micah holmquist's irregular thoughts and links |
|
|
Welcome to the musings and notes of a Cadillac, Michigan based writer named Micah Holmquist, who is bothered by his own sarcasm. Please send him email at micahth@chartermi.net. Holmquist's full archives are listed here.
Archives
Sites Holmquist trys, and often fails, to go no more than a couple of days without visiting (some of which Holmquist regularly swipes links from without attribution) Aljazeera.Net English Blogs that for one reason or another Holmquist would like to read on at least something of a regular basis (always in development) Thivai Abhor |
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Don't tell me (a tribute to two of this era's great poets) For Sammy Hagar it is "don't tell me what love can do" while Darryl Worley sings "Don't you tell me not to worry 'bout Bin Laden," but both get at a truth that resides deep inside the heart of every American spirit that wants to live in freedom - don't talk to me about that, I already know what I think. I know that there is of course not even a smidgen of a chance that I can reach the level of a Hagar or a Worley, but nonetheless this is my attempt to join, if only on the absolute lowest rung, this most honorable canon. Don't tell me "It is never wrong to be on the side of freedom" and praise the United States' "war on terror" while not complaining about Great Britain agreeing to aid Libya's military. Don't tell me about what Uncle Sam has done for women's rights when you stay silent as theocracy is emerging in at least parts of Iraq, a country of course controlled by the U.S. where misogynistic "honor" killings happen with at least some regularity. Don't tell me the U.S. is on the side of a "free press" while you don't care when the same U.S. shuts down newspapers for not towing the party line and generally attempts to make sure the media in Iraq follow their "do's" and "don'ts." Don't tell me about the benefits of "democracy" while you have no problem with the U.S. manipulating the governments in democratic countries. Don't tell me "This war [in Iraq] was screamingly, shriekingly necessary" because of "the staggering enormity of what Saddam had committed against his own people" when you could not care less about genocide in Sudan being committed by a government that the U.S. is warming up to because that government is on Bush's side in the "war on terror." Don't tell me "Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right" while you remain silent as the land of free helps torturers hone their skills. Don't tell me anything just so you can justify your fun little wars. Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Condoleezza Rice testifying in public will probably be good move for Team Bush politically, as it is doubtful that she will say anything that hurts them, or is all that significant in any way, and now they will no longer appear to be hiding something. It almost certainly won't be asked but I would love for Rice to answer, "hey, what about that 'important principle'?" Monday, March 29, 2004
My brief entry "Ann Coulter and Condoleezza Rice must have the same editor" is up over at HorowitzWatch. Sunday, March 28, 2004
I've working my way through The Richard Pryor Show on DVD and all I can say at the moment is damn this shit is fucked up... and fucking funny. *** Ritt Goldstein has interesting notes on the "war on terror" in a March 26 Asia Times story. *** *** *** "US forces fired on a civilian car in Tikrit, killing a three-year old boy and wounding six women and children as well as their male driver, Iraqi police and relatives have said," Reuters writes in story dated today, March 28. "Police said US soldiers based in Saddam Hussein's hometown, 175 km north of Baghdad, shot at the family's red car in the town last night." *** *** "Soldiers headed for Iraq are still buying their own body armor -- and in many cases, their families are buying it for them -- despite assurances from the military that the gear will be in hand before they're in harm's way," the AP writes in a March 26 story. "Body armor distributors have received steady inquiries from soldiers and families about purchasing the gear, which can cost several thousand dollars. Though the military has advised them not to rely on third-party suppliers, many soldiers say they want it before they deploy." *** "Britain's special representative to Iraq has admitted the coalition forces 'misanalysed' the situation in the country both before and during the war," the BBC writes in a story from Friday. "In a BBC interview Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who ends his role on Saturday, also warned there would be no easy route to lasting peace in Iraq." Here's the transcript of the inverview. Actually I'm skeptical that the whole interview is reproduced. *** "The United States will transfer power in Iraq to a hand-picked prime minister, abandoning plans for an expansion of the current 25-member governing council, according to coalition officials in Baghdad," Jonathan Steele writes in a story published in yesterday's Guardian. *** "U.S. officials are moving rapidly to create a civilian-run Iraqi Defense Ministry that will work in tandem with the American military after the handover of Iraqi sovereignty on June 30 and could form the nucleus of a strategic alliance between the two countries," Sewell Chan writes in today's Washington Post. You don't say. *** "The U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, with less than 100 days left running the country, set up a $6 million commission to regulate the news media, a senior coalition officials said on Saturday," the AP writes. "The Iraqi Communications and Media Commission, whose nine members will be appointed by the U.S.-run Coalition Provisional Authority in consultation with the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, will organize telecommunications and broadcast operators and devise codes of conduct, the coalition official said during a briefing at which the official demanded anonymity." Saturday, March 27, 2004
Dreams and other matters From the "who would want to make this shit up?" file, on Thursday Bush said: The government has got a solemn duty to protect America. And that's why we created the Department of Homeland Security. That's why we put out the Patriot Act, so our FBI and CIA can share intelligence to make sure we know who's here to hurt us. That's why the great United States military is on the offensive against -- (applause). The best way to protect us is to stay on the offensive and to find terrorists before they try to harm us again. And they will. That's what they're trying to do. Our solemn duty is to protect America.I am convinced that none of this is real and it is all a bad dream. BTW, last night I apparently had a dream within a dream where I was at a table outside in a park sitting next to Bush and across from Kerry. I was having a delicious falafel, hummus and tomato sandwich. I do not recall what, if anything, Bush and Kerry were having but they were going on about whatever it is that they talk about. Before they could reach "on and on," however, I started screaming at them. Words weren't coming from me, just shrieks. *** "The Whole Iraq" is my latest Press Action piece. *** *** *** *** *** *** I may get around to talking about Richard Clarke, but for now go watch Jon Stewart. *** With fewer than 100 days to go before Iraq resumes its sovereignty, American officials say they believe they have found a legal basis for American troops to continue their military control over the security situation in Iraq.I hear that outside of the U.S. "freedom" is defined as being told what to do by the U.S. They like it that way. Friday, March 26, 2004
