Tuesday, November 22, 2005
After three years in detention, Jose Padilla (a.k.a. Abu Abdullah Al Mujahir) has been charged of his crimes against the United States. This victory for justice and the constitutional system that the government - with our backing - has tried to tear to shreds for these past few years gives me hope that we have finally begun to fight terrorism after all.
A copy of the indictment can be found here.
A copy of the indictment can be found here.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Did you hear? The massive conspiracy of evil leftists are busily rewriting history! They want to kill your children! They want to help terrorism! They're against America, they hate America, they are the scourge of civilized society. Their ideas are stale, unattractive, and tired. They hate capitalism! They they they they they ...
I'll never buy it, not for a second.
I'll never buy it, not for a second.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
With Thanksgiving two weeks ahead, and the holydays soon after ... no, that's too much. Anyway, I recommend Marty Scorsese's documentary, "No Direction Home: Bob Dylan," which is really something. A lot of concert footage, archival stuff. Well done. Will he leave this earth unrewarded? I'm referring to Scorsese, and the unconscionable lack of Oscar awards given to him.
As for Dylan, I have seen him in concert. One time. April 5, 2004, at American University. When he played, he didn't look at the audience, which was strange. Mostly new stuff; the old good ones were almost unrecognizable. Why "No Direction Home" had to be a PBS television thing is completely beyond me, regardless of the length. It doesn't matter. It's a great doc.
As for Dylan, I have seen him in concert. One time. April 5, 2004, at American University. When he played, he didn't look at the audience, which was strange. Mostly new stuff; the old good ones were almost unrecognizable. Why "No Direction Home" had to be a PBS television thing is completely beyond me, regardless of the length. It doesn't matter. It's a great doc.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
In a move certain to not change shit, Denver residents voted for Initiative 100, which legalizes adult possession of wacky tobacky up to a whole ounce. But, according to a buzzkill story printed up in the Rocky Mountain News, nothing will at all change because Denver happens to be right in the middle of Colorado, whose state law still bans the drug as illegal. According to Mitch Morrissey, who is the District Attorney in the city, "'It's still illegal in the city of Denver, because Denver's in Colorado.'" Thanks for the echo. Well, anyway, thanks for nothing.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Friday, October 28, 2005
George Clooney’s film Good Night, and Good Luck stars David Strathairn as Edward R. Murrow, the legendary radio/TV journalist, who is portrayed as a respected voice of reason and truth faced off with Senator McCarthy’s inquisition in clearing America of red warlocks and witches. The title of Clooney’s picture is the line with which Murrow signed off broadcasts, “good luck” taking on a uniquely visceral aspect as Murrow (Strathairn) is wedged within the structural pressures of “state power and the profit motive,” as New York Times film critic A.O. Scott condenses it. A question raised in my mind is whether that influence, which is much more prevalent and effective now, has relegated the role of news media moreso to the level of government propagators.
The state is represented by two military officials who arrive at CBS headquarters to express their disapproval with the network’s programming, which took a decidedly anti-McCarthy turn — though in a narrow scope. On the question of bias, particularly in a scene in which the higher-ups, especially network chief William Paley (Frank Langella), try to lecture Murrow on objectivity, he dispenses with the issue by saying that an argument does not necessarily have two equal sides to it. That is an example, fairly representative, of the quest for ‘balance’ within the mainstream media today, in which equal time is to be given for both sides, regardless of burden of proof and assuming the validity of all perspectives — an inherently unfair method.
Murrow is shown to exemplify journalism’s proper role in our society, combatting the demagoguery and exploitation of fear so embodied in McCarthy that led to such “unreason” in the name of feeling safe and secure. In an October 15, 1958, speech at the Radio-Television News Directors Association Convention dinner, he speaks of the infantile medium of television as both a tool to “distract, delude, amuse, and insulate” us and to honestly (if not ‘objectively’) inform us about issues that affect our very lives, our responsibility as democratic citizens. How accurate is this picture?
Slate magazine “editor at large” Jack Shafer critiqued the historical truthfulness of the film, specifically the role of CBS under Murrow in taking down McCarthy. “As the Weekly Standard’s Andrew Ferguson wrote in 1996,” says Shafer, “ ‘McCarthy had been hanging himself quite efficiently in the several months before Murrow offered him more rope.’ ” He adds that the CBS “See It Now” telecast, ‘A Report on Joseph R. McCarthy,’ was not at all as pioneering as the film mythologizes. Shafer continues: “Murrow confessed his tardiness in taking on McCarthy, according to an interview [Times reporter Jack] Gould gave to Edwin R. Bayley for his 1981 book, Joe McCarthy and the Press. ‘My God,’ he recalls Murrow saying. ‘I didn't do anything. …’ He added that it was largely the work of journalists in print media, for instance, like the Times, which can be said to have led the charge against McCarthy’s tactics. Watching the scenes of phones ringing off the hook from the Pentagon or the State Department, or when the Cols. Anderson and Jenkins (Glenn Morshower and Don Creech, respectively) have a talk with production associate Fred Friendly (George Clooney), I wondered how it could be. That is, without infringing on press freedom. Shafer reminds us that unlike print journalists, radio and TV “[b]roadcasters … lacked First Amendment parity … [and] existed at the sufferance of the federal government …” He concludes that although one “could argue Murrow only risked his livelihood” while “networks struggl[ed] for a foothold” during “the early years of television”, Paley (Langella) “risked his broadcast empire.” According to Shafer, Murrow let McCarthy speak for himself though did not “attempt to determine … any substance to McCarthy’s charges,” but instead with “manipulative and partisan techniques” bordering on ‘character assassination’. CBS gave generous airtime to allow McCarthy a rebuttal, though Shafer notes that McCarthy’s “wasted” response “ratified Murrow’s portrayal of him as a loon,” which for some reason is an indictment on CBS.
