.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Out of control hypocrisy
First the Bush administration reclassifies old documents needlessly.
Then they casually leak pertinent, sensitive, current national security secrets for political gain.
Finally they pretend they are protecting American citizens from foreign terrorists.
How can approximately one third of the country not yet see through these people?
Then they casually leak pertinent, sensitive, current national security secrets for political gain.
Finally they pretend they are protecting American citizens from foreign terrorists.
How can approximately one third of the country not yet see through these people?
Bush and the question from a North Carolina man
I originally heard this exchange on NPR, but I can't find it on their site. I have to give Bush praise for telling the audience to let the man speak, even if he was only being political about it. There is a real question historically about the limits of dissent in wartime, just as there is a real question, Constitutionally, whether we are at war or not right now. However, since the Vietnam War (or "conflict" if you prefer) there has been an emerging consensus that patriotic dissent is possible in wartime, and that it is different from treason, i.e. "levying War against them [i.e. the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Hopefully we won't see any Alien and Sedition Acts anytime soon.
Nevertheless, I wondered why the guy didn't ask the obvious question that's been bugging me for months, namely, why can't Bush get a warrant for his wiretapping, if he really has nothing to hide? I think maybe too many of us are too emotional, or maybe we find these questions to be too self-evident, that we don't always pose them correctly.
Bush is obviously trying to position himself as the defender of America, so he can rise in the polls and avoid a Congress that will investigate his illegal activities, and, if necessary, move to impeach him and remove him from office.
Nevertheless, I wondered why the guy didn't ask the obvious question that's been bugging me for months, namely, why can't Bush get a warrant for his wiretapping, if he really has nothing to hide? I think maybe too many of us are too emotional, or maybe we find these questions to be too self-evident, that we don't always pose them correctly.
Bush is obviously trying to position himself as the defender of America, so he can rise in the polls and avoid a Congress that will investigate his illegal activities, and, if necessary, move to impeach him and remove him from office.
Bush and signing statements
from the Boston Globe
This presidency is the first time I've ever heard the idea that signing statements have the force of law, in fact that they have more force than the law being signed. I always thought they were just kind of a political speech in writing, a press release saying how nice it was that the law had been passed and how we should all thank the president for his support of it.
Of course this is red meat to those who hate America, not to mention the fact that it creates more and more such people. I don't hate America, and in fact what disturbs me about Bush is how his actions create more and more hatred of America. Pro-Union slave owners in the American Civil War denounced secessionists as "practical abolitionists" because they actually promoted abolitionism (against their intentions, of course) by seceding from the Union. Bush seems to be the most practical anti-American alive.
What I would like to know is whether his oath of office,
is modified by some kind of signing statement that gives him the right to ignore all or part of the Constitution of the United States.
WASHINGTON -- When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.
This presidency is the first time I've ever heard the idea that signing statements have the force of law, in fact that they have more force than the law being signed. I always thought they were just kind of a political speech in writing, a press release saying how nice it was that the law had been passed and how we should all thank the president for his support of it.
Of course this is red meat to those who hate America, not to mention the fact that it creates more and more such people. I don't hate America, and in fact what disturbs me about Bush is how his actions create more and more hatred of America. Pro-Union slave owners in the American Civil War denounced secessionists as "practical abolitionists" because they actually promoted abolitionism (against their intentions, of course) by seceding from the Union. Bush seems to be the most practical anti-American alive.
What I would like to know is whether his oath of office,
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
is modified by some kind of signing statement that gives him the right to ignore all or part of the Constitution of the United States.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
A radical proposal for immigration
Radical doesn't really, originally mean extreme. It comes from the Latin word "radix" which means "root". Radical means getting to the root of a problem. In this case, let's look at what the root cause of out of control immigration from Mexico and Central America and see what can be done to control it. No one in the current debate is talking about it.
Why are so many people from Mexico and Central America streaming into the United States? Because they are desperately poor and they see prosperity and opportunity in the United States. There is almost no place else on earth where the developed and underdeveloped worlds meet so closely as the US Mexico border. On one side there are lawn sprinklers, soccer moms and SUVs. On the other side there are dusty desert towns with barefoot children begging for coins. The only other border that stark is the one between North and South Korea. Some Americans would like to see our border as fortified as the inter-Korean one, but for the time being, you can walk or drive across the US Mexico border. It's not so easy to cross the Korean border.
This is very similar to what is happening with Africans trying to get into Europe via the Canary Islands, or even Turkey trying to join the EU. But the borders between the developed and underdeveloped world are not so stark between Europe and Africa and Asia around the Mediterranean. The relative prosperity fades out even within countries (as in Italy or the former Yugoslavia - although we should keep in mind that factor is divisive in those countries) as much as it does between countries, and there are no economic borders as stark as that between Texas or California and Mexico.
The Hispanic population in the United States, which is mostly Mexican, is disproportionately young. The half the population was less than 26.0 years old, compared with 35.4 for the population at large (and it was even higher for the non-Hispanic population). In part this was because the Hispanic population was largely immigrant (which also explains the fact that there are more Hispanic men than women, the opposite of the case with the population at large), but this is more a result of fact that the Hispanic population, even the Cubans in Florida, is from underdeveloped countries, with high birth and death rates, especially infant mortality. This leaves a demographic pyramid that is wide at the base, narrow at the top, rather than the rough cylinder that is the population of the developed countries.
In underdeveloped countries children are not just the expensive hobby they are in the US, Europe and Japan. They are their parents Social Security and old age pension. It is not just sentiment that makes people have children there. It is naked, cold self interest. The only way to stop Mexican population from hemorrhaging into the US is to develop Mexico, and give the Mexican people the individual, personal self-interest in controlling their population that people in developed countries have now.
Can one country develop another by either foreign investment or foreign aid? I suppose if it could be done it would have been done somewhere, but it hasn't been. However, the United States has a very serious national security interest in seeing that Mexico becomes developed, and Mexicans become prosperous. This would mean not only investment, but the ability of Mexicans to collectively bargain, in their own country, for better remuneration from their employers, to raise Mexican living standards to the level of those in the United States.
Why are so many people from Mexico and Central America streaming into the United States? Because they are desperately poor and they see prosperity and opportunity in the United States. There is almost no place else on earth where the developed and underdeveloped worlds meet so closely as the US Mexico border. On one side there are lawn sprinklers, soccer moms and SUVs. On the other side there are dusty desert towns with barefoot children begging for coins. The only other border that stark is the one between North and South Korea. Some Americans would like to see our border as fortified as the inter-Korean one, but for the time being, you can walk or drive across the US Mexico border. It's not so easy to cross the Korean border.
This is very similar to what is happening with Africans trying to get into Europe via the Canary Islands, or even Turkey trying to join the EU. But the borders between the developed and underdeveloped world are not so stark between Europe and Africa and Asia around the Mediterranean. The relative prosperity fades out even within countries (as in Italy or the former Yugoslavia - although we should keep in mind that factor is divisive in those countries) as much as it does between countries, and there are no economic borders as stark as that between Texas or California and Mexico.
The Hispanic population in the United States, which is mostly Mexican, is disproportionately young. The half the population was less than 26.0 years old, compared with 35.4 for the population at large (and it was even higher for the non-Hispanic population). In part this was because the Hispanic population was largely immigrant (which also explains the fact that there are more Hispanic men than women, the opposite of the case with the population at large), but this is more a result of fact that the Hispanic population, even the Cubans in Florida, is from underdeveloped countries, with high birth and death rates, especially infant mortality. This leaves a demographic pyramid that is wide at the base, narrow at the top, rather than the rough cylinder that is the population of the developed countries.
In underdeveloped countries children are not just the expensive hobby they are in the US, Europe and Japan. They are their parents Social Security and old age pension. It is not just sentiment that makes people have children there. It is naked, cold self interest. The only way to stop Mexican population from hemorrhaging into the US is to develop Mexico, and give the Mexican people the individual, personal self-interest in controlling their population that people in developed countries have now.
Can one country develop another by either foreign investment or foreign aid? I suppose if it could be done it would have been done somewhere, but it hasn't been. However, the United States has a very serious national security interest in seeing that Mexico becomes developed, and Mexicans become prosperous. This would mean not only investment, but the ability of Mexicans to collectively bargain, in their own country, for better remuneration from their employers, to raise Mexican living standards to the level of those in the United States.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Will the Dems adopt my slogan?
GET BIN LADIN! was my first post here. I was still trying to recover from the Bush baby's re-election.
Today Dick Cheney said the Democrat plan was to "get bin Laden". Al Sharpton, not my favorite Democrat, points out that Bush said he was going to get bin Laden. Just a few weeks ago Bush himself said he was going to "get bin Laden." Even in South Carolina people are finally beginning to see that Bush can't come through on that promise. People everywhere are finally beginning to see that the invasion of Iraq was at best a diversion from the war, at worst a boon to bin Ladin.
So what are the Democrats offering as an alternative?
The Democrat plan offers to "Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban.
"Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure."
YES! We need more money for human intelligence, not just buying information from others overseas, but training more Americans who can understand what's happening around the world in other societies. And the Special Forces? They seem to be the only people who can get things right. They were Kennedy's idea, just like the Peace Corps.
Boy, do I miss Jack Kennedy! There was a president.
Today Dick Cheney said the Democrat plan was to "get bin Laden". Al Sharpton, not my favorite Democrat, points out that Bush said he was going to get bin Laden. Just a few weeks ago Bush himself said he was going to "get bin Laden." Even in South Carolina people are finally beginning to see that Bush can't come through on that promise. People everywhere are finally beginning to see that the invasion of Iraq was at best a diversion from the war, at worst a boon to bin Ladin.
So what are the Democrats offering as an alternative?
The Democrat plan offers to "Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban.
"Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure."
YES! We need more money for human intelligence, not just buying information from others overseas, but training more Americans who can understand what's happening around the world in other societies. And the Special Forces? They seem to be the only people who can get things right. They were Kennedy's idea, just like the Peace Corps.
Boy, do I miss Jack Kennedy! There was a president.
Everyone's entitled to a day in court.
Or so we were taught in America when I was young. The Constitution doesn't limit this right to citizens, as some would have us believe. It doesn't even limit the right to a jury trial. Here's what it says, even before the Bill of Rights was added (Article III, section 2):
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury;"
Everyone's entitled to a day in court, with a jury. Not a jury of their peers (that's the Magna Carta you're thinking of, which applied only to nobles, or "peers") but a jury nonetheless.
Americans as diverse as Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and General Billy Mitchell have deliberately violated the law in order to get a day in court and use it as a forum for changing policies and laws.
Is this era coming to an end? The administration seems to think so. They might even reject the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, arguably placing the President above the law. If the US is fighting a war, then the Guantanamo detainees are POWs and entitled to Geneva Convention rights. If the US is suppressing criminal activities, then the Guantanamo detainees are criminal suspects and entitled to criminal law protections. Either way they are human beings, and entitled to the rights that human beings are naturally entitled to, according to American belief.
But not according to Justice Scalia.
"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury;"
Everyone's entitled to a day in court, with a jury. Not a jury of their peers (that's the Magna Carta you're thinking of, which applied only to nobles, or "peers") but a jury nonetheless.
Americans as diverse as Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and General Billy Mitchell have deliberately violated the law in order to get a day in court and use it as a forum for changing policies and laws.
Is this era coming to an end? The administration seems to think so. They might even reject the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, arguably placing the President above the law. If the US is fighting a war, then the Guantanamo detainees are POWs and entitled to Geneva Convention rights. If the US is suppressing criminal activities, then the Guantanamo detainees are criminal suspects and entitled to criminal law protections. Either way they are human beings, and entitled to the rights that human beings are naturally entitled to, according to American belief.
But not according to Justice Scalia.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Why don't the media call Bush on these lies?
I listened to Bush's press conference on NPR. Now I'm listening to it again on C-Span.org. I can believe the guy lies constantly. I'm used to that by now. But why does no one call him on the lies? Helen Thomas tried to but she could barely get any words in. Then the discussion on NPR never mentioned that he kept lying and lying and lying. Is the man a pathological liar? Does he think Americans are stupid?
Let me count the lies (or at least some of the biggest):
I didn't plan the Iraq war until 9/11 . . .
Iraq had something to do with al-Qa'ida . . .
The UN Security Council resolutions authorized the invasion . . .
Saddam Hussein wouldn't obey the Security Council resolutions . . .
Saddam wouldn't allow the inspectors to finish their work . . .
and that's just to one question by Helen Thomas. He wouldn't even answer her question about what was the real reason we went to war.
What else:
The enemy wants us out of Iraq. (Ultimately yes, but for the time being they want us in, alone, because not only is it easier to kill us there, but it inflames the Muslim world and gives them more and more recruits and imitators. Their plan is to bankrupt us through this war, which will make us withdraw not just from Iraq but from the entire Islamic World, by making us collapse (as they think they made the Soviet Union collapse), which is also the Grover Norquist plan to destroy the Federal government. Isn't that usually considered treason?)
Let's not even talk about what he says about Social Security, "democracies don't war" (Is he admitting that, thanks to Diebold, the US is no longer a democracy? Is that the real reason we went to war?), the decision about troop strength will be made by commanders on the ground or all the other lies.
And then there's the stuff he won't even talk about anymore, like yellowcake uranium from Niger and outing a CIA agent.
The biggest question to me is why the press is not performing its watchdog role by calling this man on his lies. They know the facts. Anyone who has been paying attention knows the facts. What is going on that our "free, independent" fourth estate cannot call the president on his lying?
Let me count the lies (or at least some of the biggest):
I didn't plan the Iraq war until 9/11 . . .
Iraq had something to do with al-Qa'ida . . .
The UN Security Council resolutions authorized the invasion . . .
Saddam Hussein wouldn't obey the Security Council resolutions . . .
Saddam wouldn't allow the inspectors to finish their work . . .
and that's just to one question by Helen Thomas. He wouldn't even answer her question about what was the real reason we went to war.