Bush's "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere" comment is further proof that Bush and friends have a lot of nerve. Too bad they are using for evil instead of good. Part of me thinks they have to live in fear that the public will wake up one and stop tolerating their bullshit. The other part of me thinks that's giving both Team Bush and the public way too much credit. Thursday, March 25, 2004
Repressive regime equals freedom, says Rummy Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has a piece in the March 19 edition of The New York Times, "The Price of Freedom in Iraq," that is a justification for U.S. policy in Iraq but ostensibly is an argument on why South Korea should help Uncle Sam out there. Included is this bit: Korean freedom was won at a terrible cost — tens of thousands of lives, including more than 33,000 Americans killed in action. Was it worth it? You bet.Ignoring North Korea, which the U.S. has had little direct influence on, what type of "freedom" did the "terrible cost" pay for? First there was the government run by the U.S. The Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress writes: The United States Army Military Government in Korea (1945-48), confronted with serious problems of public order, found itself retaining the old colonial police apparatus and its Korean personnel. United States-sponsored legal reforms, such as an effort to institute habeas corpus in 1946, often failed; attempts by United States advisors to prevent South Korean police from using torture, especially in political cases, also were unsuccessful. Under Syngman Rhee, the South Korea continued the prewar pattern of using law and the police for political purposes--intimidating the judiciary, arresting journalists, and applying extralegal pressures against the teaching profession and members of the new National Assembly.Next up was the regime of Syngman Rhee, which, in the words of the Asian Human Rights Commission, used: the National Security Law (NSL). Passed in 1948, the NSL which still exists to this day, was so vague and broadly defined that it could be easily used as a political tool to suppress virtually any kind of opposition. Armed with the law, Rhee embarked on a massive campaign of anti-communist witch hunts that affected tens of thousands of people, of whom the majority had no connection whatsoever with the left. All major organizations, the military, the press, and educational institutions, were subjected to close scrutiny and purge. In the spring of 1950, south Korean prisons held 60,000 people, of which 50 or 60% were charged with violations under the NSL. The NSL was also invoked to dragoon the National Assembly into compliance with Rhee's will. In October 1949, 16 assemblymen were jailed under national security violations. Not surprisingly, these 16 men were those who had called for arrests and trials of Japanese collaborators and the resignation of the whole cabinet, an action that struck at the heart of Rhee's rightist support.That was followed in 1961 by the military rule of Park Chung Hee. The Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress writes: The Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) was created in June 1961 to prevent a countercoup and to suppress all potential enemies. It was to have not only investigative power, but also the power to arrest and detain anyone suspected of wrongdoing or harboring antijunta sentiments. The KCIA extended its power to economic and foreign affairs under its first director, Colonel (retired) Kim Chong-p'il, a relative of Park, and one of the original planners of the coup against Chang.Don't think the U.S. has any problem with this: Park announced in February 1963 that he would not participate in civilian politics. The following month, however, he announced a popular referendum to decide whether the junta should extend its rule for another four years. Facing stiff opposition from both the South Korean public and the United States, the plan for a referendum was canceled.Again, the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress writes: In December 1971, Park again tightened his control over the country. He proclaimed a national emergency and forced through the National Assembly a bill granting him complete power to control, regulate, and mobilize the people, the economy, the press, and everything else in the public domain. In October 1972, he proclaimed martial law, dissolved the National Assembly, closed all universities and colleges, imposed strict press censorship, and suspended political activities. Within a few days he "submitted" a new draft constitution--designated the yusin (revitalization) constitution--to a national referendum. The 1972 constitution allowed Park to succeed himself indefinitely, to appoint one-third of the National Assembly's members, and to exercise emergency powers at will. The president was to be chosen by the more than 2,000 locally elected deputies of the supposedly nonpartisan National Conference for Unification, who were to cast their votes as an electoral college without debate.Authoritarianism continued in the years that followed, before, no thanks to Lady Liberty, things started to open up in 1987 as result of popular protests. Is this the "freedom" that Rummy wants in Iraq? Wednesday, March 24, 2004
I wonder why God put water on Mars. You won't hear it from the so-called "mainstream media" but the Martians are watching us. Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Team Bush makes sense "On September the 11th, 2001, America learned that vast oceans no longer protect us from the threats of the new era," Bush said on May 2 of last year, repeating a theme that has been and remains a regular part of his speeches. Supposedly, the excuse for a narrative goes, the events of September 11, 2001 alerted us all to dangers that we had never considered before. Not that the administration wasn't trying to "eliminate al Qaeda." Yesterday Scott McClellan said: It was very early on when Dr. Rice -- the first week of the administration, Dr. Rice asked for the ideas that Dick Clarke had in mind, or the previous policies of the previous administration. But we wanted to go beyond that. We didn't feel it was sufficient to simply roll back al Qaeda; we pursued a policy to eliminate al Qaeda. And that's what the NSC worked on from very early in this administration. We took the threats posed by al Qaeda very seriously. And we acted on those threats. Certainly, during that spring and summertime, there was a spike in the terrorist threat...And yet they never considered the possibility of al Qaeda striking a target inside the United States. The whole thing is nearly impossible to believe, but this is what one should expect since, for obvious reasons, the White House isn't going to come out and say they have manipulated people's ignorance, lack of critical thinking skills and genuine grief about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in order to get support for their "war on terror." Monday, March 22, 2004
Last night I saw a program on FNC that profiled Rummy. The reporter didn't avoid hard questions and the program didn't glorify our glorious leader through praise and marching drum sounds. I mention this profile briefly in my latest contribution to HorowitzWatch, "David Horowitz misses the whole picture." Sunday, March 21, 2004