But the film focuses on the climate of suspicion and distrust engendered by ‘the junior Senator’ and the impact in the newsroom from which Americans, through the advent of television, were informed of the state of affairs in the country. The culture proves too much for one journalist, Don Hollenbeck (Ray Wise), whose past ties with a communist organization and the ‘red-baiting’ to which he is subjected twenty years afterward leads him to suicide. Despite the pressures of McCarthy and CBS chief Paley, who is at very best a reluctant supporter of Murrow, his team and their ethos does not surrender. And in a particularly powerful telecast, Murrow declares, “Dissent is not disloyalty.” Clooney’s film has real resonance, though a few caveats ought to be noted. There is no longer a congressional committee on ‘un-American activities.’ There is no more loyalty oath. Yet the ghost of McCarthyism, the legacy of statist repression in the name of freedom, lingers in some degree still, though a psychopathic propagandist like Ann Coulter, for instance, honestly believed it never happened. This is obvious: no lives were destroyed nor did Americans “walk in fear of one another,” trying to uncover the next pinko rat, because there were no victims.
The consensus now is that communism as a monolith was mythical. Will history record the same about terrorism, the new hat fear-monger? But to qualify, the respective threat is real, though in a narrower, more amorphic sense than what we want to believe. What I mean to say, in light of the very real existential threat that radical Islamist jihadi terror poses, is that the charge of terrorism is being exploited toward ends of domestic repression much like the term communism. At one time or another, I supposed whether terrorism has become the new communism, by which I meant that the word — not the reality behind it — has perhaps became a same sort of instrument with which to split Americans apart from and against each other. The communist threat was the nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union pointed at us; the terrorist threat is an underground network of armed, lawless criminals. Yet the McCarthyist purge did nothing to fight the real threat, but was rather a campaign of terror against Americans and the principles we cherish. In short, I left the theater with two things in my mind: whether it can happen again, and how civil society throughout the world is going to get through this latest round of nonsense. And if we want to remain free people, good luck indeed.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
The Trial of Saddam Hussein
At last, the fallen tyrant has been brought to trial to hear the first of many charges against his former regime, the first of which being massacres he ordered in 1983 that killed around 140 people. Atrocities like that, however, are quite minor in comparison to his greatest crimes: the Anfal campaign that slaughtered 5,000 Kurds and his invasion of Kuwait in 1990. When will those charges be heard?
The question that is being repeatedly brought up is whether Hussein will, or even ought to, receive a fair trial. I certainly hope not, unless we are willing to call former friends like Donald Rumsfeld, the first George Bush and Dick Cheney to the stand, as has been noted for what such a trial would logically "entail".
Some good information can be found at Case Western Reserve University's School of Law page covering several of the issues concerning the ongoing trial, billed as the next "Grotian Moment" that will set new norms for international politics as did the trials at Nuremberg. More on this story later as I make sense of it all, time permitting.
For now, I say this: No doubt that Hussein is a monster. So why in God's name did we ever support such a man?
The question that is being repeatedly brought up is whether Hussein will, or even ought to, receive a fair trial. I certainly hope not, unless we are willing to call former friends like Donald Rumsfeld, the first George Bush and Dick Cheney to the stand, as has been noted for what such a trial would logically "entail".
Some good information can be found at Case Western Reserve University's School of Law page covering several of the issues concerning the ongoing trial, billed as the next "Grotian Moment" that will set new norms for international politics as did the trials at Nuremberg. More on this story later as I make sense of it all, time permitting.
For now, I say this: No doubt that Hussein is a monster. So why in God's name did we ever support such a man?
Saturday, October 15, 2005
The vote count for the Iraqi referendum is underway, the New York Times reporting an “insufficient” number of Sunni dissatisfaction to shoot down the draft constitution. (Above: Officials surveying transparent ballot boxes.) The final result is yet to be determined. The Times noted that “scattered attacks on polling sites and troops around the country.” As opposed to the January elections, reports the BBC, the vote inspired “little of the bustle and excitement” among the Kurds.
openDemocracy contributor Zaid Al-Ali expressed skepticism, asking: “After all the Iraqi people have been through … will the constitution bring peace, prosperity and basic services, or a further disintegration of the state coupled with more pain and misery?”
Citing a story in the Washington Post, Al-Ali fears Sunni opposition to the idea of cantoning Iraq into oil-rich Kurd and Shi'a regions and, moreover, Iraqis disenfranchisement from the constitutional convention process within the Green Zone while largely being denied “basic services” without, could all lead to the suffering of all.