What else:
The enemy wants us out of Iraq. (Ultimately yes, but for the time being they want us in, alone, because not only is it easier to kill us there, but it inflames the Muslim world and gives them more and more recruits and imitators. Their plan is to bankrupt us through this war, which will make us withdraw not just from Iraq but from the entire Islamic World, by making us collapse (as they think they made the Soviet Union collapse), which is also the Grover Norquist plan to destroy the Federal government. Isn't that usually considered treason?)
Let's not even talk about what he says about Social Security, "democracies don't war" (Is he admitting that, thanks to Diebold, the US is no longer a democracy? Is that the real reason we went to war?), the decision about troop strength will be made by commanders on the ground or all the other lies.
And then there's the stuff he won't even talk about anymore, like yellowcake uranium from Niger and outing a CIA agent.
The biggest question to me is why the press is not performing its watchdog role by calling this man on his lies. They know the facts. Anyone who has been paying attention knows the facts. What is going on that our "free, independent" fourth estate cannot call the president on his lying?
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
My two cents about censure
Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a bill to censure President Bush. Democrats are rushing to support that bill. I am opposed. Let me explain why.
Censure is not in the Constitution. It does nothing in a practical sense. It's just a means of getting steam off your chest about something. Henry Clay created it for political reasons. He didn't like what Andy Jackson was doing as president (specifically about the Bank of the United States) but he knew, even if he had the support of the Congress, that he couldn't legally impeach Jackson without the Constitutionally required "high crimes and misdemeanors" to charge him with.
Now, I think censure would have been perfect in Clinton's case, although impeachment would have been inappropriate. What Clinton did was clearly wrong. But it wasn't illegal. It certainly wasn't worth removing him from office. The whole thing was a political move. If they had the votes to impeach Clinton for zippergate, they would have had the votes to remove Gore for the Buddhist Temple thing. Then guess who gets to be President. That's right, Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, would have become our next Commander in Chief. Of course he'd have had to call out troops to quell the public outcry, but dictatorship would be a small price to pay for (what? what possible advantage could Gingrich have offered over Clinton?)
The point is that impeachment was in no way justified by Clinton's actions, it is every way justified by Bush's actions, which are not just wrong, not just incompetent, but criminal. Censure may make people feel better about what's happening, but it won't fix the problems.
Censure is not in the Constitution. It does nothing in a practical sense. It's just a means of getting steam off your chest about something. Henry Clay created it for political reasons. He didn't like what Andy Jackson was doing as president (specifically about the Bank of the United States) but he knew, even if he had the support of the Congress, that he couldn't legally impeach Jackson without the Constitutionally required "high crimes and misdemeanors" to charge him with.
Now, I think censure would have been perfect in Clinton's case, although impeachment would have been inappropriate. What Clinton did was clearly wrong. But it wasn't illegal. It certainly wasn't worth removing him from office. The whole thing was a political move. If they had the votes to impeach Clinton for zippergate, they would have had the votes to remove Gore for the Buddhist Temple thing. Then guess who gets to be President. That's right, Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, would have become our next Commander in Chief. Of course he'd have had to call out troops to quell the public outcry, but dictatorship would be a small price to pay for (what? what possible advantage could Gingrich have offered over Clinton?)
The point is that impeachment was in no way justified by Clinton's actions, it is every way justified by Bush's actions, which are not just wrong, not just incompetent, but criminal. Censure may make people feel better about what's happening, but it won't fix the problems.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Anonymity: let me count the wherefores
1. Who am I? Why should it matter? Shouldn't the ideas, the facts, and the interpretation of them be important? What does it matter to you whether I am male or female, black, white or other, tall or short, skinny or fat, smoker or drinker or sex addict? Aren't these all just ad hominem arguments? Who cares? As the Diamond Sutra teaches us, material characteristics are not, in fact, characteristics. Don't ask me what that means. I don't claim to have had a satori, in Paris or elsewhere. I would just rather my ideas were judged on their own merits than on the basis of who they were espoused by. I've had good and bad experiences with academic "blind peer review" of my writings, and some bad ones. The bad ones were always caused by people trying (and sometimes failing) to figure out who I was, what my ethnic and/or national identity was, and judging the value of my ideas by who they thought I was (sometimes mistakenly), instead of judging the ideas on their own.
2. Maybe I'm just paranoid. I probably say much more dangerous things under my own name than I do here. Maybe the idea that I might lose out on some future job, or be dismissed from one of the ones I hold now, for what I say here is just crazy. But I think it was Nixon's Attorney General John Mitchell who said that even paranoids have real enemies. He saw the enemies list, and he should know. I'm not under any illusion that I'm important enough to have a spot on Bush II's enemies list. However, I do feel a little more secure not putting my name out there for what's on this blog, and the crossposts at DailyKos and Wesley Clark's blog. I started my blog after Bush was re-inaugurated. John Dean (who should know) said that the Bush II administration was "worse than Watergate" and I remember Watergate. In fact I remember handing out flyers for McGovern in '72, when someone took me aside and said that I shouldn't be doing this because Nixon was going to be much harder on the opposition after he was re-elected with a landslide. I said I was too deep in it anyway. I probably am again. I can only hope Bush is impeached. After that, when I feel safer, maybe I'll tell everyone who I am. If anyone's actually reading this stuff enough to be interested.
3. OK, I admit, it just feels kind of neat to let off some steam anonymously. Think of it like cybergraffiti, only I'm not defacing anything except my own site. There's an old Latin satire that claims "The names of fools are inscribed on the walls of public buildings." (Yes, Rome had a graffiti problem, too.) I can write something wittier than my own name in Roman letters. In fact I could write my name in a few other scripts, too. I guess I don't have an ego that insists I must get credit (if not get paid) for everything I do. It's the deed that matters more than the doer. And the deed here is just a long, anguished scream.
4. I figure if I keep this up long enough I'll probably get outed sooner or later. I'd just as soon let it be later rather than sooner. I've been slowly dropping a lot of hints about who I might be. A good detective could probably figure it out now. How many people know Francis Fukuyama's SAT scores, what "fitnah" means in Arabic, and regularly submit articles for blind peer review? Maybe Alberto Gonzales, or his underlings, already know who I am and are preparing to render me to Gitmo. Maybe they could care less. Myself, I've become curious to see who figures out my identity first. Should I give them something my state is famous for producing?
5. When people ask me questions privately I can answer them here. For example, someone from the Clark blog asked me about my Arabic. I studied classical Arabic, a dead language, for a few years. I even studied Islamic studies, and Middle Eastern Studies (they're not the same), at one of the best universities in the US. I try to contribute whatever I can to the desperate need of the American public, if not the current American administration, for more and better information, as I'm trying to continue educating myself. After 9/11 half the US wanted to learn more about what was happening in the Islamic world, the other half were going "NUKE THE CAMEL JOCKEYS!" I'd rather address the first group. I don't think they need to know who I am, especially if what I say can be independently confirmed.
6. That really brings up another point. I don't really have anything to say that depends on my identity. Unlike RiverBend, whose veracity depends on her identity as an Iraqi woman living in Baghdad (but who nevertheless, or perhaps therefore, remains anonymous), nothing I say here depends on who I am. It's all verifiable independently of me. You have no need to know who I am. All I know is what I read on the Internet (to update Will Rogers). Or at least all I post here is what I read on the Internet.
7. I suppose Google could find out who I am if they wanted to. I have to take the risk that they would turn me in to the Chinese government, or the US government as soon as the Bush administration gets around to bumping off its domestic opponents, but I just think that risk is small enough that I'll take a chance on it for the opportunity to mouth off like this. I guess Kos could find out who I am, too, but I'll take my chances on him. If he's going to turn me in I might as well give up.
8. General Clark can find out who I am anytime he wants just for asking, although he could probably ask the guys who run the blog for him, if he cares. I still have a lot of faith in General Clark, but not idealistic faith. (I still remember the guy working on the Carter campaign who said he would resign if we saw a Cy Vance as Secretary of State or Zbigniew Brzezinski as National Security Advisor. He didn't when we did.) I expect General Clark to administer from the center if he ever becomes president, like the Democratic Eisenhower many see him as. I'd even support him if he appointed a Republican (John McCain?) as Secretary of Defense. Lincoln, FDR and JFK had Secretaries of War or Defense from the other party and got a lot of support for their policies for it. Wilson and Nixon didn't. Wilson couldn't get the Republicans to support his League of Nations idea, with disastrous consequences for the US, not to mention the world. We all know what happened to Nixon. Not that I'm blaming the Democrats for going after him. In retrospect we can all be happy he didn't have a Democrat Secretary of Defense.
9. Well, that's about it. It's about all the reasons I can think of offhand. Maybe I'm crazy, maybe I'm a fox, maybe it doesn't matter at all. You can ask me questions privately if you want. I'll just answer them here. Or you can ask them as comments on my blog, and I can answer them as other comments there. When I get around to it. I really don't have time to get online everyday.
2. Maybe I'm just paranoid. I probably say much more dangerous things under my own name than I do here. Maybe the idea that I might lose out on some future job, or be dismissed from one of the ones I hold now, for what I say here is just crazy. But I think it was Nixon's Attorney General John Mitchell who said that even paranoids have real enemies. He saw the enemies list, and he should know. I'm not under any illusion that I'm important enough to have a spot on Bush II's enemies list. However, I do feel a little more secure not putting my name out there for what's on this blog, and the crossposts at DailyKos and Wesley Clark's blog. I started my blog after Bush was re-inaugurated. John Dean (who should know) said that the Bush II administration was "worse than Watergate" and I remember Watergate. In fact I remember handing out flyers for McGovern in '72, when someone took me aside and said that I shouldn't be doing this because Nixon was going to be much harder on the opposition after he was re-elected with a landslide. I said I was too deep in it anyway. I probably am again. I can only hope Bush is impeached. After that, when I feel safer, maybe I'll tell everyone who I am. If anyone's actually reading this stuff enough to be interested.
3. OK, I admit, it just feels kind of neat to let off some steam anonymously. Think of it like cybergraffiti, only I'm not defacing anything except my own site. There's an old Latin satire that claims "The names of fools are inscribed on the walls of public buildings." (Yes, Rome had a graffiti problem, too.) I can write something wittier than my own name in Roman letters. In fact I could write my name in a few other scripts, too. I guess I don't have an ego that insists I must get credit (if not get paid) for everything I do. It's the deed that matters more than the doer. And the deed here is just a long, anguished scream.
4. I figure if I keep this up long enough I'll probably get outed sooner or later. I'd just as soon let it be later rather than sooner. I've been slowly dropping a lot of hints about who I might be. A good detective could probably figure it out now. How many people know Francis Fukuyama's SAT scores, what "fitnah" means in Arabic, and regularly submit articles for blind peer review? Maybe Alberto Gonzales, or his underlings, already know who I am and are preparing to render me to Gitmo. Maybe they could care less. Myself, I've become curious to see who figures out my identity first. Should I give them something my state is famous for producing?
5. When people ask me questions privately I can answer them here. For example, someone from the Clark blog asked me about my Arabic. I studied classical Arabic, a dead language, for a few years. I even studied Islamic studies, and Middle Eastern Studies (they're not the same), at one of the best universities in the US. I try to contribute whatever I can to the desperate need of the American public, if not the current American administration, for more and better information, as I'm trying to continue educating myself. After 9/11 half the US wanted to learn more about what was happening in the Islamic world, the other half were going "NUKE THE CAMEL JOCKEYS!" I'd rather address the first group. I don't think they need to know who I am, especially if what I say can be independently confirmed.
6. That really brings up another point. I don't really have anything to say that depends on my identity. Unlike RiverBend, whose veracity depends on her identity as an Iraqi woman living in Baghdad (but who nevertheless, or perhaps therefore, remains anonymous), nothing I say here depends on who I am. It's all verifiable independently of me. You have no need to know who I am. All I know is what I read on the Internet (to update Will Rogers). Or at least all I post here is what I read on the Internet.
7. I suppose Google could find out who I am if they wanted to. I have to take the risk that they would turn me in to the Chinese government, or the US government as soon as the Bush administration gets around to bumping off its domestic opponents, but I just think that risk is small enough that I'll take a chance on it for the opportunity to mouth off like this. I guess Kos could find out who I am, too, but I'll take my chances on him. If he's going to turn me in I might as well give up.
8. General Clark can find out who I am anytime he wants just for asking, although he could probably ask the guys who run the blog for him, if he cares. I still have a lot of faith in General Clark, but not idealistic faith. (I still remember the guy working on the Carter campaign who said he would resign if we saw a Cy Vance as Secretary of State or Zbigniew Brzezinski as National Security Advisor. He didn't when we did.) I expect General Clark to administer from the center if he ever becomes president, like the Democratic Eisenhower many see him as. I'd even support him if he appointed a Republican (John McCain?) as Secretary of Defense. Lincoln, FDR and JFK had Secretaries of War or Defense from the other party and got a lot of support for their policies for it. Wilson and Nixon didn't. Wilson couldn't get the Republicans to support his League of Nations idea, with disastrous consequences for the US, not to mention the world. We all know what happened to Nixon. Not that I'm blaming the Democrats for going after him. In retrospect we can all be happy he didn't have a Democrat Secretary of Defense.
9. Well, that's about it. It's about all the reasons I can think of offhand. Maybe I'm crazy, maybe I'm a fox, maybe it doesn't matter at all. You can ask me questions privately if you want. I'll just answer them here. Or you can ask them as comments on my blog, and I can answer them as other comments there. When I get around to it. I really don't have time to get online everyday.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Ali's America
Anyone know what happened to a podcast called "Ali's America"? This was done by a rather conservative American from the heartland who happened to be Muslim, happened to be a Bush supporter in fact, and had an interesting, quirky sense of humor.
I've long been interested in the interaction of Islam and the United States, the way each poses challenges to the ohter, and just the general way they interact. America is a challenge to the Islamic tradition of religious states. Muslims who want to be Muslim in America will have to be Muslim on their own. The state neither enforces Islam nor persecutes it. They also have no normative Islam to reference. All the various immigrant and convert groups have different conceptions of Islam and none of them dominates. Pan-Islam can't be romantic anymore.
