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 |
Saturday, January 31, 2004
My vision I don't know what utopia would like exactly, but I do believe that it must include George W. Bush being locked in a small metal cage someplace where he can be visited on field trips by school children who learn about what a despicable person he is while they poke him with a sharp stick. Friday, January 30, 2004
What about all that freedom? Via a link from Douglas Anders, I see that on January 21 Bush said: The march to war affected our psychology and confidence. It is hard to be optimistic about the future when you turn on your TV screens and say, America is marching to war. War is not positive. War is -- it sends the signal that there will be uncertainty. We're not marching to peace.Funny how in the same speech Bush expresses certainty about war: We will never forget the lessons of September the 11th. We will stay on the offensive. We will win the war on terror, and make sure that America is secure and free.Funny how I never learned "the lessons of September the 11th" let alone had a chance to forget them. Of course I don't remember what happened on "September the 11th." Was that the day Michael Jordan was going to announce that he was coming out of retirement? And what about the freedom and liberty we can bring to people? You know the stuff that is "God's gift to humanity." Since we get to bring it God's bounty to the lesser parts of the world through war, why shouldn't it make us happy? Bush has some explaining to do. *** Another proud moment in America's fight for freedom. The only downside is we didn't get a war out of it. *** "President Hamid Karzai signed Afghanistan's new constitution into law Monday, putting into force a charter meant to reunite his war-shattered nation and help defeat a virulent Taliban insurgency," the AP writes. "The constitution outlines a tolerant, democratic Islamic state under a strong presidency -- as sought by Karzai -- a two-chamber parliament and an independent judiciary... the text also declares men and women equal before the law." The Taliban isn't happy with this document and the same can be said of some members of loya jirga, the group that drafted the document, who say it has been altered from the one they worked on. George Thomas of Pat Robertson's CBN News says the constitution does not protect non-Muslim religious rights: The 162-page document begins by declaring "Afghanistan is an Islamic republic." Article two of the constitution states that, "Followers of other religions are free to perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law." But article three notes that, "No law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam."...Of course Thomas' concern isn't based solely on theory: And, depending on how judges interpret Islamic law, Christian evangelism could be considered a crime. Under the new constitution, distributing Christian literature, holding Bible classes and raising money for Christian activities, could be considered against the sacred religion of Islam." Simbal Khan of Hi Pakistan reports that the document has been criticized by both Islamists "for lack of direct reference to the Sharia" and liberals "for failing to provide adequate guarantees for human rights." He also notes that: ...there have been few dissenting voices regarding the efficacy of the whole constitution building exercise. The panel of political analysts involved in the democratic and constitutional initiatives, conveniently ignored that such US-led foreign policy initiatives wreak violent changes within the target countries, affecting populations that are already undergoing tumultuous changes socially, politically, economically and culturally...*** The Afghan government's website is located at www.afghanistangov.org. *** "The Pentagon is planning a new offensive in the 2-year-old Afghanistan campaign to stop remnants of the Taliban regime and the al-Qaida terror network, officials said Wednesday," the AP writes. I'm shaking my head. " The Bush administration, deeply concerned about recent assassination attempts against Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf and a resurgence of Taliban forces in neighboring Afghanistan, is preparing a U.S. military offensive that would reach inside Pakistan with the goal of destroying Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, military sources said," Christine Spolar writes in a January 28 Chicago Tribune story. Plus it is a great way to support the government of Pakistan. *** Robert Burns of the AP writes: The Army's top general said Wednesday he is making plans based on the possibility that the Army will be required to keep tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq through 2006.Shocking. In another story Burns writes: Even with the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bigger challenge in the global war on terrorism is the threat posed by extremists in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the commander of U.S. forces in that region said Thursday.Note Abizaid is not talking about the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia but about groups within those countries. Of course continuing to support those governments means supporting repressive states, which isn't always popular... *** Stephen Graham of the AP writes: The U.S. military is ``sure'' it will catch Osama bin Laden this year, a spokesman said Thursday, but he declined to comment on where the al-Qaida leader may be hiding.LOL for a number of reasons. *** "I have a sense for things that are more important than people think - or sometimes less important," Glenn Reynolds says. (The quote is from Wired but I will assume it is correct since Reynolds links to it without a correction.) The sad fact is that there are a fair number of people who agree with him on this. Thursday, January 29, 2004