I'm burned out on blogging. I think much of what I do here is of high quality, but, like anything else, it can get tiring with time and now I want to spend less with it. So my plan is to try to spend less time on this blog via more off-the-cuff posts till I get the enthusiasm back. If that doesn't seem to be working out, I may take a break. *** I'm glad to see the net is finally earning its keep with Janeane Garofalo video clips. The same site features on a good selection of news clips on Garofalo, but don't bother with the sexist intro unless you are in the mood to read such material. *** Kevin Smith on Mel's Temptation: I haven't seen it yet. I think it's funny, though, that people bring it up and ask me, "What do you think of the controversy?" I'm like, "What controversy?" The dude made a movie about Jesus in a country that's largely Christian — a very traditional movie — and it's made over $200 million in two weeks. There ain't no controversy, people. That's a hit. They took one or two Jewish leaders in the beginning and said, "This may be construed as anti-Semitic," and then spun it into a must-see movie for hard-core Christians. You've got to go see it if you love Jesus. I wish to God I had thought to do that when I was making "Dogma."*** Ted Bridis of the AP writes: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld almost immediately urged President Bush to consider bombing Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington, says a former senior administration counterterrorism aide.This appears to be even more proof that the "war on terror" is primarily whatever Bush and friends want it to be. UPDATE: From the poor choice of words file, this CBS MarketWatch story on Richard Clarke's comments is titled "Ex-Bush aide: Iraq war planning began after 9/11." FWIW, Clarke is the Chairman of Good Harbor Consulting, LLC, where it is said that he: advises clients on a range of issues including:From the I'm glad the prez didn't rise above a visceral reaction file, Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas of Newsweek write, "It was the day after 9/11, and President Bush, like many Americans, was looking for someone to bomb." 5:32 p.m. 03/22/04 Saturday, March 20, 2004
Happy Birthday OIF Although it goes against the cynicism I stand for, I participated in demo against "the war" today. I carried a sign reading: Continue the Occupation!A few people were puzzled by this sign but generally their sentiments could be summed up by the young, or perhaps old, person who said, "well at least he is anybody but Bush." The demo was one of many happening today. The influence will almost certainly be negligible, but it isn't as if the situation would be any worse if they didn't happen. *** It has been a year, more or less, since Operation Iraqi Freedom began and, as Homer Simpson would say, "if [cable news] has taught us nothing else -and it hasn't- it's that [dates like these should be marked with perspective]" so here I go with relatively unfocused thoughts... The action went better than many, including myself, expected. This isn't to say that the human costs of the war were not great, as they most certainly were and continue to be, but merely that it could have been far worse. Although the very worst, in the form of a civil war or some other series of events, may be yet to come, so far life has probably improved in many ways for most Iraqis. Still the situation can appear grim. A March 18 statement from Amnesty International, for instance, takes the occupying forces to task for killing "scores" of unarmed people, detaining as many as 15,000 people in an inhumane manner and for not establishing "law and order." The statement also says the continued terrorism poses a deadly threat to Iraqis. Numerous reports, from the likes of Agence France-Presse, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Lauren Sandler of The Nation, have documented that the situation faced by Iraqi women is grim and in many cases worse that during the era of Saddam Hussein. Does any of the improvement that has happened in the lives of Iraqis justify the invasion and occupation? If the only costs were those suffered so far by Iraqis and coalition troops, I would say no but have an understanding of how someone, particularly an Iraqi could feel differently. Slavoj Zizek's essay "The Iraq War: Where is The True Danger?" includes a valuable, if brief, look at this topic, although I would add that any person, Iraqi or otherwise, who supports the invasion and occupation of Iraq for the purpose of "liberation" ought to have serious reservations about the damage it has taken, and will take, to get to that point. It is important to keep the welfare of the Iraqi people in mind, but not because they were ever a concern of those in the United States who designed and implemented the invasion. That argument gets more ridiculous each time it is repeated, but if it were true Vice-President Cheney wouldn't spew shit like, "the... more than 125,000 Americans serving in Iraq... are confronting terrorists every day in that country, so that we do not one day meet the same enemies on the streets of our own cities." Considering that terrorism wasn't a big issue in Iraq before the U.S. took over, the message is better Iraqis than Americans die. Such contempt combined with an active agenda is deplorable. It is important to keep the fate of Iraqis in mind not because Team Bush cares but because they don't. The ostensible motivation for the war was Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, but, as I have noted before, the Bush Administration didn't seem particularly interested in finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That doesn't seem to have changed, despite Rummy's belief that they could still turn up. Even if they did expect to find weapons of mass destruction, it appears unlikely that Bush and friends saw Saddam's regime as a threat. So what was the reason for the invasion? While the various individuals who implemented, organized, promoted and supported it surely have various reasons for doing so, ultimately it amounts to the U.S. throwing its weight around. In a September 12, 2002 speech at the United Nations General Assembly Bush said it was a matter of enforcing U.N. resolutions. I wrote at the time that this resolve was so selective that one could only conclude that the real issue was that Iraq wasn't in compliance with U.N. resolutions that the U.S. supported. In other words, the demands of the U.S. had to be met. It was an exercise in power, just as the achievement in Libya has been. I suspect that if the occupation had gone smoother, that the U.S. would have marched on to other countries by now or at least be doing more priming of the public for such an adventure, not that they have been held back too much. Is any of this supportable? Again I would say not for a variety of reasons. In this case, however, I don't have respect for the "yes" position, although I recognize that it does exist and is based largely on the event known as "September 11." Take today's edition of Chris Muir's Day by Day strip which features the following dialogue: Jan: Iraq can't decide on a government. Spain shows that we're making the terrorists more active. I'm just saying we need to say if our losses are worth this. Evaluate where we are, what we're seeing out there.Translation: because of the events of September 11, 2001 we must forever keep acting without any consideration of the impact of these actions. Do whatever the hell you want Mr. President. Our job is to support you. The current exhibition of and desire for even great power seeks to be unaccountable almost by definition -hence the rampant dishonesty used to sell it- and so long as it, in the form of the "war on terror," is being put into action, "democracy" is only an ideal. Friday, March 19, 2004