Islam challenges the US not only by having a stronger tradition of ties to the state than any other major religion, but in other ways as well. I'm not just talking about the al-Qa'ida challenge here, but the communitarian nature of Islam, it's close family values, and the potential it has (as Malcolm X pointed out) for being anti-racist.
Not that Muslims are necessarily more racist than other immigrants. The largest group of converts is African Americans, yet most immigrants are whites, not always anxious to associate with blacks. That's another challenge the US poses for Muslims. Can they really live up to their ideals on their own? America might be better if they did.
I've long been interested in the interaction of Islam and the United States, the way each poses challenges to the ohter, and just the general way they interact. America is a challenge to the Islamic tradition of religious states. Muslims who want to be Muslim in America will have to be Muslim on their own. The state neither enforces Islam nor persecutes it. They also have no normative Islam to reference. All the various immigrant and convert groups have different conceptions of Islam and none of them dominates. Pan-Islam can't be romantic anymore.
Islam challenges the US not only by having a stronger tradition of ties to the state than any other major religion, but in other ways as well. I'm not just talking about the al-Qa'ida challenge here, but the communitarian nature of Islam, it's close family values, and the potential it has (as Malcolm X pointed out) for being anti-racist.
Not that Muslims are necessarily more racist than other immigrants. The largest group of converts is African Americans, yet most immigrants are whites, not always anxious to associate with blacks. That's another challenge the US poses for Muslims. Can they really live up to their ideals on their own? America might be better if they did.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Michael Jackson, Daniel Pipes and Islam
Daniel Pipes had the following to say about Michael Jackson's possible conversion to Islam:
"Given Mr. Jackson's famous eccentricities, it is unclear what his Bahraini venture amounts to, but if he does convert to Islam, he will be following a path in place since the late 1940s, of African-Americans under stress turning to some form of Islam. . . .
"These and other examples establish Islam – in both its normative and Nation variants – as a leading solace for African-Americans in need. That helps explain why the United States has by far the largest Muslim convert population in the Western world (about 750,000 adherents). Each black public figure who converts to Islam or accepts Nation of Islam support creates an added impetus for other blacks to change religions, a pattern that has also emerged in other Western countries."
It is unfortunate that Professor Pipes only sees Michael as black. Americans (myself included) are so racist. What's the saying? "Americans can't see class because they're blinded by race. Brazilians can't see race because they're blinded by class." Can't Michael Jackson, like every other black, just be an individual human being without everyone making him represent the black community? Isn't it unfair?
But this isn't about race or even about class (how many Americans can afford to fly to Bahrain on a whim?) Not even class in the American sense in which Michael doesn't have any. (Not that he has much race, either.)
This conversion, if it happens at all, may have less to do with Jackson's (confused) racial identity than with his sexual proclivities. Like the use of slave soldiers, which Daniel Pipes is an acknowledged expert on, homosexual child-molesting is found in Islamic civilization but is against Islamic law, in fact it's even more obviously and clearly against Islamic law than are slave soldiers and officials although it may also be less coincident with Islamic civilization. I don't know off hand anyone who's written about it. I do know that Islamic states have more and more outlawed polygyny because it makes many men, especially those who can't afford to buy a bride, put off marriage, exacerbating their sexual frustration. They haven't been able to stamp it out. Maybe it has more to do with purdah than with polygyny as such, though.
Like the use of slave soldiers, it's an example of how Islam as a religion and Islam as a civilization can be in conflict. But most people don't want to talk about it. It would be completely unfair to characterize Islam as a faith as promoting homosexual child-molesting, of course, because it is a heinous crime meriting the death penalty. It is an example of contradictions within Islamic civilization, as well as an example of ancient Greek influence on Islam that neither Greeks nor Muslims wants to draw attention to.
"Given Mr. Jackson's famous eccentricities, it is unclear what his Bahraini venture amounts to, but if he does convert to Islam, he will be following a path in place since the late 1940s, of African-Americans under stress turning to some form of Islam. . . .
"These and other examples establish Islam – in both its normative and Nation variants – as a leading solace for African-Americans in need. That helps explain why the United States has by far the largest Muslim convert population in the Western world (about 750,000 adherents). Each black public figure who converts to Islam or accepts Nation of Islam support creates an added impetus for other blacks to change religions, a pattern that has also emerged in other Western countries."
It is unfortunate that Professor Pipes only sees Michael as black. Americans (myself included) are so racist. What's the saying? "Americans can't see class because they're blinded by race. Brazilians can't see race because they're blinded by class." Can't Michael Jackson, like every other black, just be an individual human being without everyone making him represent the black community? Isn't it unfair?
But this isn't about race or even about class (how many Americans can afford to fly to Bahrain on a whim?) Not even class in the American sense in which Michael doesn't have any. (Not that he has much race, either.)
This conversion, if it happens at all, may have less to do with Jackson's (confused) racial identity than with his sexual proclivities. Like the use of slave soldiers, which Daniel Pipes is an acknowledged expert on, homosexual child-molesting is found in Islamic civilization but is against Islamic law, in fact it's even more obviously and clearly against Islamic law than are slave soldiers and officials although it may also be less coincident with Islamic civilization. I don't know off hand anyone who's written about it. I do know that Islamic states have more and more outlawed polygyny because it makes many men, especially those who can't afford to buy a bride, put off marriage, exacerbating their sexual frustration. They haven't been able to stamp it out. Maybe it has more to do with purdah than with polygyny as such, though.
Like the use of slave soldiers, it's an example of how Islam as a religion and Islam as a civilization can be in conflict. But most people don't want to talk about it. It would be completely unfair to characterize Islam as a faith as promoting homosexual child-molesting, of course, because it is a heinous crime meriting the death penalty. It is an example of contradictions within Islamic civilization, as well as an example of ancient Greek influence on Islam that neither Greeks nor Muslims wants to draw attention to.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Clark, Hackett, netroots and DLC
[Crossposted at Clark Community Network, with links]
General Clark's 2004 race for president was a unique opportunity not only to bring the U. S. together, but to bring the Democratic Party together. Of course he would have had to unite the Democrats behind him before bringing the country together, but if he had been able to unite Democrats, I believe that as a non-political general with ties to both parties, he could have united the country.
Uniting the Democratic Party is another question and probably more difficult, as the Paul Hackett affray testifies. The gap between the activist base (often referred to as the netroots) and the organization (often confused with the DLC, though there is much overlap) is once again threatening to tear the party apart.
The 2004 Clark campaign was a unique combination of netroots and DLC, that General Clark carefully balanced. Clark not only raised much money on the Internet, as did Dean, but he was propelled into the race by net activity as no other campaign was, arguably making his campaign the most Internet based campaign of all. His ties to Bill Clinton gave him access to so many DLC activists and contributors that Repbublican conspiracy theorists actually charged him with being a stalking horse for Hillary! Ultimately the Clark campaign failed to gain the nomination, but I sense there is still a chance for moderation to combine with passion, not only in 2006 when we have to take back Congress, but in 2008, when I hope General Clark will run again. And I'm also getting ahead of myself. Let me go back to the point.
The DLC attempt to be "Republican Lite" is a formula for disaster in many instances. There is, of course, no arguing with success, and Bill Clinton, who created the DLC and their formula of triangulation in an attempt to destroy or marginalize DSA, SDUSA and other Socialist groups active in the Democrats, was at least a partial success. Whatever one may think of their specific policy proposals, the word "Socialist" is such poison in the US that any attempt to turn the Democrats into a Socialist Party is doomed to failure. Perhaps the Democrats should join the Liberal International, as the Republicans have joined the Democrat International, but the United States is so nationalistic that perhaps they would be better off staying aloof and attacking the Republicans for international ties. Perhaps the party of Jackson should remember its Jacksonian roots.
MY POINT:
The United States, with its executive presidential constitution and tradition of single-seat constituencies, has two large parties that would be coalitions of parties in a differently structured democracy. Building a majority party involves creating coalitions within the party, not circular firing squads. That means we all have to compete cleanly within the party primary, then swallow our pride and support the nominee who was chosen by the majority of our fellow Democrats, who are not really our political opponents, much less enemies. Behind the scenes phone calls by Senators to donors, getting them to pull their money, and even worse, calls to candidates to get them to pull out of races (yes, I'm writing about the Schumer and Hackett affair here) are totally out of line. I e-mailed the DNC asking why I should continue to contribute money but I'm still waiting for an answer. Maybe I'll get it here.
The best way to prevent the kind of "brusing primary battles" that Schumer and others urging Hackett to drop out feared is to adopt something like the Republicans old "11th Commandment" - "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." Or in our case, fellow Democrat. We need to keep ALL negative campaigning and name calling out of primary races and other internal party squabbles. We need to be able to united against Republicans in the general election, and most of all we need to avoid alienating swing voters in the general election by attacking fellow Democrats, who may not be perfect (no one is) but are infinitely preferable to Republicans. DLC is not going to win general elections by alienating the activists, and activists are not going to win general elections by alienating moderates, either.
General Clark's 2004 race for president was a unique opportunity not only to bring the U. S. together, but to bring the Democratic Party together. Of course he would have had to unite the Democrats behind him before bringing the country together, but if he had been able to unite Democrats, I believe that as a non-political general with ties to both parties, he could have united the country.
Uniting the Democratic Party is another question and probably more difficult, as the Paul Hackett affray testifies. The gap between the activist base (often referred to as the netroots) and the organization (often confused with the DLC, though there is much overlap) is once again threatening to tear the party apart.
The 2004 Clark campaign was a unique combination of netroots and DLC, that General Clark carefully balanced. Clark not only raised much money on the Internet, as did Dean, but he was propelled into the race by net activity as no other campaign was, arguably making his campaign the most Internet based campaign of all. His ties to Bill Clinton gave him access to so many DLC activists and contributors that Repbublican conspiracy theorists actually charged him with being a stalking horse for Hillary! Ultimately the Clark campaign failed to gain the nomination, but I sense there is still a chance for moderation to combine with passion, not only in 2006 when we have to take back Congress, but in 2008, when I hope General Clark will run again. And I'm also getting ahead of myself. Let me go back to the point.
The DLC attempt to be "Republican Lite" is a formula for disaster in many instances. There is, of course, no arguing with success, and Bill Clinton, who created the DLC and their formula of triangulation in an attempt to destroy or marginalize DSA, SDUSA and other Socialist groups active in the Democrats, was at least a partial success. Whatever one may think of their specific policy proposals, the word "Socialist" is such poison in the US that any attempt to turn the Democrats into a Socialist Party is doomed to failure. Perhaps the Democrats should join the Liberal International, as the Republicans have joined the Democrat International, but the United States is so nationalistic that perhaps they would be better off staying aloof and attacking the Republicans for international ties. Perhaps the party of Jackson should remember its Jacksonian roots.
MY POINT:
The United States, with its executive presidential constitution and tradition of single-seat constituencies, has two large parties that would be coalitions of parties in a differently structured democracy. Building a majority party involves creating coalitions within the party, not circular firing squads. That means we all have to compete cleanly within the party primary, then swallow our pride and support the nominee who was chosen by the majority of our fellow Democrats, who are not really our political opponents, much less enemies. Behind the scenes phone calls by Senators to donors, getting them to pull their money, and even worse, calls to candidates to get them to pull out of races (yes, I'm writing about the Schumer and Hackett affair here) are totally out of line. I e-mailed the DNC asking why I should continue to contribute money but I'm still waiting for an answer. Maybe I'll get it here.
The best way to prevent the kind of "brusing primary battles" that Schumer and others urging Hackett to drop out feared is to adopt something like the Republicans old "11th Commandment" - "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." Or in our case, fellow Democrat. We need to keep ALL negative campaigning and name calling out of primary races and other internal party squabbles. We need to be able to united against Republicans in the general election, and most of all we need to avoid alienating swing voters in the general election by attacking fellow Democrats, who may not be perfect (no one is) but are infinitely preferable to Republicans. DLC is not going to win general elections by alienating the activists, and activists are not going to win general elections by alienating moderates, either.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Islamists vs. warlords in Somalia
Fighting has broken out in the world's only real existing anarchism, Somalia, between Islamic militants tied to Sharia courts and what the UN calls "a newly created group - the Alliance for Peace and Fight Against International Terrorism - which comprises several Mogadishu-based faction leaders" (sounds like the warlords to me. Hard to tell who to root for at this time. I wonder who the "international community" (i.e. the rich, white, industrial countries) will root for.)
more from the UN: (Reuters has the same story)
"Abdullahi Shirwa, a member of Civil Society in Action, an umbrella organisation made up of over 12 groups in Mogadishu, however, said the fighting was an attempt by the alliance "to arrest the influence of the Islamic courts", which, he said, has brought a semblance of order in areas they control."
Somalinet: has basically the same information rewritten.
BBC reports "Somali warlords battle Islamists" and further adds "Supporters of some of the city's militia leaders have clashed with an armed Islamist group which is trying to establish law and order.
"Their opponents say the Islamic courts are terrorising local people. A top cleric says fighting will continue until the other side surrenders.
"Many of the at least 15 deaths have been civilians hit by stray bullets."
. . .
"Their critics accuse the courts of being behind the killing of moderate Muslim scholars."
I suspect that the best information is, as usual, from the Beeb. Their information is probably as spot on as it always is.
There's a poll on the D-Kos site about it.
more from the UN: (Reuters has the same story)
"Abdullahi Shirwa, a member of Civil Society in Action, an umbrella organisation made up of over 12 groups in Mogadishu, however, said the fighting was an attempt by the alliance "to arrest the influence of the Islamic courts", which, he said, has brought a semblance of order in areas they control."
Somalinet: has basically the same information rewritten.
BBC reports "Somali warlords battle Islamists" and further adds "Supporters of some of the city's militia leaders have clashed with an armed Islamist group which is trying to establish law and order.
"Their opponents say the Islamic courts are terrorising local people. A top cleric says fighting will continue until the other side surrenders.