“A Baghdad radio commentator recently asked an Iraqi caller whether he intended to vote in the 15 October referendum on the draft constitution for the country,” he writes. “The caller answered: ‘if I do, will I get some electricity?’”
British journalist George Monbiot also weighed in. Referring to the text of the draft constitution (available both here and here), he writes that the Zone “deliberations were back-to-front. First the members of the constitutional committee … argue over every dot and comma, then they present the whole thing (25 pages in English translation) to the people for a yes or no answer.”
“The question and the answer are meaningless,” he adds, because it would be impossible to make a real choice on an entire document without considering the parts of it one agrees with and those that are disagreed with. “What then does yes or no mean?”
More recently, Slate commentator Fred Kaplan, who had suggested that a “no” vote on the constitution would be for the best, now sees “a sliver of a hope” that it may “mark a small step toward a stable, somewhat democratic government after all.” Here's the consensus: Though there may be a significant chance that the referendum may eventually lead toward disintegration and civil war, at least it will have the proper vestiges of a democratic state.
Alright, then. But is it fair to ask whether any of this will mean anything for literally powerless Iraqis to assert control over their country if a constitutional regime will only result in sectarian chaos with 140,000 Americans in the crossfire?
openDemocracy contributor Zaid Al-Ali expressed skepticism, asking: “After all the Iraqi people have been through … will the constitution bring peace, prosperity and basic services, or a further disintegration of the state coupled with more pain and misery?”
Citing a story in the Washington Post, Al-Ali fears Sunni opposition to the idea of cantoning Iraq into oil-rich Kurd and Shi'a regions and, moreover, Iraqis disenfranchisement from the constitutional convention process within the Green Zone while largely being denied “basic services” without, could all lead to the suffering of all.
“A Baghdad radio commentator recently asked an Iraqi caller whether he intended to vote in the 15 October referendum on the draft constitution for the country,” he writes. “The caller answered: ‘if I do, will I get some electricity?’”
British journalist George Monbiot also weighed in. Referring to the text of the draft constitution (available both here and here), he writes that the Zone “deliberations were back-to-front. First the members of the constitutional committee … argue over every dot and comma, then they present the whole thing (25 pages in English translation) to the people for a yes or no answer.”
“The question and the answer are meaningless,” he adds, because it would be impossible to make a real choice on an entire document without considering the parts of it one agrees with and those that are disagreed with. “What then does yes or no mean?”
More recently, Slate commentator Fred Kaplan, who had suggested that a “no” vote on the constitution would be for the best, now sees “a sliver of a hope” that it may “mark a small step toward a stable, somewhat democratic government after all.” Here's the consensus: Though there may be a significant chance that the referendum may eventually lead toward disintegration and civil war, at least it will have the proper vestiges of a democratic state.
Alright, then. But is it fair to ask whether any of this will mean anything for literally powerless Iraqis to assert control over their country if a constitutional regime will only result in sectarian chaos with 140,000 Americans in the crossfire?
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
I write for the Wooster Voice, sometimes news and, as of late, opinion. The following is what I'd to see published this Friday, but the final product may not at all resemble the piece I had originally written, so here it is in full, grammatical errata and all typos untouched.
Last Friday, October 7, commemorated four years of the wonderful War on Terror, which was recently renamed the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism (GSAVE) so as to make it officially unwinnable. And we're making it clear that we have no idea what we're doing.
Did you hear that we have a ‘public diplomat’ for the Arab Street? It's Karen Hughes, formerly in charge of ‘communications’ at the Bush White House, which means being in charge of campaign PR. A proper candidate, then, for propagating half-truths and innuendo to our target audience, which can only be defined by what it isn't: potential jihadis to whom it might be useful for us to dissuade from violence. If there's no negotiating with terrorists, what about those who may be soon suckered into it?
But there's nothing like dispatching a respected loyalist (read: crony) skilled in the art of fine dissembling to send out a marketing brand hoped to improve our image. The New York Times framed the picture askewly but in a way that is mostly accurate. (Steven R. Weisman, "On Mideast 'Listening Tour,' the Question Is Who's Hearing," 30 September 2005, A3) We read of Hughes, a “relentlessly upbeat” lackey, working “to mold public opinion abroad” by, for example, “hugging a child” in the Turkish capital of Istanbul.[*]
Here's the snag, big enough to derail all of the noble intentions we have for the Middle East: we're not even trying. Weisman's story cites “retired diplomat” Edward Djerejian, who “said recently that 80 percent of the hostility derived from American policies” in the Mideast. It takes a fucking genius. So we're going to hit up the other 20 percent with “a sophisticated media strategy that Ms. Hughes should be able to provide.” As long as we're taking care of one out of five needles from the haystack, I sure feel safe. Don't you?
Hughes did “address several policies,” but “in concise sound bites”. Later, allegedly listening to “a Turkish official” from whom we can hear “the perspective of ‘the common Turk.” That's as true as hearing the words of, say, a Pentagon bureaucrat and concluding it to be the voice of “the common American,” who by any account of public opinion polls, for example, is solidly opposed to such high military spending.