Notes on Team Bush "[I]f you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you ought to back it up with facts," Bush said on Tuesday. (Thanks to The Daily Show for pointing this quote out.) Let's just say it is good thing that laughter is healthy. A day later my favorite still-active White House Press Secretary, and I hope he is one of yours, said: Senator Kerry has said that he met with foreign leaders and that he's heard from those leaders, and, yet, he refused to back up that claim. And that's why, yesterday, I said that it's either one of two things: Either he can back up those claims and say who it is, or he is simply making it up to attack the President of the United States. And that would be very unfortunate if that is the case. But this goes to an issue of credibility; it goes to an issue of being straight with the American people.Funny they cut out the bit about how, "the American people need to know if Kerry can be as dishonest as we are." That said, Kerry's comment was idiotic because it will almost certainly cause him to love more votes than he gains by it and he does look very weak by not coming forward with who, even though it is certainly understandable that he wouldn't want to reveal their names. Still, it isn't as if there is any reason to think he was making policy with these people, so it really isn't that big of a deal. I mean it is far more important that Team Bush's record of dishonesty and manipulation but it is nowhere near as important of an issue as George Carlin's anti-American comments or even whether John Kerry once owned a home someplace other the greatest country ever. Also on Wednesday, Cheney delivered a piece of brilliance that included: From his first day in Sacramento to his last day in Washington, Ronald Reagan showed a certain kind of leadership. He had confidence in himself, and even deeper confidence in the United States and our place among nations. His principles were the product of a good heart, a sturdy Midwestern character, and years of disciplined preparation for the work that history gave him. He had a basic awareness of good and evil that made him a champion of human freedom, and the greatest foe of the greatest tyranny of his time. The Cold War ended as it did, not by chance, not by some inevitable progression of events: It ended because Ronald Reagan was President of the United States.That's revisionist history! As everybody knows, the Soviet Union lasted longer because Reagan's election made America look weak! After the fall of Soviet communism, some observers confidently assumed that America would never again face such determined enemies, or an aggressive ideology, or the prospect of catastrophic violence.Yeah right. You are never going have a situation where the threat of terrorism has been "fully and finally removed." Believe this shit, or at least go along with it, and maybe you deserve the worst. The attacks of September 11th, 2001, signaled the arrival of an entirely different era. We suffered massive civilian casualties on our own soil. We awakened to dangers even more lethal - the possibility that terrorists could gain chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons from outlaw regimes, and turn those weapons against the United States and our friends. We came to understand that for all the destruction and grief we saw that day, September 11th gave only the merest glimpse of the threat that international terrorism poses to this and other nations. If terrorists ever do acquire weapons of mass destruction - on their own or with help from a terror regime - they will use those weapons without the slightest constraint of reason or morality. Instead of losing thousands of lives, we might lose tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives in a single day of horror.It bothers me that these possibilities supposedly never occurred to Cheney before September 11, 2001. America is also working closely with intelligence services all over the globe. The best intelligence is necessary - not just to win the war on terror, but also to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. So we have enhanced our intelligence capabilities, in order to trace dangerous weapons activity. We have organized a proliferation security initiative, to interdict lethal materials and technologies in transit. We are aggressively pursuing another dangerous source of proliferation: black-market operatives who sell equipment and expertise related to weapons of mass destruction. The world recently learned of the network led by A.Q. Khan, the former head of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. Khan and his associates sold nuclear technology and know-how to outlaw regimes around the world, including Iran and North Korea. Thanks to the tireless work of intelligence officers from the United States, the UK, Pakistan, and other nations, the Khan network is now being dismantled piece by piece.As Jesse M. Gotham has pointed out, the Bush Administration is not following the "Bush doctrine" in the case of Pakistan. I don't think that is a bad thing, but they shouldn't be allowed to haul it up as a principle when, and only when, it suits their needs as Cheney does in parts of his speech that I will refrain from quoting. We still have work to do in Iraq, and we will see it through. Our forces are conducting swift, precision raids against the terrorists and regime holdouts who still remain. The thugs and assassins in Iraq are desperately trying to shake our will. Just this morning, they conducted a murderous attack on a hotel in Baghdad. Their goal is to prevent the rise of a democracy - but they will fail. Just last week, the Iraqi Governing Council approved a new fundamental law, an essential step toward building a free constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East. This great work is part of a forward strategy of freedom that we are pursuing throughout the greater Middle East. By helping nations to build the institutions of freedom, and turning the energies of men and women away from violence, we not only make that region more peaceful, we add to the security of our own region.Except they aren't. Our steady course has not escaped the attention of the leaders in other countries. Three months ago, after initiating talks with America and Britain, and five days after the capture of Saddam Hussein, the leader of Libya voluntarily committed to disclose and dismantle all of his weapons of mass destruction programs. (Applause.) As we meet today, the dismantling of those programs is underway. I do not believe that Colonel Ghadafi just happened to make this very wise decision after many years of pursuing secretive, intensive efforts to develop the world's most dangerous weapons. He was responding to the new realities of the world. Leaders elsewhere are learning that weapons of mass destruction do not bring influence, or prestige, or security - they only invite isolation, and carry other costs.Which is why the United States continues to possess them. In one of Senator Kerry's recent observations about foreign policy, he informed his listeners that his ideas have gained strong support, at least among unnamed foreigners he's been spending time with. (Laughter.) Senator Kerry said that he has met with foreign leaders, and I quote, " who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that." End quote.And you know what asshole? It is our business when you and your buddies are untruthful on matters of policy. Had the decision belonged to Senator Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, today, in Iraq. In fact, Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait.Strangely Cheney did not go on to say that Iraqis should be very appreciative of "the terrorists." "Without them," the veep did not say, "the Iraqis would still not be