"Many of the at least 15 deaths have been civilians hit by stray bullets."
. . .
"Their critics accuse the courts of being behind the killing of moderate Muslim scholars."
I suspect that the best information is, as usual, from the Beeb. Their information is probably as spot on as it always is.
There's a poll on the D-Kos site about it.
U.S. Reclassifies Many Documents in Secret Review
from the NYT, but there are other sources out there, too:
"WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 — In a seven-year-old secret program at the National Archives, intelligence agencies have been removing from public access thousands of historical documents that were available for years, including some already published by the State Department and others photocopied years ago by private historians."
. . .
"Another historian, William Burr, found a dozen documents he had copied years ago whose reclassification he considers "silly," including a 1962 telegram from George F. Kennan, then ambassador to Yugoslavia, containing an English translation of a Belgrade newspaper article on China's nuclear weapons program."
"WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 — In a seven-year-old secret program at the National Archives, intelligence agencies have been removing from public access thousands of historical documents that were available for years, including some already published by the State Department and others photocopied years ago by private historians."
. . .
"Another historian, William Burr, found a dozen documents he had copied years ago whose reclassification he considers "silly," including a 1962 telegram from George F. Kennan, then ambassador to Yugoslavia, containing an English translation of a Belgrade newspaper article on China's nuclear weapons program."
Monday, February 20, 2006
After neoconservatism
February 19, 2006After Neoconservatism
By FRANCIS FUKUYAMA
"As we approach the third anniversary of the onset of the Iraq war, it seems very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention itself or the ideas animating it kindly. By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadist terrorists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at. The United States still has a chance of creating a Shiite-dominated democratic Iraq, but the new government will be very weak for years to come; the resulting power vacuum will invite outside influence from all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran. There are clear benefits to the Iraqi people from the removal of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, and perhaps some positive spillover effects in Lebanon and Syria. But it is very hard to see how these developments in themselves justify the blood and treasure that the United States has spent on the project to this point."
This is already well diaried at DailyKos, in fact diaried twice. I left comments there, so I won't repeat them here. Surf for yourself.
By FRANCIS FUKUYAMA
"As we approach the third anniversary of the onset of the Iraq war, it seems very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention itself or the ideas animating it kindly. By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadist terrorists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at. The United States still has a chance of creating a Shiite-dominated democratic Iraq, but the new government will be very weak for years to come; the resulting power vacuum will invite outside influence from all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran. There are clear benefits to the Iraqi people from the removal of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, and perhaps some positive spillover effects in Lebanon and Syria. But it is very hard to see how these developments in themselves justify the blood and treasure that the United States has spent on the project to this point."
This is already well diaried at DailyKos, in fact diaried twice. I left comments there, so I won't repeat them here. Surf for yourself.
Bin Laden compares U.S. "barbaric" crimes to Saddam’s
Not that I think much of bin Ladin's opinion, but the following is from al-Jazeerah:
"In the tape posted Monday, bin Laden also promised never to be captured alive. "I have sworn to only live free. Even if I find bitter the taste of death, I don't want to die humiliated or deceived," he said."
It wouldn't surprise me if he did it. That's the competence of the Bush administration!
"In the tape posted Monday, bin Laden also promised never to be captured alive. "I have sworn to only live free. Even if I find bitter the taste of death, I don't want to die humiliated or deceived," he said."
It wouldn't surprise me if he did it. That's the competence of the Bush administration!
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Paul Hackett
You don't need me (I hope!) to give you the news about Paul Hackett.
You don't even need me to bring up the DNC's position.
What I would like to point out is that the decision to cut off Hackett's funding (and then unironically criticize his fundraising ability) was taken by two Senators. Is there any way to take action on this? At the very least Reid should drop his position of party leadership. He and Schumer should have let the Democrats of Ohio decide this.
You don't even need me to bring up the DNC's position.
What I would like to point out is that the decision to cut off Hackett's funding (and then unironically criticize his fundraising ability) was taken by two Senators. Is there any way to take action on this? At the very least Reid should drop his position of party leadership. He and Schumer should have let the Democrats of Ohio decide this.
Vaughn Meader
I don't know why I'm thinking of Vaughn Meader today. I've almost forgotten about him since the Kennedy assassination, as have most people. He could have been Mayor Quimby on the Simpsons if he (or they) had thought of it. Too bad no one can make fun of Bush as well as Meader made fun of Kennedy. Maybe Bush isn't as funny, or maybe Bush is just no laughing matter. Maybe Bush is too good a self-satire, a sort of unconscious low-camp president, or presidential impersonator himself.
Bush reminds me of Ford in that he handles the ceremonial work that usually goes to the Vice-President, like going to Corretta King's funeral. When they don't even inform the (titular) Commander in Chief that they think the country is under attack you have to wonder how seriously the guy is president, or how seriously he takes himself.
Bush reminds me of Ford in that he handles the ceremonial work that usually goes to the Vice-President, like going to Corretta King's funeral. When they don't even inform the (titular) Commander in Chief that they think the country is under attack you have to wonder how seriously the guy is president, or how seriously he takes himself.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
So what's with the US labor movement?
I haven't heard much about the split in the AFL-CIO. This is potentially one of the biggest stories of the century in labor. The one thing I did hear (and that was some time ago) that intelligently and in detail dealt with the split told me that those who left were interested in organizing, hostile to politics and wanted a more industrial than craft structure. Sounds like the CIO, except for the hostility to political action, which sounds more like the IWW, at least after the first few years. I know this is significant, but Can't really say how.
I'm not interested in prognostication, although don't let that stop you. I am interested in finding out more about what is going on and what its significance is. It's hard to get that out of the mainstream media, so I thought I'd ask around here.
I'm not interested in prognostication, although don't let that stop you. I am interested in finding out more about what is going on and what its significance is. It's hard to get that out of the mainstream media, so I thought I'd ask around here.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
SOTU
"President Warns About Dangers for Nation in Isolationism"
How about warning us against the Hawley-Smoot tariff, Mr. President? Or the gold standard? Or some other discredited political ideology?
People who want a sensible foreign policy are NOT, repeat, NOT ISOLATIONISTS!
Please stop smearing your opponents and going after straw men. We have enough real enemies abroad whom you need to confront.
How about warning us against the Hawley-Smoot tariff, Mr. President? Or the gold standard? Or some other discredited political ideology?
People who want a sensible foreign policy are NOT, repeat, NOT ISOLATIONISTS!
Please stop smearing your opponents and going after straw men. We have enough real enemies abroad whom you need to confront.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Warrantless wiretapping
There's so much information out there about this I don't think I need to link to anything.
Other than the paperless, hacked voting, this is probably the greatest threat to the Republic that's out there. I mean seriously, why can't they ask for warrants? The whole process is secret, and they can ask for warrants up to 72 hours after they wiretap. If, as the president says, they are only interested in taping people who are getting calls from al-Qa'ida overseas that is certainly probable cause, and they have no problems.
The only reason they could logically have is if they don't have probable cause for some of the wiretaps. Now why would they be taping someone without probable cause? Who are they really taping and why? This is potentially much more serious than Nixon's taping.
Other than the paperless, hacked voting, this is probably the greatest threat to the Republic that's out there. I mean seriously, why can't they ask for warrants? The whole process is secret, and they can ask for warrants up to 72 hours after they wiretap. If, as the president says, they are only interested in taping people who are getting calls from al-Qa'ida overseas that is certainly probable cause, and they have no problems.
The only reason they could logically have is if they don't have probable cause for some of the wiretaps. Now why would they be taping someone without probable cause? Who are they really taping and why? This is potentially much more serious than Nixon's taping.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Mixed feelings about Google
On the one hand Google defies US over search data.
On the other hand "Google is reportedly amending its index to exclude information to which the Chinese government objects."
Personally I wish they'd stand up to both governments, but then I don't own stock in Google.
What do you think they should do? What would you do? Do you own stock in Google?
On the other hand "Google is reportedly amending its index to exclude information to which the Chinese government objects."
Personally I wish they'd stand up to both governments, but then I don't own stock in Google.
What do you think they should do? What would you do? Do you own stock in Google?
Sudan raids human rights group on eve of AU meeting
African Union or dictators' trade union? The African Union has really reached a crossroads. Will it be an institution capable of solving Africa's problems, or will it degenerate into just a dictators' trade union the way the Organization of African Unity did?
The current summit meeting in Khartoum may prove decisive. Let's see what kind of news we can get out of Sudan today.
BBC notes that the Sudan was the only country to put its name up to chair the AU next. However, having Sudan chair the AU may result in some bad publicity for the Organization: "A meeting of human rights delegates in Khartoum was broken up on Sunday by Sudanese police, who detained them and took their photographs, reports said." Not to mention ongoing genocide: "More than 200,000 people have been killed in Darfur in the past three years and two million people have been forced from their homes." (sounds like Bosnia all over again, n'est pas?) "Africa is split down the middle over Sudan's candidacy, says the BBC's Adam Mynott in Khartoum."
The Beeb says that Nigeria's president Obasanjo is leading the opposition to Sudan's taking the chair. According to the Nigerian "This Day" the process for electing judges to the African Court on Human and People's Rights is also fatally flawed: "South African lawyer, Nobuntu Mbelle, Regional Coordinator of the Coalition for an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights and a principal author of the report said: 16 countries have nominated 21 candidates, of whom only five are women, and barely one-third have experience in human rights. We can do better."
Human Rights Watch has a press release about it.
And the latest from the Sudan Tribune:
Sudanese police raid human rights groups' meeting
Darfur crisis, a destructive force against the Sudan peace deal
West falls for Sudan's tricks
Sudan: Hosting the African Union Summit
The current summit meeting in Khartoum may prove decisive. Let's see what kind of news we can get out of Sudan today.
BBC notes that the Sudan was the only country to put its name up to chair the AU next. However, having Sudan chair the AU may result in some bad publicity for the Organization: "A meeting of human rights delegates in Khartoum was broken up on Sunday by Sudanese police, who detained them and took their photographs, reports said." Not to mention ongoing genocide: "More than 200,000 people have been killed in Darfur in the past three years and two million people have been forced from their homes." (sounds like Bosnia all over again, n'est pas?) "Africa is split down the middle over Sudan's candidacy, says the BBC's Adam Mynott in Khartoum."
The Beeb says that Nigeria's president Obasanjo is leading the opposition to Sudan's taking the chair. According to the Nigerian "This Day" the process for electing judges to the African Court on Human and People's Rights is also fatally flawed: "South African lawyer, Nobuntu Mbelle, Regional Coordinator of the Coalition for an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights and a principal author of the report said: 16 countries have nominated 21 candidates, of whom only five are women, and barely one-third have experience in human rights. We can do better."
Human Rights Watch has a press release about it.
And the latest from the Sudan Tribune:
Sudanese police raid human rights groups' meeting
Darfur crisis, a destructive force against the Sudan peace deal
West falls for Sudan's tricks
Sudan: Hosting the African Union Summit
Monday, January 16, 2006
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
China buying Nigerian oil company
It might have been nice if Bush had invaded Iraq for oil, and it would have been REALLY nice if the invasion had worked out, but I have to live in the real world on Planet Earth, not on whatever planet our crackhead president lives.
Americans get more oil from Nigeria than from the Persian Gulf, and Nigeria continued to supply the US with oil during the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s. Yes, your gasoline depends on a steady supply from Nigeria, but that supply is now being encroached on by the steady expansion of Chinese economic interests. So not only does the upheaval in Iraq mean less petroleum on the market, what's up for grabs is slipping away.
from AllAfrica.com:
China National Offshore Oil Company Limited (CNOOC), yesterday said it will pay $2.3 billion (N299 billion) in cash to acquire 45 per cent shares of South Atlantic Petroleum, owned by former Defence Minister, Gen. Theophilus Danjuma (rtd), in Akpo oil field located in OPL 246.
The company is financing this with internal resources and expects to make a tidy profit. There is an insurgency, and India decided it was too risky, but the Nigerian insurgency is nothing compared to the insurgency in Iraq.
CNOOC is China's biggest offshore oil producer, and its acquisition of interest in the Nigerian oil field would be China's third big overseas takeover since August 2004 to meet increasing energy demand.
That's right, folks, while your government is busy in Iraq trying to (what? why are we there? what's the excuse this week?) secure the oil fields, the Chinese are doing it the old fashioned way, buying it.
China, which was expected to consume 6.63 million barrels a day of oil last year, imported an average of 2.38 million barrels a day in the first three quarters of 2005, or 36 percent of the total, according to December 2005 Oil Market Report by the International Energy Agency in Paris.
And their apetite is only going to get bigger.
Don't you wish your government had seriously invested in alternative energy sources? Maybe the Japanese will. They seem to like us better than the Chinese do, if anyone does.
Americans get more oil from Nigeria than from the Persian Gulf, and Nigeria continued to supply the US with oil during the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s. Yes, your gasoline depends on a steady supply from Nigeria, but that supply is now being encroached on by the steady expansion of Chinese economic interests. So not only does the upheaval in Iraq mean less petroleum on the market, what's up for grabs is slipping away.
from AllAfrica.com:
China National Offshore Oil Company Limited (CNOOC), yesterday said it will pay $2.3 billion (N299 billion) in cash to acquire 45 per cent shares of South Atlantic Petroleum, owned by former Defence Minister, Gen. Theophilus Danjuma (rtd), in Akpo oil field located in OPL 246.
The company is financing this with internal resources and expects to make a tidy profit. There is an insurgency, and India decided it was too risky, but the Nigerian insurgency is nothing compared to the insurgency in Iraq.
CNOOC is China's biggest offshore oil producer, and its acquisition of interest in the Nigerian oil field would be China's third big overseas takeover since August 2004 to meet increasing energy demand.
That's right, folks, while your government is busy in Iraq trying to (what? why are we there? what's the excuse this week?) secure the oil fields, the Chinese are doing it the old fashioned way, buying it.