Fire McClellan, says Max Standard Max Standard wanted me to pass on this message that he recently sent to Bush. Dear President Bush,*** David Kay testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services yesterday. I didn't see the testimony and I have yet to find a transcript but here are reports on the testimony from Simon Jeffery of The Guardian and Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank of The Washington Post. *** Wolf Blitzer of CNN interviewed David Kay yesterday and the two did their best to excuse Team Bush. For the sake of the argument let's just say that there can be no doubt that bad intelligence was to blame. This means that NOBODY IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS THE CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS TO WONDER IF THE THREAT THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BELIEVED WAS IMMINENT MIGHT NOT BE ALL THAT GREAT GIVEN THAT THE MOTIVE AND THE ABILITY HAS NOT LEAD TO THE ACT IN OVER A DECADE OR TO THINK THAT MAYBE THREATENING TO “KILL” SOMEONE WHO SUPPOSEDLY WANTS TO KILL AMERICANS MIGHT BE A RISKY MOVE. In short, it means they are all idiots. I don’t know about you but if I were in a room with a person who has a gun and wants to kill me, I probably wouldn’t spend all that much time threatening to do something about this person. I might say nothing, try to escape or call to help, but I wouldn’t spend months saying, “I’m going to do something about you. Just wait. I’m going to do something.” *** *** On Tuesday's edition of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Richard Perle said the recent conquest of Iraq says to the world, "America is back." Unfortunately Stewart didn't ask him why this shit wasn't enough to tell the world that Uncle Sam was still around. Maybe the actions don't leave a long lasting imprint of the minds of the people of the world, which means that if the Bush Administration's suggested path of frightening the world into doing what the U.S. wants is to be followed, there will be a lot more of these wars. Wednesday, January 28, 2004
"grave and gathering" assertions Bush usually demands that he back up any assertions that he makes so that people do not think he is making it up as he goes along, so we must assume that the fact that he did not explain why there was any reason at all to think "Saddam was a grave and gathering danger," let alone a "graver and gathering threat to America and the world," was merely an issue of time constraints and his decide not to bore those who were present, those who would view it on the telly and even those reading the transcript. Bush cares about us very much and respects us enough to recognize that our time is just as important as his. No doubt it was for the very same reason that Bush chose to elaborate on his statement "we're now in the business of making sure Iraq is free and democratic. And that's important as well for long-term stability and peace in the world." Specifically our very honorable president did explain why freedom and democracy in Iraq is more "important" than freedom and democracy in, to name just a few examples examples, Colombia, Pakistan or Uzbekistan. I'm sure there is a good reason and Bush would give it to us if WE only had the time. *** "Bush 2004 Campaign Pledges to Restore Honor and Dignity to White House," reports The Onion. (Thanks to blogdex.net for the link.) Personally I think they left off the best part of Bush's speech -the section where he said, "If you reelect me to the White House I promise to stop talking to the American people like they are all idiots." *** Paul Koring reports on the Bush Administration's new rationale for invading Iraq in yesterday's Globe and Mail. (Thanks again to blogdex.net for the link.) *** "U.S. weapons inspectors in Iraq found new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime quietly destroyed some stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons in the mid-1990s, former chief inspector David Kay said yesterday," Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank write in today's Washington Post. "The discovery means that inspectors have not only failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but also have found exculpatory information -- contemporaneous documents and confirmations from interviews with Iraqis -- demonstrating that Hussein did make efforts to disarm well before President Bush began making the case for war." Kay is scheduled to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee today. Hopefully a transcript of that testimony will quickly be made available so that it is possible to see what he says without the filter of journalists. UPDATE: "President Bush may seek an additional $40 billion or more for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year -- on top of the $400-billion military budget he will send to Congress next month, congressional sources and budget analysts said on Wednesday," Adam Entous writes in a January 21 Reuters story. "But Bush is unlikely to send the request to Congress until after the November presidential election to minimize any political damage, the sources said." *** The British American Security Information Council's "Unravelling the Known Unknowns: Why no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found in Iraq" is worth reading. *** *** Charley Reese's "Threat of Terrorism" is worth reading, although I think it is a bit off for him to say Osama bin Laden "no desire to occupy the United States, nor does he wish to convert the West to Islam." He probably does but it isn't a high priority. *** "The Defense Department plans to stand up more National Guard-staffed civil support teams trained to assist local authorities in the event of a weapons of mass destruction attack on the American homeland, a senior DoD official said Jan. 16," Gerry J. Gilmore of the American Forces Press Service writes in a January 20 story. Of course there is no need to fear these weapons in countries that Bush got to invade. *** Bush wants to promotes sexual abstinence so it is interesting to note Leslie Akst's report in the September/October 2003 issue of Psychology Today "virginity pledges" don't seem to have much effect on whether or not people have sex before marriage, according to a study.12:38 p.m. 01/28/04 UPDATE #2: Michigan State beat Minnesota tonight in overtime 79-78. MSU was down by as many as 23 in the first half but managed to find a way to win. Maurice Ager hit a three point shot with three seconds left in regulation to tie it while Paul Davis hit two free throws with 15 seconds left in overtime to give MSU the lead for good. Beating Minnesota isn't the most impressive accomplishment but doing it in this matter says that this team has far from given up. *** Despite being titled "Iraqi govt. papers: Saddam bribed Chirac," nothing in this UPI story indicates any documents saying "Saddam bribed Chirac" personally. I'm not saying it didn't happen. Just that it isn't mentioned in the body. Not that a certain law professor should be expected to understand this. Perhaps his motto should be "if it bolsters the aspects of the 'war on terror' that I like, there can be nothing wrong with it." 11:39 p.m. 01/28/04 UPDATE #3: Joe Rexrode of The Lansing State Journal has more on the victory. 3:10 p.m. 01/29/04 Tuesday, January 27, 2004