free." I leave it for Senator Kerry to explain, or explain away his votes and his statements about the war on terror, our cause in Iraq, the allies who serve with us, and the needs of our military. Whatever the explanation, whatever nuances he might fault us for neglecting, it is not an impressive record for someone who aspires to become Commander-in-Chief in this time of testing for our country. In his years in Washington, Senator Kerry has been one vote of a hundred in the United States Senate - and fortunately on matters of national security, he was very often in the minority. But the presidency is an entirely different proposition. The President always casts the deciding vote.Yeah, some document clearly says that when the Prez wants war, the prez gets war. Look it up you appeasers. Yesterday an interview with Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN and included this exchange: [John] KING: You make the case with a great deal of passion, as the president, but as you remember too well, perhaps, going into the war into Iraq, we had the divide with Europe, the French and the Germans principally, publicly outspoken against the position of the United States. Do you worry that we are going back into an environment like that, when you have the newly elected prime minister of Spain saying he believes that the war on terror, the U.S. way of using shock and awe and military force has actually inspired more violence?I find it hard to believe Rice doesn't "understand" this position, as opposed to merely not agreeing with it or believing that it is too simplistic. And I say that as someone who would prefer to believe that Rice and the rest of the administration are just idiots and not extremely manipulative. UPDATE: For a look at how some have deified Bush, check out this post from Roger L. Simon. 8:10 a.m. 03/19/04 Thursday, March 18, 2004
Well that was a disappointing season My beloved Spartans had a 16 point lead at one point in the first half and lead by nine at halftime. Then they collapsed in the final eight or nine minutes of play due to poor shooting and foul trouble, Davis fouled out, for instance, that I can't help but say was largely brought on by the officials deciding to not allow so much physical play. There's no easy way to say this but it was a disappointing season. Out by mid-March and no championships to show for their efforts. But they did make it to the tournament and had an 18-12 record on the season. There are worse things, I suppose. Till next year or I have more to say other than this reminds me of two years ago in more ways than I want to count... *** From the file of "we have unconfirmed reports that someone may have narrowed down the area where someone you haven't heard of but nonetheless should feel would be a really big catch because we tell you to do so," David Rohde of The New York Times writes: Pakistani military and intelligence officials said Thursday night that they believed they had surrounded Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in a small cluster of villages near the border with Afghanistan.*** "That they deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride," Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski said today. As Matthew Barganier of antiwar.com mentions, this is the same guy who says removing troops from Iraq means saying, "that terrorists are stronger and that they are right (to pursue attacks)." So I take it that he views "terrorism" as far worse than not being able to hold governments accountable. I would say Kwasniewski's position makes sense for someone who just wants to hitch a ride to The Power, but then why would he say this kind of stuff? Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Last night I caught a bit Sean Hannity where he implied that having the United Nations take over Iraq would be "appeasement." This was after Scott McClellan suggested that a new resolution in the United Nations might be something the United States would seek. Is Hannity worried that Team Bush may soon seek to achieve "appeasement"? Probably not. As I explain in my latest Press Action piece, "Appeasement: We Follow Orders, Why Don't You?" the term "appeasement" is a partisan insult that reflects a desire for an authoritarian political culture. Tuesday, March 16, 2004
I'm generally not in the business of giving advice to Democrats, but if they do change their foreign policy message, I suggest forgetting boring nuances and just saying, "perfect security is impossible to achieve without utopia. There are tough choices to make and we have to make them. And oh yeah Bush plays each and everyone of you for idiots whenever he talks about defeating terrorism." No, I don't think this would go over well but it is factually based and that should count for something. *** tex has an interesting post on the charge of "appeasement" in Spain. Juan Cole and Jim Lobe on the same topic, more or less. *** *** *** "When President Bush and his advisers talk about the widening federal budget deficit, they usually place part of the blame on economic shocks ranging from the recession of 2001 to the terrorist attacks that year," Edmund L. Andrews writes in today's New York Times. "But a report released on Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that economic weakness would account for only 6 percent of a budget shortfall that could reach a record $500 billion this year." *** "Haitian ex-president Jean Bertrand Aristide arrived in Jamaica, provoking the ire of authorities in Haiti, who froze ties with the neighboring nation," AFP writes. Xinhuanet says: Haitian appointed Prime Minister Gerard Latortue announced Monday he temporarily suspended his country's membership in the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) and withdrew Haiti's ambassador from Jamaica, reports from Haiti's capital Port-au-Prince stated."Nope, there was no harm to Haiti's democracy done by Aristide's resignation," Uncle Sam told reporters. *** J Hoberman on Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind *** Here are interviews with Marty Beckerman, Bernardo Bertolucci, Neal Brennan, Willem Dafoe, Matt Maiellaro and Dave Willis, Nick McKinney, Neal Pollack, Annie Sprinkle and Amanda Stern. Monday, March 15, 2004
Sunday, March 14, 2004
'forgetting' 'September 11' The idea that "the terrorists" exist may remain the most idiotic popular idea of the George W. Bush era, but it is getting strong competition from the suggestion that people are forgetting the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. "Many of you are beginning to forget [September 11]," guest host and Guardian Angels founder Curtis Silwa told the listeners of the Sean Hannity Show on Friday. Also on Friday macallan of tacitus writes, "Apparently the Darryl Worley song's thematic question has been answered. We have forgotten." "The American people as a whole have virtually forgotten 9-11," Matt Margolis writes in blog entry posted yesterday. Save for those with major medical problems and the very young, nobody in the United States is "beginning to forget," has "forgotten" or has "virtually forgotten" the events of September 11, 2001 because doing so is FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE! Every other car has some patriotic symbol and I can guarantee that most people who see American flag bumper stickers are not reminded of the American Revolution. The very fact that we can use terms like "September 11" and everyone knows what you mean is indicative of this. It isn't as if there are a whole of people who hear "September 11" and think, "I don't know what that is about" or "I know they are talking about September 11, 2001 but I just don't remember