China, which was expected to consume 6.63 million barrels a day of oil last year, imported an average of 2.38 million barrels a day in the first three quarters of 2005, or 36 percent of the total, according to December 2005 Oil Market Report by the International Energy Agency in Paris.
And their apetite is only going to get bigger.
Don't you wish your government had seriously invested in alternative energy sources? Maybe the Japanese will. They seem to like us better than the Chinese do, if anyone does.
Monday, January 09, 2006
MSM blackout of impeachment?
I search news.google.com (US version) for "impeachment" and find:
2 stories about Nigeria
1 story about Malawi
2 stories about the UK (General Rose wants Blair impeached)
1 story about Thailand
and 4 stories about the US.
So most of the stories on the US media are about impeachment in OTHER COUNTRIES!!!!!
One of the stories in the US is actually entitled "How the US Press Squelches Bush Impeachment Drive" but it won't come up in my browser. In fact my browser tells me the URL doesn't exist. Think the FBI shut it down? Or the CIA? or the NSA? Stranger things have happened. I remember Watergate. Special greetings to all the spooks reading this. Wouldn't your time be better spent going after Usama bin Ladin? But Boss Bush doesn't care about him, does he? Nope, he never did. You suckers go after loyal Americans like me instead. ;-(
So subtract 1 from 10 and get 3 out of 9 stories about impeachment related to the US. Two thirds of the stories in the US are about foreign impeachments. And we all know how fascinated Americans are to keep up with events in foreign countries. Especially their political and legislative activities. Americans never follow disasters or celebrities or anything like that. No way!
All three branches of government and the fourth estate are in the hands of corrupt enemies of democracy. I never thought I'd live to see the downfall of the Republic, but it looks that way.
Yes, it's depressing, but my real regrets are for the generations to come. Sorry, guys.
2 stories about Nigeria
1 story about Malawi
2 stories about the UK (General Rose wants Blair impeached)
1 story about Thailand
and 4 stories about the US.
So most of the stories on the US media are about impeachment in OTHER COUNTRIES!!!!!
One of the stories in the US is actually entitled "How the US Press Squelches Bush Impeachment Drive" but it won't come up in my browser. In fact my browser tells me the URL doesn't exist. Think the FBI shut it down? Or the CIA? or the NSA? Stranger things have happened. I remember Watergate. Special greetings to all the spooks reading this. Wouldn't your time be better spent going after Usama bin Ladin? But Boss Bush doesn't care about him, does he? Nope, he never did. You suckers go after loyal Americans like me instead. ;-(
So subtract 1 from 10 and get 3 out of 9 stories about impeachment related to the US. Two thirds of the stories in the US are about foreign impeachments. And we all know how fascinated Americans are to keep up with events in foreign countries. Especially their political and legislative activities. Americans never follow disasters or celebrities or anything like that. No way!
All three branches of government and the fourth estate are in the hands of corrupt enemies of democracy. I never thought I'd live to see the downfall of the Republic, but it looks that way.
Yes, it's depressing, but my real regrets are for the generations to come. Sorry, guys.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Happy 8th of January!
The Eighth of January was the date of the Battle of New Orleans. The battle was an unexpected victory for an American army composed of motley militia, including free blacks and Amerindians, against what was probably the finest army ever assembled up to that time, British veterans of the Napoleonic Wars, fresh from fighting in Europe. Of course there had been a treaty signed ending the war shortly before the battle was fought, but neither army knew that at the time, and I don't doubt but that the treaty would have been torn up had the British actually been able to take New Orleans.
The battle propelled the victorious General Jackson into politics and eventually the White House, only the second Major General to become a US president. Today's Democratic Party really began as a sort of Jackson fan club, organized by his friends and supporters to push his candidacy and his principles. The anniversary of the battle became an occasion for parades and political oratory and was heavily associated with the Democratic Party.
After the Civil War the holiday went into decline, but I'd like to celebrate it today. It's time that another former general's Democratic Party candidacy was remembered and supported. He won't be running again for a few more years, but of course I'm referring to Wesley Clark.
Happy Eighth of January, fellow Democrats, and especially Democratic veterans, and Fighting Dems candidates. It's time the Democratic Party took back the national security issue and made it ours again.
The battle propelled the victorious General Jackson into politics and eventually the White House, only the second Major General to become a US president. Today's Democratic Party really began as a sort of Jackson fan club, organized by his friends and supporters to push his candidacy and his principles. The anniversary of the battle became an occasion for parades and political oratory and was heavily associated with the Democratic Party.
After the Civil War the holiday went into decline, but I'd like to celebrate it today. It's time that another former general's Democratic Party candidacy was remembered and supported. He won't be running again for a few more years, but of course I'm referring to Wesley Clark.
Happy Eighth of January, fellow Democrats, and especially Democratic veterans, and Fighting Dems candidates. It's time the Democratic Party took back the national security issue and made it ours again.
More spin?
President Bush brought foreign policy heavyweights from yesteryear to the White House on Thursday, including Democrats who have opposed his Iraq strategy. He got support for the mission - along with a few concerns - and a right to claim he was reaching out.
Original article
I guess we'll just have to wait and see if he's really listening, but past experience doesn't hold out much hope. :-(
Original article
I guess we'll just have to wait and see if he's really listening, but past experience doesn't hold out much hope. :-(
Friday, December 30, 2005
Let me get this straight
The Justice Department said Friday that it had opened a criminal investigation into the disclosure of classified information about a secret National Security Agency program under which President George W. Bush authorized eavesdropping on people in the United States without a court warrant.
In other words, instead of investigating the actual lawbreaking, these "law enforcement" agents are investigating the stool pigeons who informed the public about it.
Could we have better proof that gangsters are running the government?
In other words, instead of investigating the actual lawbreaking, these "law enforcement" agents are investigating the stool pigeons who informed the public about it.
Could we have better proof that gangsters are running the government?
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Daily Show, now for Windoze only
We're sorry, but MotherLoad will only play on PCs with Windows XP or 2000/SP4+. Click below to make sure you launch our standard media player for video (except MotherLoad exclusives).
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?ml_collection=23917
Yeah, I use Windows, too, but sometimes I like to use other OS's, and even RealPlayer.
Anybody got any ideas WHY they did this at Comedy Central?
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?ml_collection=23917
Yeah, I use Windows, too, but sometimes I like to use other OS's, and even RealPlayer.
Anybody got any ideas WHY they did this at Comedy Central?
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Go figure
Is there nothing that will wake Americans up?!?
Early Iraq election results show Shi'ite strength
Monday 19 December 2005, 7:59am EST
"BAGHDAD, Dec 19 (Reuters) - Early results from the count of votes in more than half Iraq's regions, including Baghdad, confirmed a strong showing for the ruling Shi'ite Islamist Alliance, figures from the Electoral Commission showed on Monday."
Meanwhile back at Crawford Ranch:
Bush ratings rise on Iraq election, economy - poll
Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:38 AM GMT
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A successful Iraq election and an improved domestic economic outlook have lifted U.S. President George W. Bush's job-approval rating to its highest level since March, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Monday.
"Forty-seven percent of Americans now approve of Bush's job performance, up from Bush's all-time low approval rating of 39 percent in November and the president's best showing since March when it was 50 percent, ABC said."
Bush is handing Iraq over to pro-Iranian Shi'ite extremists who hate America, but know how to exploit the idiotic people who are running this administration
Early Iraq election results show Shi'ite strength
Monday 19 December 2005, 7:59am EST
"BAGHDAD, Dec 19 (Reuters) - Early results from the count of votes in more than half Iraq's regions, including Baghdad, confirmed a strong showing for the ruling Shi'ite Islamist Alliance, figures from the Electoral Commission showed on Monday."
Meanwhile back at Crawford Ranch:
Bush ratings rise on Iraq election, economy - poll
Tue Dec 20, 2005 1:38 AM GMT
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A successful Iraq election and an improved domestic economic outlook have lifted U.S. President George W. Bush's job-approval rating to its highest level since March, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Monday.
"Forty-seven percent of Americans now approve of Bush's job performance, up from Bush's all-time low approval rating of 39 percent in November and the president's best showing since March when it was 50 percent, ABC said."
Bush is handing Iraq over to pro-Iranian Shi'ite extremists who hate America, but know how to exploit the idiotic people who are running this administration
Monday, December 19, 2005
Bush on Constitution and warrants
Speaker: President George W. Bush
Title: President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Location: Buffalo, NY
Date: 04/20/2004
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 20, 2004
President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall
Buffalo, New York
9:49 A.M. EDT
. . .
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
Title: President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Location: Buffalo, NY
Date: 04/20/2004
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 20, 2004
President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall
Buffalo, New York
9:49 A.M. EDT
. . .
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
Friday, December 16, 2005
Wingnut for sale!
Doug Bandow, a Cato Institute senior fellow and columnist for Copley News Service took money from Jack Abramoff to write columns, Business Week reported.
In fact Bandow has rather obviously been without principles. His first reaction to the Miers nomination was that appointing someone unqualified wasn't enough, they should be even more unqualified than Miers. His second take, less than a fortnight later, was the opposite.
Now we know who's been pulling his strings.
In fact Bandow has rather obviously been without principles. His first reaction to the Miers nomination was that appointing someone unqualified wasn't enough, they should be even more unqualified than Miers. His second take, less than a fortnight later, was the opposite.
Now we know who's been pulling his strings.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel
Personally I'd love it if all the Israelis came to the United States. The US has done very well by its Jews (and of course vice versa) so I think if we got more that would be even better. The Middle East's loss would be our gain.
But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is wrong when he says that if others harmed the Jewish community and created problems for the Jewish community, they have to pay the price themselves because the US has discriminated far less against Jews than Iran and other Middle Eastern countries have. Sure, medieval Islam was very tolerant of Jews, arguably more tolerant than medieval Christian societies were. However, Jews need to ask Muslims today "What have you done for us lately?" There are a lot of Israelis, a lot, who are refugees from Muslim persecution, and Muslims cannot continue to say Christians are the only cause of the problem. There are statistically no Jews, NONE, who want to emigrate to Muslim countries. The United States continues to attract Jews, just as it attracts persecuted minorities from around the world. Far more Israelis become Americans than vice versa. How many countries can say that?
Come to think of it, if we can't have all the Jews, could we at least take the Palestinians? They are some of the best educated and most entrepreneurial of all Arabs, with the possible exception of the Lebanese. The United States has done well by its Lebanese and other Arab Americans. I think we could use some more. Send me your huddled masses in the refugee camps, please. I should like to lift my lamp beside the golden door again.
But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is wrong when he says that if others harmed the Jewish community and created problems for the Jewish community, they have to pay the price themselves because the US has discriminated far less against Jews than Iran and other Middle Eastern countries have. Sure, medieval Islam was very tolerant of Jews, arguably more tolerant than medieval Christian societies were. However, Jews need to ask Muslims today "What have you done for us lately?" There are a lot of Israelis, a lot, who are refugees from Muslim persecution, and Muslims cannot continue to say Christians are the only cause of the problem. There are statistically no Jews, NONE, who want to emigrate to Muslim countries. The United States continues to attract Jews, just as it attracts persecuted minorities from around the world. Far more Israelis become Americans than vice versa. How many countries can say that?
Come to think of it, if we can't have all the Jews, could we at least take the Palestinians? They are some of the best educated and most entrepreneurial of all Arabs, with the possible exception of the Lebanese. The United States has done well by its Lebanese and other Arab Americans. I think we could use some more. Send me your huddled masses in the refugee camps, please. I should like to lift my lamp beside the golden door again.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
General Clark's latest prescription
His NYT op-ed
My response:
The perfect can be the enemy of the good, and especially in the Middle East you often have to look for a lesser evil. Lesser evilism is actually a major principle in Islamic law.
Here's the problem I see with this column's conclusion:
First, the Iraqis must change the Constitution as quickly as possible after next week's parliamentary elections. Most important, oil revenues should be declared the property of the central government, not the provinces. And the federal concept must be modified to preclude the creation of a Shiite autonomous region in the south.
Asking Iraqis to change their constitution is probably unrealistic., and I'm not sure how much attention they are going to pay to the Constitution anyway. Federalism is not well understood in the Arab world, their only word for it is a loan, and this so-called "federalism" may be only a prelude to partition. And what if you got a unitary state? It and its oil revenues would be dominated by the 60% Shi'ites anyway.
I see no good option here, nor much chance of getting influence. Our least bad option now may be handing over to a Shi'ite theocracy. This was our nightmare from Reagan through Clinton, but Bush II has balled things up, perhaps beyond retrieval.
Also, a broad initiative to reduce sectarian influence within government institutions is long overdue.
That's been tried. It's called Ba'athism. It is totally discredited and didn't work very well at defusing sectarian tendencies. I think it's too late for us to try doing it now.
Maybe we should have tried to educate our Cold War clients, especially in the Islamic world, about American principles such as democracy, freedom of religion, and federalism. Maybe we should do that now. But we haven't. Secularism was associated with Saddam, just as multi-ethnicity in Yugoslavia was associated with Communism. Speaking of which, I'd be interested to hear your comparisons between Iraq and your experiences in the former Yugoslavia, general.
What's the least bad proposal for an American policy that I have seen yet? This column, even though I respectfully disagree with part of it. Thank you, sir, and I wish you were running American foreign policy, but right now I think our best option was our worst nightmare not long ago. The alternatives in Iraq seem to be civil war, or even a new Al-Qa'ida base. You're right that we can't just pull out, but we have to hand over to someone else, some kind of international force, that we can trust. And no one is going to help Bush out now.
Even worse, I don't see much chance of getting a change in US course before 2008.
When that time comes I'm ready to back you again.
His further discussion:
We have three interests in Iraq: preventing a "terrorist " claim of victory there, leaving behind a stable, integral and peaceful Iraq which doesn't threaten its neighbors, and dealing with other regional problems like Iran and Syria. A hasty pullout certainly will be cited by the terorists as a sign of their success. It will demoralize our friends and supercharge their recruiting. My OP-ED yesterday addresses the second interest. On the third, we need strength to deal with Syria and Iran. A pullout driven by cries of woe and partisanship at home just makes us weaker.