It is good to know we are not all dead from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, or why it is time to invade Syria Over the last few days I haven't been following the news, by which I mean read news stories on the web, as much as I usually do on account of having a cold and working on some writing projects. Of course it doesn't appear like much has happened. The weapons of mass destruction that once were most certainly in Iraq have yet to be found. Dick Cheney has vowed to press on in the search for these weapons. Reportedly saying, "I am a long way at this stage from concluding that somehow there was some fundamental flaw in our intelligence." Recently resigned weapons inspector David Kay, in contrast, has said he doesn't believe "large stockpiles" of weapons of mass destruction that Team Bush and others once said they knew were in Iraq actually exist. Kay reportedly told The New York Times that the Iraqis "were maintaining an infrastructure" for the production of weapons of mass destruction "but they didn't have large-scale production under way" even though Kay believes that might have been news to Saddam Hussein. (Kay also reportedly denied that there was any evidence that Iraqi Republican Guard units had chemical weapons to use against invading forces last year and suggested that there were fundamental problems in how U.S. intelligence agencies gathered info about Iraq.) But perhaps that it is merely window dressing. Peter Beaumont writes in Sunday's Observer that "Pentagon and CIA officials appear to have accepted that there is little point in searching for weapons stockpiles in Iraq, and will now concentrate on auditing Iraqi claims of their destruction." The Bush Administration's Official Shill Scott McClellan was in his usual fine form yesterday. McClellan's main point was " the decision that the President made was the right decision" not matter what, but he also added this fun note, "We know he had the intention, we know he had the capability. And, given his history and given the events of September 11th, we could not afford to rely on the good intentions of Saddam Hussein." Intention to harm the United States? Check. Capability to harm the United States? Check. All said so as to refer to the situation right before the United States invaded? Check. All this adds up to McClellan saying Saddam was an imminent threat. There was no word on what exactly McClellan's predecessor Ari Fleischer was talking about on March 21st of last year said, "there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly. This was the reason that the President felt so strongly that we needed to take military action to disarm Saddam Hussein, since he would not do it himself. As the military effort continues, I think you will see information develop for yourself, firsthand. This is one of the reasons that there are so many reporters present with the military. In many ways, you will have these answers yourselves. You are there, you are on the ground. And you will find the answers and they will speak volumes themselves." As if that was not enough Fleischer also said, "Saddam Hussein possesses biological and chemical weapons, and all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." In other words Saddam's real existing weapons of mass destruction were Team Bush's stated reason for invading Iraq in the early days of the invasion. On a related note, "The invasion of Iraq ended the reign of a brutal government, but coalition leaders are wrong to characterize it as a humanitarian intervention, Human Rights Watch said in the keynote essay of its annual global survey released today," Human Rights Watch says in press release issued yesterday. "The 407-page World Report 2004: Human Rights and Armed Conflict includes 15 essays on a variety of subjects related to war and human rights, from Africa to Afghanistan, from sexual violence as a method to warfare to the new trends in post-conflict international justice." Particularly notable are the sections of the report that focus on Afghanistan, Africa, Iraq, the United States and the former Yugoslavia. *** "No President has ever done more for human rights than I have," G.W. Bush is believed to have said. *** Prominent hawk Andrew Sullivan acknowledges "discrepancy between pre-war claims and post-war discovery" of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and chalks it up to an honest error on the part of those involved. "Notice I said: mistake. I do not believe and there is no reason to believe that there were any deliberate deceptions," he writes. Sullivan would be correct if it not for Bush's changing story on the reason for the war and continued references to the non-existent group known as "the terrorists," both of which show Bush could not care less about what Sullivan calls "keeping faith with the American people" or I would call being honest. Of course if this was a "mistake" it means that the Bush Administration is incompetent as they weren't in a hurry to deal with what they sometimes said was an imminent threat, weren't in a hurry to find the weapons of mass destruction that they sometimes said made Saddam an imminent threat even after the invasion had begun and didn't, according to what Kay has reportedly told The New York Times, didn't see weapons inspections as a high priority or much of a need to secure documents and materials so that inspectors could find out what went on exactly with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and prevent the possibility of these items falling into the hands of one or more sections of "the terrorists." (If that were to happen, they might be able to develop weapons of mass destruction to use against the United States, something the average person could be forgiven for having thought was exactly the scenario that the invasion was said to have been launched in order to