what happened that day." I doubt that these three really believe people have forgotten so much as they can not understand how people could be knowledgeable about "September 11" and not support George W. Bush in everything he does related to the "war on terror." Maybe they could say, "Americans have forgotten how to be obedient to President Bush." At least person seems to be forgetting about the supposed reasons the U.S. had to invade Iraq. As you may remember, one reason -arguably the most stressed reason- was "weapons of mass destruction." Uncle Sam had "no choice" but to attack Iraq because of them. And yet, over at Blogs for Bush, Mark Noonan says: We didn't have to do it - we could have either turned coward and stayed home, or we could have unleashed our power without limit and simply killed them all; the greatness of America shines in the fact that we neither turned coward, nor just went in to kill - we went in to liberate, succor and build.No weapons of mass destruction have been found and the current line is that it was an intelligence failure or that they could still turn up. In either of those cases, Team Bush sincerely believed that had to invade Iraq to protect the U.S. and within the past week Bush's campaign has called the invasion a defensive act of "defending America." Noonan apparently thinks his candidate would have been willingly to allow many in the U.S. of A. to die a horrible death or is highly dishonest. As far as genocide against Iraqis, yes the United States could have taken that course but the backlash would have been unbelievable. Politically it would make no sense and it could have opened the land of the free up for significant retaliation. It wasn't really a possibility. Killing all those Iraqis also wouldn't have given Bush much room to create a democracy in Iraq, which, according to another reason for the invasion put forward by Bush, would lead to democracy spreading throughout the Middle East. Apparently though Team Bush has (at least officially) given up on that idea, so scratch that from the list. (If you need more proof check out Andrew Buncombe's report in Saturday's Independent about how Uncle Sam has funded groups that were responsible for the brief coup of a democratically elected government in Venezuela two years ago.) Human rights and terrorism have also been used to justify the invasion, but the latter has yet to be demonstrated while the former was ridiculous for all the usual reasons. After all of this, what reasons are we left with for invading Iraq? If there are any, and I suspect there are, they haven't been stated publicly. But, hey it made us feel good about ourselves and that counts for something. *** The tacitus piece linked to above also says, "I am discomfited that we still argue about nuance and policy and engagement and understanding amongst ourselves, while the enemy wastes no time on such activity. They don't particularly worry if we understand them, or sympathize with them, or care for them. They are too busy killing us. All of us." Well "the terrorists" will have to step up the killing, but I see no reason not to follow their model. *** WMDs the home of the brave does not want to be in Iraq? *** Christian Parenti reports in The Nation on "freedom of the press" in Iraq. *** Rosa Prince and Gary Jones of The Mirror and David Rose of The Observer have stories on allegations of abuse at the place I like to call Gittygo Way. *** *** AFP reports that March 13 story that: MORE than a thousand people held a protest in Madrid today to blame this week's bombs in the capital on the government's unpopular decision to support the US war on Iraq.While I suspect there position has less to do with logic than opposition to anything that does not support the glorious "war on terror" that protects, inspires and generally gives us all a reason to live, a number of good obedient blogger patriots have, and it does pain men to say this, correctly ridiculed these protesters. al Qaeda not liking something is not a good argument for not doing something. At the same time, if you try to rule the world, or aid those who do, you should expect a response and not treat it as if it were beyond the pale. And, it should go without saying but probably doesn't, al Qaeda opposing something is not a good argument for doing something, even when it is something you enjoy as much as waging wars that you are not directly involved in. Writing on this topic, Tony Rosen utters words that are beyond funny: Yeah, well, if those bombs were solely for supporting the war in Iraq, how come we've not had anything like that over on our shores? Heck, we WERE the war in Iraq.*** Adrian Croft of Reuters writes: Spain's opposition Socialists have swept to power in a sensational election upset sparked by popular anger over the government's handling of a suspected al Qaeda attack on commuter trains that killed 200 people.Knowing virtually nothing about the contemporary politics of Spain, I won't comment but I did notice that Chris of Blogs for Bush says, "Terrorists succeed in Spain." Michigan State is the no. 7 seed in midwest region and will play Nevada in the midwestern city of Seattle. Whether the game is on Thursday or Friday, I do not know. If they win that game, they play Gonzaga or Valparaiso. I don't know much about Nevada, but the seeding is generous. UPDATE: Looks like it will be on Thursday. 10:04 p.m. 03/14/04 UPDATE #2: At around 7:35 p.m. 9:41 p.m. 03/15/04 Saturday, March 13, 2004
Wisconsin 68 Michigan State 66 I'm in disbelief. Like 11 days ago, the Spartans seemed to crack when they were on the verge of beating Wisconsin. I can't believe that this loss won't be hard mentally. March 13 notes UPDATE: The fourth season dvd set of the greatest television show ever comes out on June 15! *** Given that the issue of anti-Semitism and The Passion of the Christ -a film I have not seen and probably won't- does not appear to be going away, I think it is worth saying, how could "the Jews" as a group possibly be "responsible" for the death of Jesus? Even asking the question implies the absurd notion that they could have been. One more thing, let us just say "the Jews" were "responsible" for the death of Jesus. Why would this breed anger? Christianity is largely based on a narrative that stems from Jesus' death. 6:40 a.m. 03/13/04 UPDATE #2: "Spain says it has arrested five people, some possibly linked to Moroccan militants, adding weight to speculation that the hand of al Qaeda may be behind train bombs that killed 200 people," Elisabeth O'Leary of Reuters writes. "Interior Minister Angel Acebes said three Moroccans and two Indians were being held following Thursday's bombing of four packed trains in Madrid, Spain's worst guerrilla attack." 4:21 p.m. 03/13/04 UPDATE #3: It looks like al Qaeda is claiming responsibility for the bombing in Mardrid on Thursday. 8:19 a.m. 03/14/04 Friday, March 12, 2004
George Lies Again Now Bush wants us to believe that he invaded Iraq to defend the United States. It was "defending America." The sad fact is his team doesn't just ignore their rampant dishonesty, but actually deny it: On the day that Senator Kerry emerged as the Democrats’ presumptive nominee, President Bush called to congratulate him. That goodwill gesture has been met by attacks and false statements. John Kerry yesterday, on President Bush:I should expect no less."Let me tell you, we've just begun to fight," Kerry said. "We're going to keep pounding. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary." "Keep America Free and Strong" *** *** Noah Shachtman has filed an interesting report for Wired News on DARPA's get together. *** Brian Doherty of Reason on the "Logic of Empire" *** You can read such things as "Christopher Hitchens is cut from the same mold as Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot" at patriotsforbush.com. *** Al Qaeda may have been behind yesterday's bombings in Spain, but to assume that they were based on an unverified email is the type of thinking that makes the "war on terror" look like a logical exercise. *** "The Central Intelligence Agency has acknowledged that it did not provide the United Nations with information about 21 of the 105 sites in Iraq singled out by American intelligence before the war as the most highly suspected of housing illicit weapons," Douglas Jehl and David E. Sanger write in a February 20 New York Times story. Thursday, March 11, 2004