What I tried to say yesterday was that against the Sunnis we should be content to aim for reassimilation into society, rather than just killing them. If we continue to try to kill them we just make more enemies....
my comment:
Bush's classic tar baby policy #48157
Posted by Dan Juma on December 7, 2005 - 8:19pm.
We can't leave without making the situation worse, especially when there is no Iraqi security force to take over. What little there is seems to be Shi'ite militia in disguise.
Yet it is our presence which is inflaming the situation. We have to bring someone else into it, maybe Arab League, or UN, or international Muslim force. Yet the Republican administration will not even invite Democrats into a war cabinet the way FDR had Republicans in his WWII cabinet. Forget about anyone else.
The situation will continue to deteriorate until Bush is replaced. This policy proposal is the least bad option I have seen, and the best positioning for the 2006 and 2008 elections I have seen from a Democrat. Keep trying to explain the situation to people and especially keep trying to influence policy. Iraq is not Vietnam. Vietnam only involved Vietnamese nationalism, Iraq involves Arab and Islamic nationalisms.
Sure, we should try to bring the Sunnis into the society, but ultimately it is up to the Shi'ites to accept them. Can we make these people love each other? I don't think so.
My response:
The perfect can be the enemy of the good, and especially in the Middle East you often have to look for a lesser evil. Lesser evilism is actually a major principle in Islamic law.
Here's the problem I see with this column's conclusion:
First, the Iraqis must change the Constitution as quickly as possible after next week's parliamentary elections. Most important, oil revenues should be declared the property of the central government, not the provinces. And the federal concept must be modified to preclude the creation of a Shiite autonomous region in the south.
Asking Iraqis to change their constitution is probably unrealistic., and I'm not sure how much attention they are going to pay to the Constitution anyway. Federalism is not well understood in the Arab world, their only word for it is a loan, and this so-called "federalism" may be only a prelude to partition. And what if you got a unitary state? It and its oil revenues would be dominated by the 60% Shi'ites anyway.
I see no good option here, nor much chance of getting influence. Our least bad option now may be handing over to a Shi'ite theocracy. This was our nightmare from Reagan through Clinton, but Bush II has balled things up, perhaps beyond retrieval.
Also, a broad initiative to reduce sectarian influence within government institutions is long overdue.
That's been tried. It's called Ba'athism. It is totally discredited and didn't work very well at defusing sectarian tendencies. I think it's too late for us to try doing it now.
Maybe we should have tried to educate our Cold War clients, especially in the Islamic world, about American principles such as democracy, freedom of religion, and federalism. Maybe we should do that now. But we haven't. Secularism was associated with Saddam, just as multi-ethnicity in Yugoslavia was associated with Communism. Speaking of which, I'd be interested to hear your comparisons between Iraq and your experiences in the former Yugoslavia, general.
What's the least bad proposal for an American policy that I have seen yet? This column, even though I respectfully disagree with part of it. Thank you, sir, and I wish you were running American foreign policy, but right now I think our best option was our worst nightmare not long ago. The alternatives in Iraq seem to be civil war, or even a new Al-Qa'ida base. You're right that we can't just pull out, but we have to hand over to someone else, some kind of international force, that we can trust. And no one is going to help Bush out now.
Even worse, I don't see much chance of getting a change in US course before 2008.
When that time comes I'm ready to back you again.
His further discussion:
We have three interests in Iraq: preventing a "terrorist " claim of victory there, leaving behind a stable, integral and peaceful Iraq which doesn't threaten its neighbors, and dealing with other regional problems like Iran and Syria. A hasty pullout certainly will be cited by the terorists as a sign of their success. It will demoralize our friends and supercharge their recruiting. My OP-ED yesterday addresses the second interest. On the third, we need strength to deal with Syria and Iran. A pullout driven by cries of woe and partisanship at home just makes us weaker.
What I tried to say yesterday was that against the Sunnis we should be content to aim for reassimilation into society, rather than just killing them. If we continue to try to kill them we just make more enemies....
my comment:
Bush's classic tar baby policy #48157
Posted by Dan Juma on December 7, 2005 - 8:19pm.
We can't leave without making the situation worse, especially when there is no Iraqi security force to take over. What little there is seems to be Shi'ite militia in disguise.
Yet it is our presence which is inflaming the situation. We have to bring someone else into it, maybe Arab League, or UN, or international Muslim force. Yet the Republican administration will not even invite Democrats into a war cabinet the way FDR had Republicans in his WWII cabinet. Forget about anyone else.
The situation will continue to deteriorate until Bush is replaced. This policy proposal is the least bad option I have seen, and the best positioning for the 2006 and 2008 elections I have seen from a Democrat. Keep trying to explain the situation to people and especially keep trying to influence policy. Iraq is not Vietnam. Vietnam only involved Vietnamese nationalism, Iraq involves Arab and Islamic nationalisms.
Sure, we should try to bring the Sunnis into the society, but ultimately it is up to the Shi'ites to accept them. Can we make these people love each other? I don't think so.
Monday, December 05, 2005
What a crazy world this is
Some people throw away delicacies because they have too much food while others are starving. The Niger famine is particularly reprehensible because the world could see it coming. It is particularly strange because it seems to contradict Amartya Sen's claim that democracies don't have famines.
Most of all, What is to be done?
Find out what you can do.
Most of all, What is to be done?
Find out what you can do.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Too much going on!
I'm working a job and a half, commuting two hours each way twice a week for one. Then my family lives three hours in the other direction, so I don't get to see them as much as I should. Now I understand now why people think bloggers don't have real jobs. A lot of them don't, I guess. Well, at least they're doing something useful, or at least some of them are.
Here's a roundup of stories I didn't have time to blog, but thought were important.
Here's testimony to the Bush administration's record of competence, brought home to the USA by FEMA this past hurricane season:
BBC: "Key Asia militant 'escaped jail'"
But did that guy really escape, or did they kill him and destroy the evidence? Americans don't do things like that? I remember when Americans didn't torture people to death. And I even remember when you could trust the president's word about something. Not every president, I do remember Nixon, but some of them.
Remember when we lived under a constitutional government?
Washington Post: "Rebellion against abuse"
More on CIA secret jails and the White House (non)response.
Meanwhile the Republican reaction:
GOP Congressional Leaders Seek Leak Probe
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 8, 2005; 7:50 PM
So where were these guys when the White House was outing CIA agent Valerie Plame?
At least the Democrats in the Senate are trying to get an investigation into real problems:
Christian Science Monitor: Senate to probe how case for war was made
Here's a roundup of stories I didn't have time to blog, but thought were important.
Here's testimony to the Bush administration's record of competence, brought home to the USA by FEMA this past hurricane season:
BBC: "Key Asia militant 'escaped jail'"
But did that guy really escape, or did they kill him and destroy the evidence? Americans don't do things like that? I remember when Americans didn't torture people to death. And I even remember when you could trust the president's word about something. Not every president, I do remember Nixon, but some of them.
Remember when we lived under a constitutional government?
Washington Post: "Rebellion against abuse"
LAST MONTH a prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay military base excused himself from a conversation with his lawyer and stepped into a cell, where he slashed his arm and hung himself. This desperate attempted suicide by a detainee held for four years without charge, trial or any clear prospect of release was not isolated. At least 131 Guantanamo inmates began a hunger strike on Aug. 8 to protest their indefinite confinement, and more than two dozen are being kept alive only by force-feeding. No wonder Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has denied permission to U.N. human rights investigators to meet with detainees at Guantanamo: Their accounts would surely add to the discredit the United States has earned for its lawless treatment of foreign prisoners.
Guantanamo, however, is not the worst problem. As The Post's Dana Priest reported yesterday, the CIA maintains its own network of secret prisons, into which 100 or more terrorist suspects have "disappeared" as if they were victims of a Third World dictatorship. Some of the 30 most important prisoners are being held in secret facilities in Eastern European countries -- which should shame democratic governments that only recently dismantled Soviet-era secret police apparatuses. Held in dark underground cells, the prisoners have no legal rights, no visitors from outside the CIA and no checks on their treatment, even by the International Red Cross. President Bush has authorized interrogators to subject these men to "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment that is illegal in the United States and that is banned by a treaty ratified by the Senate. The governments that allow the CIA prisons on their territory violate this international law, if not their own laws.
More on CIA secret jails and the White House (non)response.
Meanwhile the Republican reaction:
GOP Congressional Leaders Seek Leak Probe
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 8, 2005; 7:50 PM
Congress's top Republican leaders today demanded an immediate joint House and Senate investigation into the disclosure of classified information to The Washington Post that detailed a web of secret prisons being used to house and interrogate terrorism suspects.
So where were these guys when the White House was outing CIA agent Valerie Plame?
At least the Democrats in the Senate are trying to get an investigation into real problems:
Christian Science Monitor: Senate to probe how case for war was made
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Captain Ian Fishback's letter
has been taken down by the Washington Post, but it is available at Balkinization.
There is also some interesting discussion of it at the Wes Clark "Securing America" website. More here.
There is also some interesting discussion of it at the Wes Clark "Securing America" website. More here.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Why I'm a Clarkie
Top ten reasons why I supported Wes Clark for president in 2004 and will support him again in 2008 (crossposted at Clark Community Network)
10. He's got policies I agree with.
From affirmative action to the war in Iraq, General Clark articulates well the positions I hold dear, even when they are controversial. When other Democrats came out for a deadline for Iraqi withdrawal I had grave misgivings. I'm not a vet, but I know enough military history to know that setting a deadline for withdrawal is equivalent to handing the country over to civil war and/or terrorists. General Clark was able to explain that to other Democrats, and get them to accept it, much better than I could. And of course he was against the war to begin with, he's just savvy enough to realize that once the war starts the situation is different.
9. I trust him to handle novel situations.
Politics in a republic (and this is still a republic more than a democracy) is not so much about the people choosing the policies directly as it is about choosing office holders we trust to make the decisions for us. I trust General Clark to make those decisions far more than I trust any other Democrat likely to run for president. Bush isn't even in the running there.
8. He's a centrist
This may sound strange coming from a former DSA socialist, but times have changed. The country doesn't need another polarizing figure, from the left or the right, in the midst of two wars (one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq - don't buy that Bush bull about it being one big GWOT or G-SAVE or whatever they're calling it now). We need someone who can pull us together while we confront our enemies abroad.
7. He knows a lot about foreign affairs.
He's lived overseas, he's fought overseas, he's worked with foreign leaders. This is an exceptionally erudite presidential candidate with exceptional theoretical and practical grasp of foreign affairs. In today's increasingly interconnected, globalized world that's more important than most Americans realize. I live overseas and it's very important to me.
6. He understands long term issues like global warming.
He's not just narrowly focused on military or even diplomatic aspects of national security. He realizes that securing our life together on this planet concerns the environment just as much as it does our military. He's not afraid to pick the best minds in the world to get the best advice and he's got the brains to understand what the problems are and what the possible solutions are.
5. He's not afraid to dump his supporters if he has to.
This may sound strange coming from someone who put his name on the original Draft Clark website, but it didn't faze me that General Clark dumped the founders of the Draft Clark movement and picked up the best available advisers from the failed campaigns of other Democrat candidates, especially Bob Graham, A good leader needs to get the best people he can. I've had enough of loyalty and cronyism to last me a lifetime from the son-of-a-Bush administration occupying the White House now. Abe Lincoln appointed his Republican rivals to his cabinet, and even a Democrat as Secretary of War, because they were the best people he could get. I hope General Clark appoints his rivals, and even honest Republicans, to his cabinet. If he ever appoints me to anything I plan to ask him why he thinks I am qualified. He better have a convincing answer, but I'm sure he will. I trust him that much.
4. He's not a politician.
This is part of being a general, I suppose. They're the only other types we elect as presidents. Other politicians come out of state houses and make a big deal about not being Washington insiders, but they're local politicians just aching to get into the big leagues. They've been bought and are beholden to local special interests in a way real outsiders like General Clark are not.
The press jumped on a lot of General Clark's early misstatements in the 2004 presidential race, but to me they simply proved that he was really being honest and taking positions that he thought were best, consequences be damned. He's shown that same ability to learn quickly in his campaign, and overcame his rough start. In 2008 he'll be more than ready.
3. He's really smart.
Clark was a Rhodes scholar, and can think on his feet. He's obviously extremely intelligent, and his knowledge base isn't limited to military affairs. He's informed himself about economics, social policy and other matters, and what's most important in these changing times, he's shown that he is a very fast learner.
2. He's not afraid of people with brains.
This is a bit of a corollary with number 2, but it's not the same thing. Everyone thinks FDR was really smart because he had all these brilliant ideas. He didn't really come up with those ideas, though. He had a "brains trust" to feed him ideas. They were flattered to be around the president and he really enjoyed being around brilliant people and being stimulated by them. The results were great.
I am not one of those who thinks W is dumb. I think he's dyslexic. He can't read, so he is short on information. He knows people think he's dumb, so he resents well-read, intelligent people. His disdain for such people shows through. Anti-intellectuals love him for it, but he deprives himself of the best thinking in the nation and the world. Two heads are better than one, and there is no leader anywhere in the world or anywhere in history who doesn't need to get the best advice he can, from the best people available. Bush isn't getting it and I think Clark would.
and the number one reason I support Clark is:
1. He's a general.
I've been shouting for a general since getting sick of watching all the sleazy Republicans at the 1976 Republican national convention. "POLITICIANS ARE ALL CROOKS!" I shouted "WE SHOULD HAVE A MILITARY PRESIDENT!"
"Wha, what are you saying?" a friend gasped.
"OH SHUT UP!" I said "WE'VE HAD PLENTY OF MILITARY PRESIDENTS, FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON TO DWIGHT DAVID EISENHOWER! AND SOME OF 'EM WERE PRETTY GOOD!"
"Hey, what's the matter with you?" other friends chimed in "What? Are you against Andy Jackson now?"