prevent.) The best bet for hawks who can not or will not acknowledge reality is to hope that Bush does not allow the search for weapons to end so theoretically no conclusions can be drawn -before making any, McClellan said yesterday, "it's important first for the Iraq Survey Group to complete their mission"- and/or start advocating for war with Syria to get those weapons of mass destruction that can kill us all. Con Coughlin of The Telegraph reports Kay has said, "we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved." That said, James Risen of The New York Times writes that during an interview with that paper, "Dr. Kay said there was also no conclusive evidence that Iraq had moved any unconventional weapons to Syria... He said there had been persistent reports from Iraqis saying they or someone they knew had see cargo being moved across the border, but there is no proof that such movements involved weapons materials." So why not go after Syria? Sure the intelligence might not be the strongest but that just means Uncle Sam needs to take over all countries if we are to remain 100% secure and safe. Perhaps the motto should be "finding items that could of use to the aunts and uncles of people who could train other people in the skills necessary so that at some point in time those people could apply for the job of helping the support personal to the scientists who have not proven that they would never be able to participate in weapons of mass destruction-related program activities in merely one country is not enough to secure the eternal security of America." Monday, January 26, 2004
Empire & Frum John Hawkins' interview with former Bush propaganda producer David Frum gives great insight into the empire being created by the "war on terror." George W. Bush has said so many ridiculous and stupid things during his time as a national political figure that I can't help but wonder just how cynical he and his speechwriters must be for so willingly taking advantage of the public's general inability to think critically about they hear. But now, after reading this interview, I can't help but think that I might be wrong on this. Perhaps they aren't very intelligent or good at noticing logical inconsistencies for even as Frum attempts to refute the idea that the United States wants an empire, he says that an empire is exactly what the U.S. wants: The last thing America is, is an empire. My counter example is; we very badly needed and expected to have Turkish support in the war on Iraq. The Turks didn't give it and that put a spanner in some of our planning. Now, imagine if this were the Romans. Imagine if the emperor Trajan were planning an operation in Mesopotamia and the Cappadocians told him he couldn't use their territory. He would have lined the highways with crucified Cappadocians. That's what empires do, they do not say, "Oh, we'll respect what your parliament says and come from another direction".A lot of (at least ostensible) confusion in the world, and in this case, results from different definitions of a particular term. If having an "empire" means controlling every aspect of the possessions of the Empire, then the U.S. does not appear to be seeking an empire. (Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri's Empire (Harvard University Press, 2000) and Chalmers Johnson's Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (Henry Holt and Company, 2000) provide two very different alternate treatments of the term.) If it means not allowing countries to do these things that weaken the empire's position in the world, as it can quite reasonably be defined, then Frum's own statement suggests that the United States is building an empire. Autonomy and sovereignty are respected except when doing otherwise benefits the Empire. Frum gives two examples of this in the interview. He says he favors a "Palestinian state" but only one that doesn't conflict with the interests of the U.S. And he opposes European unification. The frogs, Frum writes, "have their own ambition to build a kind of European superstate as a counterweight to the United States. That's partly for reasons of national vanity and partly to protect their not very competitive national economy. This would be a terrible mistake for Europe. We need to rethink the traditional American position of almost unreflective support for unification. We have to understand that the wrong kind of European reunification can create real problems for the United States." It is not in our interest so it must be mistake for those involved. And if it isn't inherently, we will make it one. But perhaps I should just take Hawkins' word on the matter. In what Frum calls "a brilliant piece," Hawkins -who as far as I can tell has no War State power of any kind- argues that the U.S. is "not an 'empire'" and has "no desire to become one" because "[o]ur ancestors came to America in the first place to GET AWAY from everyone else in the world." I'm sure Ethan Edwards felt the same way. *** To Frum's credit, he does acknowledge in the interview that U.S. support for dictators does have costs. Of course he does not consider the option of eliminating support for these countries without trying to control them. Intervention apparently is a given in the “war on terror” and the construction of an empire that dare not speak its name. Sunday, January 25, 2004
Giving up the ghost and other notes for January 25 "Pentagon and CIA officials appear to have accepted that there is little point in searching for weapons stockpiles in Iraq, and will now concentrate on auditing Iraqi claims of their destruction," Peter Beaumont writes in today's Observer: [Charles] Duelfer has already laid out his stall, in the Washington Post in the autumn when he remarked on 'the apparent absence of existing weapons stocks'.It seems like I've said this before, but if it is determined that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at the point of the invasion, the questions that need to be asked are: -What did Saddam's regime have in the way of weapons of mass destruction after they got done with his massacres? If he had some at that point, when were the weapons of mass destruction destroyed? -What did the W. Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration and the H.W. Bush Administration Know about weapons of mass destruction? What did they believe that they knew? What did they believe? How did their public statements match up with these answers? If there was a dichotomy, what is the explanation? If it comes to this, who orchestrated the deceptive or dishonest statements and what was/were the motive or motives? -What efforts were made to find weapons of mass destruction? -The U.S. government has of course said on numerous occasions that other countries are developing weapons of mass destruction. Are mendaciousness and/or the similar mistakes be behind these statements? *** This quote from Slavoj Zizek's The Fragile Absolute Or, Why is the Christian legacy worth fighting for? (Verso, 2000) seems appropriate for the times: The notorious Iraqi 'weapons of mass destruction' offer [an] example of the objet petit a: they are an elusive entity, never empirically specified, a kind of Hitchcockian MacGuffin, expected to be hidden in the most disparate and improbable places... allegedly present in large quantities, yet magically moved around all the time by workers; and the more they are destroyed, the more all-present and all-powerful they are in their threat, as if the removal of the greater part of them magically heightens the destructive power of the remainder - as such, by definition they can never be found, and are therefore all the more dangerous...Fitting in a most ironic way, that is. *** Bush is once again wasting more taxpayer money that he says they could spend better than government. *** Sasha Frere-Jones and Jeff Chang on Dizzee Rascal. I do want to check this guy out. *** *** A number of films at the recent Sundance Film Festival mixed fact and fiction, reports Anthony Kaufman of indiewire.com. *** Kevin Willmott's CSA: Confederate States of America (2004) looks like an interesting film. *** *** I don't really care if U.S. military actions are unilateral or multilateral but those using the terms and making arguments about them should avoid what Andrew Sullivan has done -thinking that the U.S. saying it is going to do something and everyone else is free to join in and there might be some goodies if you do- is multilateral. *** (Thanks to Avedon Carol for the link.) *** *** *** Yes. *** We love President Bush because he fights against evil or something. *** I wish I could understand those who shill for Bush. *** "Japanese telecom carriers, pioneers of internet-capable and picture-snapping handsets, have now come up with the world's first mobile phone that enables users to listen to calls inside their heads - by conducting sound through bone," AFP writes in a January 21 story. "The new phone is equipped with a 'Sonic Speaker' which transmits sounds through vibrations that move from the skull to the cochlea in the inner ear, instead of relying on the usual method of sound hitting the outer eardrum." *** *** "Heil Hit-Slur!" by Terry Krepel. *** *** *** If the War State says it, and we want to believe, it must be true. *** disgusting anti-Arab and anti-Muslim post by hootinan.com *** Glenn Reynolds all but says, "I am not hip." *** The U.S. of course should be allowed to do what should not be tolerated in the lesser countries. *** In the hopefully immortal words of Seymour Paine: The only way to rid the world and keep us safe is to eliminate, i.e., kill, everyone involved wherever they are. Why our government does not do this is, to me, criminal.*** Those Goddamn Army pinkos need to stop bashing the Army. UPDATE: Purdue beat my beloved Spartans 76-70 in overtime today in West LaFayette. MSU couldn't quite seal the win in regulation and then got beat in the extra minutes. Very tough loss: "It's one of the more disappointing losses I've had in my career here because I know what this win would've meant," Michigan State coach Tom Izzo said. "If we play that well, we'll win a lot of games."Michigan State finishes up this road swing Wednesday against Minnesota. *** *** From his NATO headquarters in Brussels, Clark wanted to wage the war more aggressively, but back in the Pentagon, Cohen and Shelton were more cautious. They would give Clark instructions on, for instance, the scale of the bombing campaign. "Clark would say, 'Uh-huh, gotcha'," says NEWSWEEK's source. But then he would pick up the phone and call [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair and [Secretary of State] Madeleine [Albright]." As Clark knew full well, Blair and Albright were more hawkish than Shelton and Cohen. After talking to the State Department and NATO allies, Clark would have a different set of marching orders, says the source, who has spoken about the matter with both Cohen and Clark. "Then, about 1 o'clock, the Defense Department would hear what Clark was up to, and Cohen and Shelton would be furious."Sounds to me like something that shouldn't be a big deal but could be if opponents of Clark decide to believe it is. *** The The Library of Congress' Voices from the Days of Slavery: Former Slaves Tell Their Stories is fascinating and troubling. (Thanks to profwhat/metafilter for the link.) Whenever I hear/read things like "We have always stood up for freedom," I think of slavery and feel like shouting, "DO A LITTLE HOMEWORK!" I mean slavery in the history of the United States certainly doesn't mean that the U.S. is always wrong and that there were no good things in the country before the abolition of slavery, but it does mean that if you believe that the U.S. is always right and just, you are fucking idiot and it wouldn't bother me that much if you are treated that way. 9:48 p.m. 01/25/04 Saturday, January 24, 2004