Indecency "The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday approved legislation to crack down on television and radio broadcasters who violate rules limiting indecency by sharply raising fines," Reuters writes today. This, of course, stems from the Janet Jackson's appearance on CBS' broadcast of the Superbowl in January. Somehow, however, I doubt that there will be any fine for a much bigger act of indecency that appeared on the CBS News program 48 Hours Investigates last night. To be fair, the program, "Searching For Angela Shelton," was on the whole about as good as t.v. news gets, but in the second half there was a second on filmmaker Angela Shelton confronting her father over his physical and sexual abuse of her when she was a child. Leslie Stahl introduced the segment by saying the language would be rough, which it was if you count the words that were bleeped out. What purpose did the bleeping of words like "suck" and "fuck" serve? Anybody with a tender enough ears so that they shouldn't hear such sounds, probably shouldn't be watching the program. And, for me and I suspect others as well, it was distracting to run into yet another division between what I saw and "reality." This reminds of an segment I saw on CNN a few weeks ago -note to Micah: watch less news- where a U.S. Congressman was promoting a bill that would ban certain words from the t.v. The anchor made it clear that these words would not be said on the segment, meaning viewers across the country thought this guy was trying to ban "ain't." *** I saw 50 First Dates (Peter Segal, 2004) last night. I didn't expect to like the movie at all, but found it was the low side of "good" with the biggest problem being the "soft" homophobia and racism of the film. Definitely better than the best film of 2003, if not ever, which was awful. That, however, may be due solely to how loveable Drew appears on screen. Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Things that bring a smile to my face Via Mark Hand, I've come across a bit of brilliance from Bill Herbert: It is amazing how someone can completely miss the point. Moving on in this parade of a party that I call life, we find... -The brilliant Glenn Reynolds wins a free ticket to Bush Bash 04 for saying that invading Iraq was not about finding weapons of mass destruction. Nothing in his record indicates otherwise. Nope to him, it was always about dominating the world and getting Iraq out of the way in order to take over North Korea. -Republicans have figured out that war isn't always popular. -Bush has brought honor and dignity back the White House. -"Dear Abby" or The Simpsons? How about both? -Bush's method of dealing with birth control and STDs is not, according to National STD Prevention Conference, effective. But if they just did what they were told to do... -If none of them were willing to go kill and die based on Bush's orders, 18 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote, says John Hawkins. -"The US Army is building a second version of Earth on computer to help it prepare for conflicts around the world," says the BBC in a February 23 story. -David Cross has a new comedy album coming out on May 4 and the commentary tracks for the fourth season of Mr. Show DVDs have been recorded. Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Support this war or shut the fuck up Sunday's post, like many posts here, was written off the top of my head. Generally I think that can be a good way of doing things as it forces me to write down some ideas that I might otherwise just think and endlessly edit in my head. Still it has the downside of putting forth ideas that might not be fully formed and/or presented in a manner that doesn't maximize their clarity. "Their war, their way" was an example of this. After rereading and thinking about the post, I've decided to go over what I believe are the four main points that were either expressed in the entry or come about via the ideas express yesterday. I fully realize that not all of this can be empirically demonstrated, let alone proven, but still feel there is value to it. 1) The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 did not change the worldview of most people in the United States who became ardent supporters of the "war on terror." These people kept the worldview they possessed previously but now just had to acknowledge that there was antagonism towards to the United States from outside the United States, something they had previously not considered because they had not have to consider it. It was new data, but not so "new" as to cause a paradigm shift. Because "September 11" did not complicate their understanding of the world in totality but did add new information, these people did not experience a crisis of ideology, such as questioning the role of the United States in the world, but rather, as a result of prompting by the Bush Administration, saw a very clear, singular and subjectively indisputable response - fix the Outside via the "war on terror." According to this perspective, anyone who does support the "war on terror" has somehow "forgotten September 11" because, according to this outlook, it is impossible to not support the one logical response. While September 11, 2001 did not force these people to change their worldview, it nonetheless created a rupture in their view of the world. "Innocence" was lost or, if life were Boogie Nights (Paul Thomas Anderson, 1997), September 11, 2001 was the beginning of the 1980s. The characters in that film in fact at the end achieve what the people being discussed here seek - a return to their illusions. 2) What would constitute "a return to their illusions"? The answer would have to be the ability to once again ignore the rest of the world, both on its own terms and in relation to the United States, which ironically bears a great deal of similarity to their current position. This position is marked for its ability to accept distortions and lies, such as "the terrorists" and WMDs in Iraq posed a threat, because doing so provides the basis for the desired narrative, the "war on terror." Why? Because it is the "war on terror" that ostensibly offers the possibility of a return to the pre-September 11, 2001 world where terrorism could be ignored. As comical as this suggestion is, it is not a straw argument. On the February 24 edition of The Daily Show, for instance, New York Post columnist John Podhoretz said that Bush will "finish" the "war on terror. (This desire for a return to the old is not a new phenomenon on the conceptual level. People often pine for the "good old days" but what they really want are the good parts of the "good old days." I think of Merle Haggard's "Are the Good Times Really Over (I Wish a Buck Was Still Silver)," a classic song that ignores the progress made in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.) Evidence of popularly accepted idiocy comes not just from what is accepted but also from what is