"Oh." the guy calmed down. "Oh yeah. What about Grant?"
Well, he had us there. Being a general doesn't always guarantee a great president, but that just brings us back to all the other points.
So what am I hoping to get out of a Clark administration? More funding for foreign language and area studies for one thing. Even Republicans in the military have been in favor of that. The military were the only thing that saved NDEA Title VI FLAS funding during the Reagan years, and McCain was the only one of the final four in the 2000 race who talked about "English plus" (one of my pet issues.) I expect even more support for it from President Clark when he moves into the White House in 2009.
10. He's got policies I agree with.
From affirmative action to the war in Iraq, General Clark articulates well the positions I hold dear, even when they are controversial. When other Democrats came out for a deadline for Iraqi withdrawal I had grave misgivings. I'm not a vet, but I know enough military history to know that setting a deadline for withdrawal is equivalent to handing the country over to civil war and/or terrorists. General Clark was able to explain that to other Democrats, and get them to accept it, much better than I could. And of course he was against the war to begin with, he's just savvy enough to realize that once the war starts the situation is different.
9. I trust him to handle novel situations.
Politics in a republic (and this is still a republic more than a democracy) is not so much about the people choosing the policies directly as it is about choosing office holders we trust to make the decisions for us. I trust General Clark to make those decisions far more than I trust any other Democrat likely to run for president. Bush isn't even in the running there.
8. He's a centrist
This may sound strange coming from a former DSA socialist, but times have changed. The country doesn't need another polarizing figure, from the left or the right, in the midst of two wars (one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq - don't buy that Bush bull about it being one big GWOT or G-SAVE or whatever they're calling it now). We need someone who can pull us together while we confront our enemies abroad.
7. He knows a lot about foreign affairs.
He's lived overseas, he's fought overseas, he's worked with foreign leaders. This is an exceptionally erudite presidential candidate with exceptional theoretical and practical grasp of foreign affairs. In today's increasingly interconnected, globalized world that's more important than most Americans realize. I live overseas and it's very important to me.
6. He understands long term issues like global warming.
He's not just narrowly focused on military or even diplomatic aspects of national security. He realizes that securing our life together on this planet concerns the environment just as much as it does our military. He's not afraid to pick the best minds in the world to get the best advice and he's got the brains to understand what the problems are and what the possible solutions are.
5. He's not afraid to dump his supporters if he has to.
This may sound strange coming from someone who put his name on the original Draft Clark website, but it didn't faze me that General Clark dumped the founders of the Draft Clark movement and picked up the best available advisers from the failed campaigns of other Democrat candidates, especially Bob Graham, A good leader needs to get the best people he can. I've had enough of loyalty and cronyism to last me a lifetime from the son-of-a-Bush administration occupying the White House now. Abe Lincoln appointed his Republican rivals to his cabinet, and even a Democrat as Secretary of War, because they were the best people he could get. I hope General Clark appoints his rivals, and even honest Republicans, to his cabinet. If he ever appoints me to anything I plan to ask him why he thinks I am qualified. He better have a convincing answer, but I'm sure he will. I trust him that much.
4. He's not a politician.
This is part of being a general, I suppose. They're the only other types we elect as presidents. Other politicians come out of state houses and make a big deal about not being Washington insiders, but they're local politicians just aching to get into the big leagues. They've been bought and are beholden to local special interests in a way real outsiders like General Clark are not.
The press jumped on a lot of General Clark's early misstatements in the 2004 presidential race, but to me they simply proved that he was really being honest and taking positions that he thought were best, consequences be damned. He's shown that same ability to learn quickly in his campaign, and overcame his rough start. In 2008 he'll be more than ready.
3. He's really smart.
Clark was a Rhodes scholar, and can think on his feet. He's obviously extremely intelligent, and his knowledge base isn't limited to military affairs. He's informed himself about economics, social policy and other matters, and what's most important in these changing times, he's shown that he is a very fast learner.
2. He's not afraid of people with brains.
This is a bit of a corollary with number 2, but it's not the same thing. Everyone thinks FDR was really smart because he had all these brilliant ideas. He didn't really come up with those ideas, though. He had a "brains trust" to feed him ideas. They were flattered to be around the president and he really enjoyed being around brilliant people and being stimulated by them. The results were great.
I am not one of those who thinks W is dumb. I think he's dyslexic. He can't read, so he is short on information. He knows people think he's dumb, so he resents well-read, intelligent people. His disdain for such people shows through. Anti-intellectuals love him for it, but he deprives himself of the best thinking in the nation and the world. Two heads are better than one, and there is no leader anywhere in the world or anywhere in history who doesn't need to get the best advice he can, from the best people available. Bush isn't getting it and I think Clark would.
and the number one reason I support Clark is:
1. He's a general.
I've been shouting for a general since getting sick of watching all the sleazy Republicans at the 1976 Republican national convention. "POLITICIANS ARE ALL CROOKS!" I shouted "WE SHOULD HAVE A MILITARY PRESIDENT!"
"Wha, what are you saying?" a friend gasped.
"OH SHUT UP!" I said "WE'VE HAD PLENTY OF MILITARY PRESIDENTS, FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON TO DWIGHT DAVID EISENHOWER! AND SOME OF 'EM WERE PRETTY GOOD!"
"Hey, what's the matter with you?" other friends chimed in "What? Are you against Andy Jackson now?"
"Oh." the guy calmed down. "Oh yeah. What about Grant?"
Well, he had us there. Being a general doesn't always guarantee a great president, but that just brings us back to all the other points.
So what am I hoping to get out of a Clark administration? More funding for foreign language and area studies for one thing. Even Republicans in the military have been in favor of that. The military were the only thing that saved NDEA Title VI FLAS funding during the Reagan years, and McCain was the only one of the final four in the 2000 race who talked about "English plus" (one of my pet issues.) I expect even more support for it from President Clark when he moves into the White House in 2009.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
St. Vladimir Lenin
Why won't Lenin rot? The Bolsheviks wouldn't let him.
Russians Divided on Lenin Burial — Poll
Part of Russia's "dual faith" (the syncretic survivals of paganism in the Russian Orthodox Church) has been belief in the uncorruptibility of the relics of saints. In other words, the remains of truly holy people can't rot.
The Bolsheviki pickled Lenin by some still secret techniques, put his corpse on display, then ordered Russians to file slowly past his remains. This would convince Russians that Lenin was in fact the most holy of holy men that Holy Mother Russia had ever produced. So much for scientific socialism!
Isn't it time for everyone to admit that Lenin was neither saint nor devil incarnate, but simply another human being, who had his faults and his virtues, who shuffled off this mortal coil as we all have or will? He is not here in the flesh anymore. Maybe he has ceased to exist, maybe he is in a place of reward or punishment, but the conspicuous display of his pickled corpse does not serve any purpose, useful or not, in the 21st century.
At the very least, the Communist Party should stop trying to exploit ignorant superstitious Russians. As education spreads there should be fewer and fewer of them in the future.
Russians Divided on Lenin Burial — Poll
Part of Russia's "dual faith" (the syncretic survivals of paganism in the Russian Orthodox Church) has been belief in the uncorruptibility of the relics of saints. In other words, the remains of truly holy people can't rot.
The Bolsheviki pickled Lenin by some still secret techniques, put his corpse on display, then ordered Russians to file slowly past his remains. This would convince Russians that Lenin was in fact the most holy of holy men that Holy Mother Russia had ever produced. So much for scientific socialism!
Isn't it time for everyone to admit that Lenin was neither saint nor devil incarnate, but simply another human being, who had his faults and his virtues, who shuffled off this mortal coil as we all have or will? He is not here in the flesh anymore. Maybe he has ceased to exist, maybe he is in a place of reward or punishment, but the conspicuous display of his pickled corpse does not serve any purpose, useful or not, in the 21st century.
At the very least, the Communist Party should stop trying to exploit ignorant superstitious Russians. As education spreads there should be fewer and fewer of them in the future.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Everyone who loves America
should listen to this talk now!
Colin Powell's former chief of staff at the State Department, a man of impeccable experience in the military, diplomatic and academic worlds, analyzes what is going wrong with US national security policy and what we have to do to fix it. Everyone should listen to this man, because he has some extremely important things to say.
Colin Powell's former chief of staff at the State Department, a man of impeccable experience in the military, diplomatic and academic worlds, analyzes what is going wrong with US national security policy and what we have to do to fix it. Everyone should listen to this man, because he has some extremely important things to say.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Islamic Puritanism
I'm not going to get involved in the argument over whether the latest Al-Qa'ida letter is fake. I am going to use the opportunity to point out a strong similarity between so-called "Islamic Fundamentalism" and Puritanism.
from Reuters:
"Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst and critic of the U.S. war against terrorism, also said the letter appeared authentic.
"Scheuer said the letter's admission of setbacks were typical of al Qaeda. "They have always been almost puritanical in talking about setbacks.""
Nowadays Americans tend to think of "Puritan" as a synonym for prude, and focus on such negative aspects of the movement as witchcraft trials, but in fact the Puritans were heavily involved in the growth of Parliamentary supremacy and eventually democracy in the English speaking world.
What they didn't give us is the one positive tradition that most American history texts that students get attribute to them. I'm speaking of religious tolerance. It didn't come from Massachusetts. It came from Rhode Island, where refugees from Puritanism fled.
The parallels, for better or worse, between Puritanism and modern Islamic extremism could easily be stretched too far, but they do exist. Religious people, "people of faith" if you will, have been trying for centuries to come to terms with the modern world. It has been rough. Islamic civilization is starting, in its own way, to go through a process that western Christian civilization has been going through, too.
from Reuters:
"Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst and critic of the U.S. war against terrorism, also said the letter appeared authentic.
"Scheuer said the letter's admission of setbacks were typical of al Qaeda. "They have always been almost puritanical in talking about setbacks.""
Nowadays Americans tend to think of "Puritan" as a synonym for prude, and focus on such negative aspects of the movement as witchcraft trials, but in fact the Puritans were heavily involved in the growth of Parliamentary supremacy and eventually democracy in the English speaking world.
What they didn't give us is the one positive tradition that most American history texts that students get attribute to them. I'm speaking of religious tolerance. It didn't come from Massachusetts. It came from Rhode Island, where refugees from Puritanism fled.
The parallels, for better or worse, between Puritanism and modern Islamic extremism could easily be stretched too far, but they do exist. Religious people, "people of faith" if you will, have been trying for centuries to come to terms with the modern world. It has been rough. Islamic civilization is starting, in its own way, to go through a process that western Christian civilization has been going through, too.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
President violates Constitution
from the Washington Post:
WASHINGTON, Oct. 12: "President Bush sought again today to reassure conservatives about his Supreme Court nominee, Harriet E. Miers, and he said that Ms. Miers's religion was pertinent to the overall discussion about her."
The US Constitution says (Article VI, Clause 3): The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [emphasis added]
Conservatives and Fundamentalists complained that liberals were trying to apply a religious litmus test against Roberts, and one Senator (anyone remember which one?) pointed out that they were accusing him of violating his oath of office to defend the Constitution. Now these same Conservatives and Fundamentalists are trying to apply a religious test for the civil office of the Supreme Court.
Personally, I think Jesus talked about hypocrites so much because he knew what his followers would turn into. Muhammad talked about them a lot, too. I don't consider myself a follower of Muhammad, and I don't know if he was just echoing Jesus on this, but both their religions are full of hypocrites. We just happen to have more "Christian" hypocrites in the United States.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 12: "President Bush sought again today to reassure conservatives about his Supreme Court nominee, Harriet E. Miers, and he said that Ms. Miers's religion was pertinent to the overall discussion about her."
The US Constitution says (Article VI, Clause 3): The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [emphasis added]
Conservatives and Fundamentalists complained that liberals were trying to apply a religious litmus test against Roberts, and one Senator (anyone remember which one?) pointed out that they were accusing him of violating his oath of office to defend the Constitution. Now these same Conservatives and Fundamentalists are trying to apply a religious test for the civil office of the Supreme Court.
Personally, I think Jesus talked about hypocrites so much because he knew what his followers would turn into. Muhammad talked about them a lot, too. I don't consider myself a follower of Muhammad, and I don't know if he was just echoing Jesus on this, but both their religions are full of hypocrites. We just happen to have more "Christian" hypocrites in the United States.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
John Conyers and Harper's magazine
"Preserving Democracy describes three phases of Republican chicanery: the run-up to the election, the election itself, and the post-election cover-up. The wrongs exposed are not mere dirty tricks (though Bush/Cheney also went in heavily for those) but specific violations of the U.S. and Ohio constitutions, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help America Vote Act."
It's not paranoia, it's well documented in respectable, serious sources. Read about it here.
It's not paranoia, it's well documented in respectable, serious sources. Read about it here.
Who ARE these guys, anyway?
Here's an analysis from the BBC:
"The insurgency has no single spokesman, nor any shared long-term aim. Where some groups, for instance, are fighting for a Sunni Muslim caliphate, others foresee a Shia theocracy for Iraq."
"The insurgency has no single spokesman, nor any shared long-term aim. Where some groups, for instance, are fighting for a Sunni Muslim caliphate, others foresee a Shia theocracy for Iraq."
Saturday, October 08, 2005
European terrorists graduating from Iraq
From France's top antiterrorist Investigating Magistrate, Jean-Louis Bruguiere:
"Today, antiterrorist suspects are eyeing a new generation of radicals who have been born and bred in Europe -- or have spent a large part of their lives living on the continent."
"Islamic extremists are returning to France from Iraq's battlegrounds with the skills and desire to carry out attacks in Europe, a top anti-terror judge said Thursday - warning that Europe needs a better-coordinated effort to face the threat."
more here:
and here:
"Today, antiterrorist suspects are eyeing a new generation of radicals who have been born and bred in Europe -- or have spent a large part of their lives living on the continent."