The power of belief This morning on Fox & Friends -the #1 cable “this would be even more entertaining if nobody took it seriously" show- one of the hosts, the black guy, labeled Howard Dean’s much talked about words a “tirade.” The hosts also talked about Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez. Interestingly the question of the day was, "No WMD Found: Does it Matter?" There was no doubt that a mildly amusing performance from Dean and the break-up of two insignificant movie stars mattered, but whether or not the prez lied or whether U.S. intelligence gathering and analysis could be broken apparently are matters that reasonable people can disagree about whether or not they are important. Now since "matter" was never defined, perhaps there is room to have an actual discussion. If by "matter" the mean "will the Bush Administration not be able to get away with it," I would have to say it probably doesn't matter. Team Bush will probably most likely get away with it. (Of course one of my main problems with "debates" and "discussion" on cable news programming and on many blogs is that the issue of whether or not X is right or wrong usually gets mixed in with whether or not X is popular even though in most, but certainly not all, cases these issues are independent of one another.) The general mood amongst callers was that it didn't matter. That's interesting because the weapons that had to be stopped a year ago now apparently are harmless despite Bush's indication that not all is known about them. In fact, maybe we didn't need to have that fun little war in order to stay safe. *** I'm not sure exactly what prompted the question but it seems likely that it had something to do with David Kay quitting and an interview with Reuters where Kay responded to "What happened to the stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons that everyone expected to be there?" by saying "I don't think they existed." Howard Dean's mannerisms and sound on Monday earned him much ridicule so it is interesting to not that a truly ridiculous statement received no such response from many in the blogosphere. In a January 21 piece for The Age Caroline Overington writes about meeting a man who lost a son, a soldier in the U.S. military, in Iraq: "But I never thought it was about the weapons," my seat mate said. And, although I can't remember his exact words, he also said something like: "We have always stood up for freedom, in our own country, and for other people."Always? This person needs to look up some history. Sorry but losing your son, or anything else, does not give you the monopoly on truth. (Would the father of an Iraqi soldier who died fighting the U.S. automatically be correct if they said, "my son was right to fight against the Americans"? Of course not!) Overington's piece has the title of "They like Bush, and they are not stupid," even though she shows that at least some of Bush's supporters are in fact stupid. *** What explains the difference in reactions? I suspect it is a matter of what people want to believe. Those who want to believe America and Team Bush are absolutely correct in the "war on terror" will find reasons to think that, however comical or illogical. Those who want to believe Dean should receive no support will find reasons for to believe that. And, yes, those of us who oppose the "war on terror" will find reasons to support that opinion. Is there a difference. I believe that I, for one, am able to acknowledge that contradictory aspects of the "war on terror" that I oppose, which is to say I do not see as all bad or as having no positive impacts. But I'm sure others don't see it that way. *** On a related note, is it possible that the reason just about nobody of any standing or with any audience has challenged Bush's use of "the terrorists" is because the term gained popular currency after the Bush Administration used it the days and weeks after "September 11," a time when serious criticism was something that most people in such positions were not willing to do for fear of offending the public? If so, this perfectly illustrates the dangers of blind patriotism. It may feel good at the moment but it can lead to some terrible results. Friday, January 23, 2004
Crying Here is a transcript of this most unfortunate break-up that we can only pray our country will be able to get over in order to get back to the job Bush intends for us to complete - The Defeat of Terrorism: Ben: Honey Buns, I have something important to talk to you about. Is it true that the LA Times will soon report that auditors believe the USO improperly billed the Pentagon for expenses incurred at the show you did in Afghanistan? Jenny from the Block: Ye... Yes, I guess it is. B-Af: I guess I have to break-up with you permanently now, fucking and everything. I just can't have you ruining my reputation. I've tried to move away from associating with Howard Zinn by appearing in stuff like Pearl Harbor but I think this will ruin my rep. Never Mrs. Puff Daddy: Oh. Matt Damon's Friend: Yes. I'm sorry. *** I was rereading Bush's SOTU speech to see when if the applause related to the "Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year" was noted. To Team Bush's credit, it was. But here is the whole graf from the official transcript: Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. (Applause.) The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. (Applause.) Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens. You need to renew the Patriot Act. (Applause.)Who was applauding about how the terrorist threat not ending next year? Seems to me they need to held accountable. *** No democracy till you do what we say, Jeff Jarvis thinks we should tell the Iraqis. *** "Before he disappeared last week, Spalding Gray had been performing early versions of a new work that had long bedeviled him - a monologue about a car wreck more than two years ago that left him physically and emotionally scarred," Justin Glanville of the AP writes in a January 17 story. UPDATE: I loved Captain Kangaroo growing up. 8:58 p.m. 01/23/04 Thursday, January 22, 2004
My beloved Spartans picked up their first win of the season outside of East Lansing last night, beating Northwestern, 73-61. Maurice Ager was splendid with 24 points, including six 3-point shots. Another road game is next, against Purdue Sunday afternoon. *** Matthew Barganier's "America 2004" is a great synthesis of art of criticism. As close to a must read as anything could be. "Barry Crimmins responds to the 2004 SOTU Address" is also very strongly recommended. From the not entertaining but still most certainly wroth reading is Amnesty International's "North Korea: Suffering in silence." I doubt sending a message to Kim Jong-il will do much good, however. Of course the same is true of messages to the elected leaders of most "free" countries. *** "Afghanistan's religious authorities have reimposed a ban on television broadcasts of artistic performances by women after a 20-year-old clip of a woman singing without a headscarf ignited a battle between moderates and traditionalists," Hamida Ghafour writes in a January 16 Telegraph story. On a related note, this