Hughes has also proved to be painfully ignorant for the job she's been assigned, a shame considering the ancient dictum to ‘know thy enemy’ — or know who may become thy enemy, if you keep at it with your famed confidence. While in Egypt, Hughes was landed with heavy criticism from journalists there “for not meeting with enough genuine opposition figures.” En route, a reporter asked Hughes if she was planning on meeting with the largest opposition group in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, which the Cairo regime has banned. According to a Los Angeles Times editorial ("Policy before PR," 3 October 2005, B10), the question elicited puzzlement and she “replied simply, ‘We are respectful of Egypt's laws.’”
“Put the shoe on the other foot,” writes Slate magazine contributor Fred Kaplan. “Let’s say some Muslim leader wanted to improve Americans’ image of Islam. It’s doubtful that he would send as his emissary a woman in a black chador who had spent no time in the United States, possessed no knowledge of our history or movies or pop music, and spoke no English beyond a heavily accented ‘Good morning.’”
This is laziness because in no way do we intend to actually change policies that have done so much damage to the American people and the future of the United States in the world. But we're now willing to listen. Care for a brochure?
*In retrospect, that’s not the capital. I believe it’s Ankara.
Did you hear that we have a ‘public diplomat’ for the Arab Street? It's Karen Hughes, formerly in charge of ‘communications’ at the Bush White House, which means being in charge of campaign PR. A proper candidate, then, for propagating half-truths and innuendo to our target audience, which can only be defined by what it isn't: potential jihadis to whom it might be useful for us to dissuade from violence. If there's no negotiating with terrorists, what about those who may be soon suckered into it?
But there's nothing like dispatching a respected loyalist (read: crony) skilled in the art of fine dissembling to send out a marketing brand hoped to improve our image. The New York Times framed the picture askewly but in a way that is mostly accurate. (Steven R. Weisman, "On Mideast 'Listening Tour,' the Question Is Who's Hearing," 30 September 2005, A3) We read of Hughes, a “relentlessly upbeat” lackey, working “to mold public opinion abroad” by, for example, “hugging a child” in the Turkish capital of Istanbul.[*]
Here's the snag, big enough to derail all of the noble intentions we have for the Middle East: we're not even trying. Weisman's story cites “retired diplomat” Edward Djerejian, who “said recently that 80 percent of the hostility derived from American policies” in the Mideast. It takes a fucking genius. So we're going to hit up the other 20 percent with “a sophisticated media strategy that Ms. Hughes should be able to provide.” As long as we're taking care of one out of five needles from the haystack, I sure feel safe. Don't you?
Hughes did “address several policies,” but “in concise sound bites”. Later, allegedly listening to “a Turkish official” from whom we can hear “the perspective of ‘the common Turk.” That's as true as hearing the words of, say, a Pentagon bureaucrat and concluding it to be the voice of “the common American,” who by any account of public opinion polls, for example, is solidly opposed to such high military spending.
Hughes has also proved to be painfully ignorant for the job she's been assigned, a shame considering the ancient dictum to ‘know thy enemy’ — or know who may become thy enemy, if you keep at it with your famed confidence. While in Egypt, Hughes was landed with heavy criticism from journalists there “for not meeting with enough genuine opposition figures.” En route, a reporter asked Hughes if she was planning on meeting with the largest opposition group in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, which the Cairo regime has banned. According to a Los Angeles Times editorial ("Policy before PR," 3 October 2005, B10), the question elicited puzzlement and she “replied simply, ‘We are respectful of Egypt's laws.’”
“Put the shoe on the other foot,” writes Slate magazine contributor Fred Kaplan. “Let’s say some Muslim leader wanted to improve Americans’ image of Islam. It’s doubtful that he would send as his emissary a woman in a black chador who had spent no time in the United States, possessed no knowledge of our history or movies or pop music, and spoke no English beyond a heavily accented ‘Good morning.’”
This is laziness because in no way do we intend to actually change policies that have done so much damage to the American people and the future of the United States in the world. But we're now willing to listen. Care for a brochure?
*In retrospect, that’s not the capital. I believe it’s Ankara.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Cold Nature
At a bare minimum, 18,000 people were killed near the Kashmir during a 7.6 earthquake and the series of aftershocks that followed over the weekend. About 40,000 more are wounded.
I remember the 50,000 who perished from the Iranian quake a couple of years ago, and I think about the lethal impersonality of nature and what we may see as its "wrathful" tendencies. It's only comforting to put a face on it, no matter how ugly.
But what is more disturbing is that it simply just is, in this instance the random slipping and breaking along slabs of rock beneath us. Moreover, that there is nothing we can do but help the people affected and wait for the next one to roll down.
I remember the 50,000 who perished from the Iranian quake a couple of years ago, and I think about the lethal impersonality of nature and what we may see as its "wrathful" tendencies. It's only comforting to put a face on it, no matter how ugly.
But what is more disturbing is that it simply just is, in this instance the random slipping and breaking along slabs of rock beneath us. Moreover, that there is nothing we can do but help the people affected and wait for the next one to roll down.
Friday, September 30, 2005
On this forum I've often wondered whether there was any point in maintaining this blog, which will turn three this February on the 23rd. I suppose I keep this site up and running, this page really (because I don't have my own domain, fuck), because it's important for whatever reason it may be. I ask, What's my audience, what should I write for them? Then again, Do I have an audience? They're good questions all, though I find them unanswerable at the moment. And now for something completely different.