"Islamic extremists are returning to France from Iraq's battlegrounds with the skills and desire to carry out attacks in Europe, a top anti-terror judge said Thursday - warning that Europe needs a better-coordinated effort to face the threat."
more here:
and here:
Thursday, October 06, 2005
my conservative side
I am a liberal, ex-Socialist in fact, but I have always had a number of opinions that could better be described as conservative. Like most people, I have an individualistic mix of opinions that change over time.
I've been amused in the past few years at how many of my conservative ideas have become liberal. I believe in a balanced budget. Not each and every year, of course. I'm enough of a Keynesian (and was even as a Socialist) to know that counter-cyclical spending works both ways. You run a deficit to prime the pump in a recession, and you run a surplus in a boom, but if it doesn't balance out in the long run you have to print money to cover the defecit, and that causes inflation, or worse, stagflation. And I'm old enough to remember the curse of stagflation in the 1970's, and the misery index.
I believe in a strong defense, and I've always been anti-Communist (if you don't understand how a Socialist could be anti-Communist, please read about the Socialist International).
Now I find that the conservative Republican party activists don't believe in a balanced budget and think we can borrow money from the Red Chinese Communists finance their tax cuts. Think about this. Self-styled conservatives are mortgaging their own country to the Red Chinese Communists to buy votes. Well, some of these conservatives are really neo-Confederates who make little secret of their hatred for the United States, but most of them loudly criticize the patriotism of anyone who questions their suicidal fiscal and monetary policies, and their friendship with Communists who make no secret of the fact that they hate our system and our way of life. When Reagan was mortgaging the country to buy votes he at least borrowed the money from the Germans and the Japanese, democratic countries who are our friends.
And don't even get me started on how this Bush administration ignored the threat from bin Ladin, bungled (at best) the search for him and instead focused American anger and our military on an unrelated dictator who was no threat to us. But I've already written about that. And I'll write about it again. I just wanted to write about something else.
I've been amused in the past few years at how many of my conservative ideas have become liberal. I believe in a balanced budget. Not each and every year, of course. I'm enough of a Keynesian (and was even as a Socialist) to know that counter-cyclical spending works both ways. You run a deficit to prime the pump in a recession, and you run a surplus in a boom, but if it doesn't balance out in the long run you have to print money to cover the defecit, and that causes inflation, or worse, stagflation. And I'm old enough to remember the curse of stagflation in the 1970's, and the misery index.
I believe in a strong defense, and I've always been anti-Communist (if you don't understand how a Socialist could be anti-Communist, please read about the Socialist International).
Now I find that the conservative Republican party activists don't believe in a balanced budget and think we can borrow money from the Red Chinese Communists finance their tax cuts. Think about this. Self-styled conservatives are mortgaging their own country to the Red Chinese Communists to buy votes. Well, some of these conservatives are really neo-Confederates who make little secret of their hatred for the United States, but most of them loudly criticize the patriotism of anyone who questions their suicidal fiscal and monetary policies, and their friendship with Communists who make no secret of the fact that they hate our system and our way of life. When Reagan was mortgaging the country to buy votes he at least borrowed the money from the Germans and the Japanese, democratic countries who are our friends.
And don't even get me started on how this Bush administration ignored the threat from bin Ladin, bungled (at best) the search for him and instead focused American anger and our military on an unrelated dictator who was no threat to us. But I've already written about that. And I'll write about it again. I just wanted to write about something else.
Jihad and Crusade
There's a long debate about the meaning of the Arabic word "jihad". Most of us know it as "holy war" although there are many other meanings.
Some have criticized those who want to put emphasis on the more nuanced, modernist, or Sufic meanings of the word. This is legitimate, but there are other meanings, and sometimes they can be more valid. I remember something Bernard Lewis wrote about an old Orientalist joke that all Arabic words have at least 5 meanings: a dictionary meaning, its opposite, a meaning to do with horses, a meaning to do with camels, and (what did the other meaning have to do with? sex maybe? - serves me right for trying to tell an old Orientalist joke on a blog. Never mind, sorry, let's just get back to my point.)
Anyway, the inherent vagueness of Arabic vocabulary, which makes the language so excellent for poetry, is a problem here. Arabic speakers are often expert at using deliberate ambiguity, and in fact that is easy to do in the language. What did any particular Arabic speaker mean by "jihad"? Perhaps they themselves weren't sure.
Another example would be the Qur'anic justification for jihad, the phrase "fitnah ashaddan min al-qatl" or "Fitna is worse than slaughter." What is fitnah? Some define it as dissent, and Muslim rulers have used this to justify capital punishment for dissidents. Other define it as oppression, and use it as a justification for social revolution. Others define it as intolerance, and combine it with the other Qur'anic phrase, "la ikrah fi'ddiin" (no compulsion in religion) as a call to religious tolerance. It may be damning with faint praise to call Islam one of the most tolerant religions of the Middle Ages, but it is still a historical fact that it was tolerant.
There are even Muslim pacifists who define fitna as nothing. I'm not a Muslim so I'm not going to tell them they are heretics. I do know enough Arabic to know that the problems inherent in semantics are doubly problematic in that language. It ain't easy learning Arabic, although I wish I had time to learn more these days.
A good parallel in English to the problem of defining "jihad" in Arabic would be the word "crusade". Historically, as with the historic meaning of the word "jihad", it meant "holy war", specifically a war called by the Pope to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims. Today it has a wider range of meanings, including calls for moral reform. The similar evolution of the word "jihad" should be apparent to anyone.
But this is not meant just to exonerate Muslims from their using a deliberate, sometimes disingenuous, ambiguity. It means they must themselves give understanding if they expect to get it. When President Bush stood on the ruins of the World Trade Center in New York and called for a crusade against terror, Muslims and others jumped on him for insensitivity. Maybe so, and I certainly wouldn't want this interpreted as support of Bush, or even his faux pas, but if Muslims demand that others respect their ambiguity when they use the word "jihad" they must be prepared to extend a similar respect to the similar ambiguities in the word "crusade".
After all, Thomas Aquinas's theory of "just war" actually owed a lot to Muslim philosophers' theories of jihad. We all have more in common than many of us are inclined to believe, much less respect.
Some have criticized those who want to put emphasis on the more nuanced, modernist, or Sufic meanings of the word. This is legitimate, but there are other meanings, and sometimes they can be more valid. I remember something Bernard Lewis wrote about an old Orientalist joke that all Arabic words have at least 5 meanings: a dictionary meaning, its opposite, a meaning to do with horses, a meaning to do with camels, and (what did the other meaning have to do with? sex maybe? - serves me right for trying to tell an old Orientalist joke on a blog. Never mind, sorry, let's just get back to my point.)
Anyway, the inherent vagueness of Arabic vocabulary, which makes the language so excellent for poetry, is a problem here. Arabic speakers are often expert at using deliberate ambiguity, and in fact that is easy to do in the language. What did any particular Arabic speaker mean by "jihad"? Perhaps they themselves weren't sure.
Another example would be the Qur'anic justification for jihad, the phrase "fitnah ashaddan min al-qatl" or "Fitna is worse than slaughter." What is fitnah? Some define it as dissent, and Muslim rulers have used this to justify capital punishment for dissidents. Other define it as oppression, and use it as a justification for social revolution. Others define it as intolerance, and combine it with the other Qur'anic phrase, "la ikrah fi'ddiin" (no compulsion in religion) as a call to religious tolerance. It may be damning with faint praise to call Islam one of the most tolerant religions of the Middle Ages, but it is still a historical fact that it was tolerant.
There are even Muslim pacifists who define fitna as nothing. I'm not a Muslim so I'm not going to tell them they are heretics. I do know enough Arabic to know that the problems inherent in semantics are doubly problematic in that language. It ain't easy learning Arabic, although I wish I had time to learn more these days.
A good parallel in English to the problem of defining "jihad" in Arabic would be the word "crusade". Historically, as with the historic meaning of the word "jihad", it meant "holy war", specifically a war called by the Pope to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims. Today it has a wider range of meanings, including calls for moral reform. The similar evolution of the word "jihad" should be apparent to anyone.
But this is not meant just to exonerate Muslims from their using a deliberate, sometimes disingenuous, ambiguity. It means they must themselves give understanding if they expect to get it. When President Bush stood on the ruins of the World Trade Center in New York and called for a crusade against terror, Muslims and others jumped on him for insensitivity. Maybe so, and I certainly wouldn't want this interpreted as support of Bush, or even his faux pas, but if Muslims demand that others respect their ambiguity when they use the word "jihad" they must be prepared to extend a similar respect to the similar ambiguities in the word "crusade".
After all, Thomas Aquinas's theory of "just war" actually owed a lot to Muslim philosophers' theories of jihad. We all have more in common than many of us are inclined to believe, much less respect.
I've been away
and I've been thinking about this blog.
I've been a little taken aback at how monomaniacally it's been obsessed with security. Part of that may be that it's what I am least able to talk about under my name. I need this anonymity, and the chance to vent, if only to myself, about it. Furthermore, If I post about other topics there's more chance of outing me.
But it does give a sense of unbalance.
I will continue to post about security.
But I'll try to post more about other things, too.
I've been a little taken aback at how monomaniacally it's been obsessed with security. Part of that may be that it's what I am least able to talk about under my name. I need this anonymity, and the chance to vent, if only to myself, about it. Furthermore, If I post about other topics there's more chance of outing me.
But it does give a sense of unbalance.
I will continue to post about security.
But I'll try to post more about other things, too.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
spinning beyond paranoia
from the New York Times:
"Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00"
By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: August 9, 2005
WASHINGTON, Aug. 8 - "More than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, a small, highly classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States, according to a former defense intelligence official and a Republican member of Congress."
read it and weep
"Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00"
By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: August 9, 2005
WASHINGTON, Aug. 8 - "More than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, a small, highly classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States, according to a former defense intelligence official and a Republican member of Congress."
read it and weep
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Great post from Juan Cole
He really sums up the history of this war well:
"The Bush administration responded to these attacks [on September 11] by the former proteges of Ronald Reagan by putting the old Mujahideen warlords back in charge of Afghanistan's provinces, allowing Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to escape, declaring that Americans no longer needed a Bill of Rights, and suddenly invading another old Reagan protege, Saddam's Iraq, which had had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to the US. The name given this bizarre set of actions by Bush was "the War on Terror.""
"The Bush administration responded to these attacks [on September 11] by the former proteges of Ronald Reagan by putting the old Mujahideen warlords back in charge of Afghanistan's provinces, allowing Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to escape, declaring that Americans no longer needed a Bill of Rights, and suddenly invading another old Reagan protege, Saddam's Iraq, which had had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to the US. The name given this bizarre set of actions by Bush was "the War on Terror.""
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Bush in a box?
from The New York Times:
"But Bush's political opponents said the president is in a box. In their view, either Rove and Libby kept the president in the dark about their actions, making them appear evasive at a time Bush was demanding that his staff cooperate fully, or Rove and Libby had told the president and he was not forthcoming in his public statements about his knowledge of their roles."
Bush is either deliberately outing CIA agents or he's an idiot, or both.
Is this man a traitor? Or a fool?
"But Bush's political opponents said the president is in a box. In their view, either Rove and Libby kept the president in the dark about their actions, making them appear evasive at a time Bush was demanding that his staff cooperate fully, or Rove and Libby had told the president and he was not forthcoming in his public statements about his knowledge of their roles."
Bush is either deliberately outing CIA agents or he's an idiot, or both.
Is this man a traitor? Or a fool?
Monday, July 18, 2005
MSM starts to get it!
"Why Iraq has made us less safe"
By DANIEL BENJAMIN
Monday, July 11, 2005; Posted: 4:10 p.m. EDT (20:10 GMT)
"The conflict between radical Islam and the West, like all ideological struggles, is about competing stories. The audience is the global community of Muslims.
"America portrays itself as a benign and tolerant force that, with its Western partners, holds the keys to progress and prosperity. Radical Islamists declare that the universe is governed by a war between believers and World Infidelity, which comes as an intruder into the realm of Islam wearing various masks: secularism, Zionism, capitalism, globalization.
"World Infidelity, they argue, is determined to occupy Muslim lands, usurp Muslims' wealth and destroy Islam.
"Invading Iraq, however noble the U.S. believed its intentions, provided the best possible confirmation of the jihadist claims and spurred many of Europe's alienated Muslims to adopt the Islamist cause as their own.
"The evidence is available in the elaborate underground railroad that has brought hundreds of European Muslims to the fight in Iraq. And the notion that the West would enhance its security by occupying Iraq has proved utterly illusory."
By DANIEL BENJAMIN
Monday, July 11, 2005; Posted: 4:10 p.m. EDT (20:10 GMT)
"The conflict between radical Islam and the West, like all ideological struggles, is about competing stories. The audience is the global community of Muslims.
"America portrays itself as a benign and tolerant force that, with its Western partners, holds the keys to progress and prosperity. Radical Islamists declare that the universe is governed by a war between believers and World Infidelity, which comes as an intruder into the realm of Islam wearing various masks: secularism, Zionism, capitalism, globalization.
"World Infidelity, they argue, is determined to occupy Muslim lands, usurp Muslims' wealth and destroy Islam.
"Invading Iraq, however noble the U.S. believed its intentions, provided the best possible confirmation of the jihadist claims and spurred many of Europe's alienated Muslims to adopt the Islamist cause as their own.
"The evidence is available in the elaborate underground railroad that has brought hundreds of European Muslims to the fight in Iraq. And the notion that the West would enhance its security by occupying Iraq has proved utterly illusory."
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Finally!
It's starting to come out, how much these people work against America.
Here's what I'd like to see, but don't hold your breath:
Karl Rove, aka Bush's brain, has been caught outing a CIA agent for political revenge against someone who wasn't even in opposition to Bush, but who was just trying to do his non-political job for the US government.
Is there nothing these people won't stoop to?
Or are they really trying to destroy America?
Here's what I'd like to see, but don't hold your breath:
Karl Rove, aka Bush's brain, has been caught outing a CIA agent for political revenge against someone who wasn't even in opposition to Bush, but who was just trying to do his non-political job for the US government.
Is there nothing these people won't stoop to?
Or are they really trying to destroy America?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)