January 19 Scotsman story by Borzou Daraghahi is interesting: As Americans flood Iraq’s airwaves with radio stations playing harmless Western and Arab pop tunes, the young are turning elsewhere for their musical inspiration.Here is a different version of the story. *** Chalmers Johnson on "America's Empire of Bases." *** I probably shouldn't respond to this flood of fatuity from Jonah Goldberg: For Bush to have lied, he had to have known that there were no WMDs, right? It's not a lie unless you know the truth. If you say something you think is true that later turns out to be false, we don't call that a "lie," we call that a "mistake."No. The Bush Administration repeatedly said that they KNEW that Saddam's regime had weapons of mass destruction. Maybe they honestly believed that was the case, but if they did not know it to be true, they were lying. This isn't difficult to grasp, although perhaps that is the reason some hawkish bloggers buy Goldberg's argument. *** Robert Higgs on the defense budget. *** "The United States will move all of its troops out of metropolitan Seoul over the next three years without reducing the total number of forces in South Korea, both countries have agreed," David Briscoe of the AP writes in a story from this past Saturday. *** "American law enforcement officials said Friday that they were trying to determine whether the Pakistani government was involved in a plot by a South African businessman to export trigger devices that could be used for nuclear weapons," Eric Lichtblau writes in a January 16 New York Times story. *** Ran HaCohen on "The Syrian Threat." Via HaCohen's article I cam across "Self-Hating Israel-Threatening LIST," which is far more depressing than funny. David Corn of The Nation and USA Today on Bush's SOTU speech. *** Eugene Hernandez and Karl Beck of indiewire.com report that Bob Odenkirk "plans on co-directing 'The Mr. Show Movie' with longtime collaborator and "Mr. Show Movie" co-writer David Cross." *** *** *** A January 14 georgewbush.com blog entry carries the headline "NBC News: Bush-Cheney Grassroots 'Unparalleled in Political History.'" The post focuses on an NBC News article by David Gregory. georgwbush.com apparently draws their headline from this graf, which they quote: Legions of Bush-Cheney organizers are canvassing the country registering new voters in battleground states and signing up volunteers for help with voter turnout — a ground game that Bush advisers claim is unparalleled in political history.So in fact it is not something that NBC News said but rather something that "Bush advisers" have reportedly told NBC News. I know this isn't a big deal but it seems like it is something that an at least half-way organized campaign would be able to avoid, unless they really did want to deceive. Of course I'm fine with this since it creates more jokes about last year's State of the Union gaffe. *** Wednesday, January 21, 2004
"the terrorists" Because I make fun of the Bush Administration's use of the phrase "the terrorists" so much, it could become lost that there is a serious issue here. By any reasonable definition, "terrorism" is an activity that has been engaged in for all of recorded history and there seems to be no reason to think it is going to stop any time soon. "Terrorists," or people who practice terrorism, are thus unlikely to be defeated and hardly form any sort of coherent group. An example that illustrates this is the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization, which the State Department designates as a terrorist group and says has received funding from Saddam's now deposed Iraq regime. Sam Dealey reports in today's edition of The Hill that U.S. Rep. Robert Ney "will ask Attorney General John Ashcroft today to investigate a charity event for ties to an Iranian terrorist group backed by Saddam Hussein... The organizers, led by the Iranian-American Society of Northern Virginia, hope to raise $140,000 to help survivors of the earthquake in Bam on Dec. 26, which killed 30,000 people. But a number of sponsoring groups have strong ties to the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), and the fundraiser may violate the prohibition on providing material support for global terrorism." Sounds like a member in good standing of "[t]he terrorists and their supporters" until you realize that the State Department also says that the MEK has engaged in "terrorist attacks on the interests of the clerical regime in Iran and abroad" and "now advocates a secular Iranian regime" even thought Iran is a charter member of the "axis of evil." In other words, whatever else can be said about the government of Iran and the MEK, it is safe to say that the two don't get along and therefore any political discussion conducted on the basis of realism, as presidential speeches almost always are, that involves talking about "the terrorists" as some sort of unified group is fucking stupid and the fact that Bush is not laughed at for making statements about how on September 11, 2001 "[t]he terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States" is a sad commentary on the current level of political discourse. Of course Bush wants you to think that terrorism "will be defeated." He isn't calling for any significant changes in biopolitical reproduction or thinking about how history shows that at least some people don't like being constantly told what to do by "outsiders" and have a tendency to respond violently, and perhaps have a greater chance of causing carnage now than ever before due to a variety of factors, most notably developments in science, but we are going to get rid of terrorism because Bush says we are going to get rid of it. Why doesn't he just say we are going to eliminate all murdering. That has about the same chance of achieving success. Team Bush has to know terrorism won't be forever banished from the face of this planet, so by making this the ostensible goal, they are laying the groundwork for a war that will never be won. it can go forever, which is what I suspect they want at least until they find a new justification. *** Last night's speech was the usual bullshit but I did find it interesting that Bush both came out against gay marriage and for abstinence. Apparently those dykes and faggots should never fornicate. Bush also said, "parents and schools and government... must