The new album from the Rolling Stones is pretty damn good. I enjoy "Laugh, I Nearly Died" and that "Sweet Neo Con" track, the former being my favorite. How come you're so wrong? we hear Jagger ask. Indeed.
So, as I get ready to play a rendition of capture-the-flag, I leave for now with the following: whether anyone reads this blog with any regularity, I'll still write. Though I have no influence, I'll keep hope that my words may find someone's ear, somewhere. And, though I am immensely overshadowed, I'll keep on.
Peace.
The new album from the Rolling Stones is pretty damn good. I enjoy "Laugh, I Nearly Died" and that "Sweet Neo Con" track, the former being my favorite. How come you're so wrong? we hear Jagger ask. Indeed.
So, as I get ready to play a rendition of capture-the-flag, I leave for now with the following: whether anyone reads this blog with any regularity, I'll still write. Though I have no influence, I'll keep hope that my words may find someone's ear, somewhere. And, though I am immensely overshadowed, I'll keep on.
Peace.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Demonstrations Against the Iraq War
What do I think? It's getting on in time for it, perhaps past due. I took part in a sort of protest march dealie in June 2004 myself. My sign read, in part, "500 GIs Dead". 16 months ago, remember.
We need to ask ourselves about the consequences of stopping the war. A very painful question urgently needs to be posed: our lives or theirs? If we save our own from the carnage and chaos that has befallen Iraq, will we consign all of that to the Iraqis? In other words, can we extricate ourselves from this quagmire, an incipient civil war that has cost us over 1,900 dead and nearly $200 billion, without forsaking the Iraqi people and the fledgling democratic system they are attempting to establish?
I have here some practical steps we can try to get our leaders to undertake. First, we should send our troops right along the Syrian border and seal it off. Officers throughout the ranks have frequently noted the futility of insurgent compound raids along the Euphrates corridor, as the Jihadis assimilate right into the countryside or escape through tunnels about as fast as we can kill them.
Moreover, stabilization of Iraq ought to be the first priority, democratization second. It pains me to write such words, but how can there be any hope for a democratic society when its very fabric is being torn to shreds each day? But how we bring order to a country pulled every which way and divided within is a highly difficult matter, one I cannot pretend to have an answer for.
If we are to withdraw our forces, what then? An immediate pullout may be as catastrophic as having invaded in the first place. I think a phased, incremental withdrawal needs to happen as soon as possible. Some analysts even have suggested 'buying off' Sunni insurgents, but that would practically guarantee full-out civil war as Sunnis and Shi'a would probably wipe each other out once we're gone.
If we can consolidate the CIA-trained militias, maybe there is hope. Better yet, start rebuilding the country, so the population can see a reason to band together and create a civil society. Before that can viably begin, we will need better intelligence analysts on the field and less airstrikes.
It's visibly haphazard, how I've proposed to arrange things, but it may work. The sooner the better, so our sons and daughters can return home with honor. Meanwhile, the domestic anti-war movements ought to recognize the complexity that lies behind calls to "leave" Iraq, so the seemingly inevitable nightmare is not realized.
We need to ask ourselves about the consequences of stopping the war. A very painful question urgently needs to be posed: our lives or theirs? If we save our own from the carnage and chaos that has befallen Iraq, will we consign all of that to the Iraqis? In other words, can we extricate ourselves from this quagmire, an incipient civil war that has cost us over 1,900 dead and nearly $200 billion, without forsaking the Iraqi people and the fledgling democratic system they are attempting to establish?
I have here some practical steps we can try to get our leaders to undertake. First, we should send our troops right along the Syrian border and seal it off. Officers throughout the ranks have frequently noted the futility of insurgent compound raids along the Euphrates corridor, as the Jihadis assimilate right into the countryside or escape through tunnels about as fast as we can kill them.
Moreover, stabilization of Iraq ought to be the first priority, democratization second. It pains me to write such words, but how can there be any hope for a democratic society when its very fabric is being torn to shreds each day? But how we bring order to a country pulled every which way and divided within is a highly difficult matter, one I cannot pretend to have an answer for.
If we are to withdraw our forces, what then? An immediate pullout may be as catastrophic as having invaded in the first place. I think a phased, incremental withdrawal needs to happen as soon as possible. Some analysts even have suggested 'buying off' Sunni insurgents, but that would practically guarantee full-out civil war as Sunnis and Shi'a would probably wipe each other out once we're gone.
If we can consolidate the CIA-trained militias, maybe there is hope. Better yet, start rebuilding the country, so the population can see a reason to band together and create a civil society. Before that can viably begin, we will need better intelligence analysts on the field and less airstrikes.
It's visibly haphazard, how I've proposed to arrange things, but it may work. The sooner the better, so our sons and daughters can return home with honor. Meanwhile, the domestic anti-war movements ought to recognize the complexity that lies behind calls to "leave" Iraq, so the seemingly inevitable nightmare is not realized.
Friday, September 16, 2005
Mr. Dean's Lecture
Sat through the whole thing, heard what he had to say, asked my question (in part), overheard a very interesting exchange between him and a self-described reporter for some 'revolutionary' publication.