put forward, such as Team Twin Tower's pronouncement that: Building anything shorter, or smaller than the Twin Towers is tantamount to kneeling to terrorism. No terrorist organization has the right to dictate building heights or what a skyline should look like and how ideals, hopes, and dreams should be compromised.Funny, they seem willing to let them do just that. And here is another hawkish assertion of a similar type: The Afghans are a proud people who are damn good at war, and have been since the time of Alexander the Great. They have fought off invasions by Hindus, Russians, Indians, and the British, and there is no reason to expect that they would not fight against an occupying force of Americans just as strongly. But we aren't occupying them; by keeping our forces at a minimal level, and explicitly targeting Al Quieda and Talib forces, we have gotten a kind of pass from the general population. Afghanistan, one of the most primitive and tribal nations on earth, isn't going to become Belgium any time soon, and it would be a waste of effort for us to try. Our goal should be incremental improvements in the conditions and politics of the country, and denial of the territory and population to organized use by Al Quieda and their supporters.We aren't occupying Afghanistan. Just trying to control Afghanistan. This sort of weak thinking is very much like the ability to ignore the rest of the world. Facts? People? What's the difference? 3) The Bush Administration has effectively implied that there was in fact only one reasonable response to "September 11." "We must never forget the lessons of September the 11th" implies that everyone knows how to interact with the world but those "lessons" are not explicitly stated because to do so would be to open up debate on a matter that they do not want debated. Combined with the public's intellectual poverty, the White House is effectively saying: We will give you reason to support our war. Your job is to support the war. Please ignore anything that goes against our line. We are fighting for freedom and liberty.4) The fact that the three previous points could happen stems from how the people in question see those who don't support the "war on terror" as "less" than them. In his 2002 book Welcome to the Desert of the Real (Verso) Slavoj Zizek articulates the idea of how "the other" can be reduced to "Homo sacer, the object of disciplinary measures and/or even humanitarian help, but not full citizens." They, according to Zizek, are always to be victims who are pure because they never constitute themselves on a political basis. To do so would deny them purity and their status as Homo sacer. A recent piece from yours truly, "Winning the Love of Warbloggers in 11 Easy Steps," attempted to illustrate this in a comical fashion, although I see that the joke was lost on at least one reader, but perhaps Rush Limbaugh has done a better job of illustrating this point in his comments on people who lost loved ones in the September 11, 2001 attacks and have criticized Bush's use in campaign ads of footage showing the aftermath of these attacks: Now, ladies and gentlemen, this is unbelievable. No, it's not. It's believable. I just those people do not sound like victims; they sound like they've been coached. They sound like they have been faxed talking points, do they not? In fact, these people sound like journalists. These people sound like reporters who would be offering their opinions of what Bush did -- and they're not. These are 9/11 family members, and as I say, they sound like political operatives. They really do.They've gone off script by refusing to endorse the One True Way -the "war on terror"- so they are illegitimate, Limbaugh is saying. It should be noted that Limbaugh is not opposed to people who lost a loved one in the events that everyone talks about as "9/11" as such, he merely doesn't think they should disagree with Bush's position. Unable or unwilling to argue for the "war on terror" in an honest manner that responds to structural critiques, this group resorts to illegitimating anyone who has the right background but the wrong opinion. I don't believe it can be said with certainty how far this ideology will be taken into action. Political disenfranchisement is the logical outcome of this thinking, but, perhaps naively, seems a bit extreme and as if it could disrupt the stability of the political system of the United States by removing the cloak of liberalism. Is this yet another example of a situation created by the "war on terror" where literal rhetoric does not convey the real meaning of that rhetoric? Monday, March 08, 2004
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Their war, their way I regularly make jokes about how the Bush Administration has created the ideological basis to allow the "war on terror" to go forever because that's what they have done, but it still surprises to see someone outside of the administration take this stance due to the bizarre nature of this position. And yet it happens. Two days ago Rush Limbaugh -who for worse is about as "mainstream" as a political figure can get in the United States due to how many people hear him, how long they listen to him and that Limbaugh can talk about pretty much whatever he wants to talk about- argued that "September 11" was not in the past but was yesterday, today and every day of the future until everything that could be done to prevent a repeat of the attacks of September 11, 2001 had been done. What a "what the fuck?" moment. There will never be a time when nothing more can be done, unless we achieve utopia, and I don't think Limbaugh's been reading Empire. So, we have a war that could on forever and apparently that fine with Limbaugh and many others. Of course, it will end, either through defeat or because the political benefits of declaring victory become greater than the loss at not having "terror" to kick around. How long did the Cold War go on for? *** Ironically, also on Friday's program, Limbaugh voiced support for the idea that failure to rebuild buildings the size of the World Trade Center represented letting the terrorists win, which was first voiced by New York City firefighter who lost a brother in the September 11, 2001 attacks and who had called in. Limbaugh made it clear that the terrorists shouldn't be allowed to alter our lives, except apparently with regard to the "war on terror." *** Limbaugh's exchange with the firefighter was also interesting because Limbaugh at least gave off the impression that he thought there should be a singular acceptable response to the events of September 11, 2001. He wants that acceptable response to be the "war on terror" and so he needs to disparage those who lost a loved one that day but who do not support that broad conception. They must be "coached" because nobody who was a "victim" could possibly criticize Bush's glorious leadership. Acknowledging this possibility would mean acknowledging that people in similar situations reacted very differently and that, despite what the President says, there was no singular set of "lessons of September 11." (Whether or not there should be a singular set of lessons is a good question for debate, but it is folly to pretend there only was one.) *** Although I didn't hear it, rushlimbaugh.com indicates that Limbaugh took a call from Ron in New Jersey on Friday. Ron said: ...my son Kyle died in Iraq back in May of last year...And then this exchange: RUSH: Looking at the clock. No, if somebody were to ask you the question Russert asked Bush, what you say?I feel like I shouldn't be laughing. If you have the correct opinion, you can say whatever you want. If you have the incorrect opinion… |