I'm talking about John Dean's lecture at McGaw last night. He rambled at times, went into some irrelevant details that began to bore and mystify a lot of people (myself included). But, for the most part, it was good to get my question out there in the forum.
His response to my question, namely whether the President can in fact be impeached, was a qualified no: a ridiculously high incumbency rate for the House of Reps and a horridly gerrymandered districting should preclude any hope of articles of impeachment being drafted, but perhaps the Senate may switch to the "opposition" party in 2006, was essentially his answer.
He preceded it with a clarification: in Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, he did not "call" for his impeachment, but rather laid the case for it. To me, that is practically one and the same, but alright. But, if it is going to happen, it may begin after the 2006 mid-term elections.*
The highlight of the extensive Q&A session that followed Dean's lecture was a fairly combative back-and-forth between him and this sneering, accusative guy (see above) who gave the impression of being firmly seared to a close-minded mentality. I don't remember his central question, but his tone was so ruthlessly vindicative that it obscured whatever valid points he may have made. His use of the word 'genocide' to describe combat operations in Iraq particularly bothered me and, I presume, most others there. But, thankfully, Dean delivered a stunning bitch-slap by declaring he was the first at the highest levels of the Nixon administration to oppose his superior's expansion of the war in Vietnam, to which a booming chorus voiced what was, in essence, a cry of assent. That shut him up, as did a round of applause launched to silence the offending and, frankly, obnoxious speaker. (I heard he stormed off like a little bitch at that point.)
*It's important to remember, now, that Nixon was impeached in 1974, which was two years after his re-election. But, who knows.
I'm talking about John Dean's lecture at McGaw last night. He rambled at times, went into some irrelevant details that began to bore and mystify a lot of people (myself included). But, for the most part, it was good to get my question out there in the forum.
His response to my question, namely whether the President can in fact be impeached, was a qualified no: a ridiculously high incumbency rate for the House of Reps and a horridly gerrymandered districting should preclude any hope of articles of impeachment being drafted, but perhaps the Senate may switch to the "opposition" party in 2006, was essentially his answer.
He preceded it with a clarification: in Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, he did not "call" for his impeachment, but rather laid the case for it. To me, that is practically one and the same, but alright. But, if it is going to happen, it may begin after the 2006 mid-term elections.*
The highlight of the extensive Q&A session that followed Dean's lecture was a fairly combative back-and-forth between him and this sneering, accusative guy (see above) who gave the impression of being firmly seared to a close-minded mentality. I don't remember his central question, but his tone was so ruthlessly vindicative that it obscured whatever valid points he may have made. His use of the word 'genocide' to describe combat operations in Iraq particularly bothered me and, I presume, most others there. But, thankfully, Dean delivered a stunning bitch-slap by declaring he was the first at the highest levels of the Nixon administration to oppose his superior's expansion of the war in Vietnam, to which a booming chorus voiced what was, in essence, a cry of assent. That shut him up, as did a round of applause launched to silence the offending and, frankly, obnoxious speaker. (I heard he stormed off like a little bitch at that point.)
*It's important to remember, now, that Nixon was impeached in 1974, which was two years after his re-election. But, who knows.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Former Nixon White House special counsel John Dean will be giving a speech at 7:30 tonight in McGaw Chapel. According to the FBI report (the second part available here), Dean served as the "master manipulator" in the Watergate scandal cover-up, overseeing the criminality from the highest echelons in the administration, then testifying against his colleagues to the Senate committee spearheading the investigation (Wikipedia).
Last year, Dean called for President Bush's impeachment in his book, Worse than Watergate: The Secret President of George W. Bush. (The transcript for the Democracy Now! interview can be found here.) If it isn't brought up tonight, I will ask him whether he thinks it is possible for Bush to even have articles of impeachment drawn up against him and, if so, what he thinks of former Attorney General Ramsey Clark's articles.
And moreover, whether Bush, having in Dean's mind committed greater crimes than Nixon - far greater, in that burglarizing the opposition party's offices as well as the psychiatric papers of a man who leaked secret documents exposing the lies of previous administrations of its study on the Vietnam War (by which I refer to Daniel Ellsberg's release of the 'Pentagon Papers' to the New York Times) pales in comparison to what amounts to lying to Congress and the American people, high crimes that have led to a grave compromise of our security that, in a sense, border on treasonous - deserves a more serious punishment. He won his fabled second term, and he remains in office - but Nixon won re-election, too, only to be thrown out in disgrace less than two years later.
Last year, Dean called for President Bush's impeachment in his book, Worse than Watergate: The Secret President of George W. Bush. (The transcript for the Democracy Now! interview can be found here.) If it isn't brought up tonight, I will ask him whether he thinks it is possible for Bush to even have articles of impeachment drawn up against him and, if so, what he thinks of former Attorney General Ramsey Clark's articles.
And moreover, whether Bush, having in Dean's mind committed greater crimes than Nixon - far greater, in that burglarizing the opposition party's offices as well as the psychiatric papers of a man who leaked secret documents exposing the lies of previous administrations of its study on the Vietnam War (by which I refer to Daniel Ellsberg's release of the 'Pentagon Papers' to the New York Times) pales in comparison to what amounts to lying to Congress and the American people, high crimes that have led to a grave compromise of our security that, in a sense, border on treasonous - deserves a more serious punishment. He won his fabled second term, and he remains in office - but Nixon won re-election, too, only to be thrown out in disgrace less than two years later.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
President Feels Remorse?
President Bush asserted today that he feels it necessary to "take responsibility" for the shameful failure he is presiding over in response to Katrina, reports CNN. He is scheduled to address the nation about the disaster this Thursday. Well it's about fucking time.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Today marks the fourth anniversary of the attacks on our country that mark the dividing line between 'then' and 'now'. The hallowed ground upon which the Twin Towers once stood was thrown into bureaucratic miasma, and their memory has long since been tarnished and, most despicably, exploited to justify the suffering of many thousands more.
The whole thing makes no sense. The victims of the Iraq war, which was billed to us in part as somehow related to the atrocities commemorated this day four years past, by now number well into the tens of thousands, including the nearly 2,100 American soldiers dead from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We are all responsible for this, as we live in a democratic state, and with each passing day of inaction we add another of complicity to the bastardization of the deaths of nearly three thousand people. They didn't know they would die to become martyrs for a grand design to remake the world and, in so doing, replicate their suffering and death among people blessed with petroleum. We failed the opportunity to stop this madness, a fact conceded by the President himself, who referred to last year's election as our "accountability moment". Not, of course, that there was anything Kerry could have done. (Remember that dolt?)
But, after all, why am I talking about a war that has embroiled 140,000 of our soldiers in a fiercely sectarian hellscape? It need not have any relation to the attacks remembered today. Ideological enemies Hussein and bin Laden never had any collaborational relationship, spelled out by the 9/11 Commission in its final report. What possible interest would Saddam have had in working with Osama? His Iraq was nothing more than a contained, failing state, destroyed by decades of war and sanctions. Hussein would've no doubt wanted to hold onto whatever was left, minus the fanciful stockpiles of WMD; no use, then, sharing secrets with a crazed, religious zealot, one who despised Hussein and his regime.
Al Qaeda attacked us four years ago today. But now the terrorist group is more a state of mind that any centralized organization, with 'affiliate' jihadist fronts springing up throughout the world. One of the more prominent observations made immediately following the September 11 attacks was a dire need for 'moral clarity'. (I believe former "drug czar" and avid gambler William Bennett published a book calling for that sort of thing.) But no such clarity has ever been established, and the water is muddier than ever. Some ethical standard would be damn nice right now.
Let's start with a common definition of terrorism, one that applies to all actors. Here's one: "Premeditated acts of violence, directed at noncombatants, for the purpose of political change." Simple. The problem with such a definition is it implicates actions for which we are responsible. But so be it. We are the example for the world to follow, are we not? That fabled shining city on a hill? Do we not have a Christian President? Jesus instructed to treat others as you would have them treat you, the Golden Rule. Spraying cluster bombs over suburban Baghdad and leveling Falluja does not bode well for us, no matter what end we seek. One does not equate ends and means; that's an ancient truism.
What I mean to say by all of this is we've adopted a tragically simplistic worldview that leads us to band together for an apocalyptic global battle for the salvation of Muslims' souls. Or 'democratization' of the Middle East. It's a matter of semantics. The question that remains from the ashes of ground zero is, What future do we want, for us, our children and grandchildren? Whether it's a choice between freedom and fear or survival and hegemony, the constant obstacle to global progress and happiness is, in the end, the irrationality that exists within all of us.
All we have is our power; with that responsibility we can do whatever we want, and therein lies the problem and the solution. A system where a twentieth of the global population assumes the mantle of a world mission to save and reconstruct the rest of the world is a path of self-destruction and, ultimately, doom. We can stop this. Hope and freedom are precious. Violence will not put an end to violence; neither will passive exhortations to 'wage peace'. The free people of the world will find a way. It may not be ours, but perhaps one that will turn the tide of tyrannical regimes and this whole ugly 'Age of Terror'. Is that the role of our country alone? Obviously not. Rather, it is the obligation of all who do not wish to live in fear and desperation.
Someday justice will be done. To that end I am optimistic.
The whole thing makes no sense. The victims of the Iraq war, which was billed to us in part as somehow related to the atrocities commemorated this day four years past, by now number well into the tens of thousands, including the nearly 2,100 American soldiers dead from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We are all responsible for this, as we live in a democratic state, and with each passing day of inaction we add another of complicity to the bastardization of the deaths of nearly three thousand people. They didn't know they would die to become martyrs for a grand design to remake the world and, in so doing, replicate their suffering and death among people blessed with petroleum. We failed the opportunity to stop this madness, a fact conceded by the President himself, who referred to last year's election as our "accountability moment". Not, of course, that there was anything Kerry could have done. (Remember that dolt?)
But, after all, why am I talking about a war that has embroiled 140,000 of our soldiers in a fiercely sectarian hellscape? It need not have any relation to the attacks remembered today. Ideological enemies Hussein and bin Laden never had any collaborational relationship, spelled out by the 9/11 Commission in its final report. What possible interest would Saddam have had in working with Osama? His Iraq was nothing more than a contained, failing state, destroyed by decades of war and sanctions. Hussein would've no doubt wanted to hold onto whatever was left, minus the fanciful stockpiles of WMD; no use, then, sharing secrets with a crazed, religious zealot, one who despised Hussein and his regime.
Al Qaeda attacked us four years ago today. But now the terrorist group is more a state of mind that any centralized organization, with 'affiliate' jihadist fronts springing up throughout the world. One of the more prominent observations made immediately following the September 11 attacks was a dire need for 'moral clarity'. (I believe former "drug czar" and avid gambler William Bennett published a book calling for that sort of thing.) But no such clarity has ever been established, and the water is muddier than ever. Some ethical standard would be damn nice right now.
Let's start with a common definition of terrorism, one that applies to all actors. Here's one: "Premeditated acts of violence, directed at noncombatants, for the purpose of political change." Simple. The problem with such a definition is it implicates actions for which we are responsible. But so be it. We are the example for the world to follow, are we not? That fabled shining city on a hill? Do we not have a Christian President? Jesus instructed to treat others as you would have them treat you, the Golden Rule. Spraying cluster bombs over suburban Baghdad and leveling Falluja does not bode well for us, no matter what end we seek. One does not equate ends and means; that's an ancient truism.
What I mean to say by all of this is we've adopted a tragically simplistic worldview that leads us to band together for an apocalyptic global battle for the salvation of Muslims' souls. Or 'democratization' of the Middle East. It's a matter of semantics. The question that remains from the ashes of ground zero is, What future do we want, for us, our children and grandchildren? Whether it's a choice between freedom and fear or survival and hegemony, the constant obstacle to global progress and happiness is, in the end, the irrationality that exists within all of us.
All we have is our power; with that responsibility we can do whatever we want, and therein lies the problem and the solution. A system where a twentieth of the global population assumes the mantle of a world mission to save and reconstruct the rest of the world is a path of self-destruction and, ultimately, doom. We can stop this. Hope and freedom are precious. Violence will not put an end to violence; neither will passive exhortations to 'wage peace'. The free people of the world will find a way. It may not be ours, but perhaps one that will turn the tide of tyrannical regimes and this whole ugly 'Age of Terror'. Is that the role of our country alone? Obviously not. Rather, it is the obligation of all who do not wish to live in fear and desperation.
Someday justice will be done. To that end I am optimistic.
Saturday, September 03, 2005
The federal government's response to the disaster spawned by Hurricane Katrina is nothing less than shameful. The more one reads about this fiasco the more that kind of conclusion becomes clear. It's not just the matter of delay: one whole day before a single word about it came out of the White House, a few more crucial days before the desperately needed supplies and the people to distribute and coordinate them arrived to the bereaved and besieged.
What is happening now is the direct result of inept policy and misguided priorities, to say the least: the National Guard? A lot of their resources (one estimate places it at half) and about a third of their personnel are in Iraq. Funding for the failed levees? Cuts in the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) budget, partly due to allocations for 'Homeland Security' - and not homeland security, apparently - as well as the tax cuts. "Just two months ago new evidence emerged that city and its levees were sinking, increasing the risk of a catastrophic flood, even as federal funds to protect the city were being cut," reports the New York Times.
The result is an undeniable disaster, and the refugee situation is both unnecessary and criminal. This does not happen to such a wonderful country. Yes, one must not simply 'point fingers'. But this whole thing embodies the life and death issue of power and responsibility, which for better or worse is being placed on the highest levels of our government. It has failed us: unknown thousands are already dead, 'armed thugs' have taken control of many areas in New Orleans, damage to oil infrastructure has sent gas prices higher and higher, and the utter lack of basic services (water, food, medicine) has created what is perhaps the greatest humanitarian crisis we have ever seen in recent memory.
One day this Administration is going to pay dearly for its shameful (and shameless) lack of foresight and its contempt for the American people.
What is happening now is the direct result of inept policy and misguided priorities, to say the least: the National Guard? A lot of their resources (one estimate places it at half) and about a third of their personnel are in Iraq. Funding for the failed levees? Cuts in the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) budget, partly due to allocations for 'Homeland Security' - and not homeland security, apparently - as well as the tax cuts. "Just two months ago new evidence emerged that city and its levees were sinking, increasing the risk of a catastrophic flood, even as federal funds to protect the city were being cut," reports the New York Times.
The result is an undeniable disaster, and the refugee situation is both unnecessary and criminal. This does not happen to such a wonderful country. Yes, one must not simply 'point fingers'. But this whole thing embodies the life and death issue of power and responsibility, which for better or worse is being placed on the highest levels of our government. It has failed us: unknown thousands are already dead, 'armed thugs' have taken control of many areas in New Orleans, damage to oil infrastructure has sent gas prices higher and higher, and the utter lack of basic services (water, food, medicine) has created what is perhaps the greatest humanitarian crisis we have ever seen in recent memory.
One day this Administration is going to pay dearly for its shameful (and shameless) lack of foresight and its contempt for the American people.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Good news, everyone: the Onion, perhaps due to popular demand (that's my guess), has returned its archives from their 'premium' section. So it's fully searchable, but still not browsable. But it's a great start.