work together to counter the negative influence of the culture, and to send the right messages to our children." Apparently Bush sees himself and most people in the U.S. as at odds with "the culture," which is most certainly an interesting development. *** In yesterday's Independent Noor Khan writes: An American helicopter bombed a village home in southern Afghanistan killing 11 people, four of them children, Afghan officials said yesterday...The AP has more, while the Combined Forces Command Afghanistan says, "there is no indication that civilians were killed in that incident." The first pages Google searches for "Abdul Rahman" and "Abdul Rahman" "Uruzgan" did not turn up anything interesting on this Rahman. One of the main problems I have with proponents of war for "democracy" or "human rights" is there seems to be no interest in how much damage done to people is an adequate trade-off for the improving the situation for those who remain. If you had to kill all but 8 Iraqis in order to get "democracy" of a viable sort, I would like to believe that most honest advocate of invasions to improve the lives of people would concede that such a cost is too high for the United States, or anyone else, to just impose on a group of people. But where should the line be drawn? Seemingly this would be a very practical question for those like Christopher Hitchens who support wars of "liberation." *** Matthew Barganier of antiwar.com on the Pentagon budget request. *** Recent events show "shows capture of Saddam Hussein has done little to weaken resistance," Patrick Cockburn reports in Monday's Independent. *** "Three dozen mortar shells found buried in southern Iraq did not contain chemical blister agents as initially reported, the Danish army said yesterday," Rupert Cornwell writes in Monday's Independent. *** Yesterday Powell gave tacit support for Israel's air strikes in Lebanon. *** Antony Barnett of The Observer on "how Pakistan fuels nuclear arms race." UPDATE: There's a scene in "The Great Louse Detective," an episode from the fourteenth season of the greatest show ever, where, after discovering that Homer Simpson has pissed off quite a few people to the point that they want to do him physical harm, Sideshow Bob remarks, "None of this seems odd to you?" That's exactly how feel about even this relatively decent analysis of yesterday's State of the Union speech. William Saletan appears to be intelligent yet he goes right along with looking at Bush's comments seemingly oblivious to the fact that Bush makes more than one ridiculous comment. And he isn't alone in this. Did I miss the memo about nobody can point out that Bush talks to people like they are idiots? 1:47 p.m. 01/21/04 Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Message to Bush To: President George W. Bush If there is anything you know, I Micah Holmquist age 26 can do to help anyone, please send me a letter and tell me what I can do to save our country. Also please answer these questions: -Tonight you said, “The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States.” Presumably this declaration was made public on “September 11th" but when did all of “[t]he terrorists and their supporters” manage to get together and decide on a common goal? -Do you believe the people of Libya are free? If not, isn’t it a bad thing that “the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons” since it prevents Uncle Sam and his allies from liberating those people? -What is the definition of “weapons of mass murder”? And what does a state have to do to be able to have them? -Isn’t a bit odd that right after saying “American people are using their money far better than government would have” you talk about all the good that government can do for the economy by spending money? When did the dramatic shift happen when government started being able to spend money better than the “American people.” And since this wasn’t the case in the past earlier in your term, why didn’t you advocate the elimination of all government revenues? -What is your definition of “the sanctity of marriage”? -Do you believe federal money should be given to religious groups for use in programs that involve prostleitazation? Should all religious groups be eligible for federal money? Micah Holmquist P.S.: If you can send a letter to the troops ... please put, 'Micah Holmquist believes your commander in chief is a lying asshole.'" The first draft of this year’s “State of the Union” speech [Editor’s note: While nowhere near as important as the most certainly all important results of the Iowa Democratic caucuses, the guy in the White House, George W. Bush, is scheduled to give his State of the Union speech tonight. We here at micah holmquist's irregular thoughts and links have uncovered the first draft of Bush’s speech, which we reprint in its entirety below.] Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, fellow citizens: As we gather tonight, our nation has never been better except for the usual problems, dire threats that my administration likes to pretend are in existence and the continued threat from “the terrorists” that I am determined to defeat and who of course are impossible to explain in the context of U.S. foreign policy. (Applause.) Last year when I gave this speech I talked about the threat from Iraq, a threat that does not exist today. Of course it didn’t exist then either but you people are so fucking stupid you couldn’t figure that out. Even the fact that I spent over a year talking about needing to strike Iraq first to get rid of the threat that I sometimes said was imminent without any worry that Saddam might actually go ahead and do what I said he wanted to do, strike America did not clue you in any. And some say we need educational reform. (Laughter.) So I went ahead with a fun little war in the name of whatever sounded good at the moment and all of you worth speaking to supported it, unless of course your were in on it. In that case, you just supported it! (Laughter.) A friend of mine told me that we best be careful because if we go too far with this, “somebody might point this out and expose our fraud.” But I told him if they bought that shit about “the terrorists,” they will believe whatever we tell them. (Applause.) Dick, I think you owe me some pretzels. (Laughter.) I am obliged to mention the brave fighting men and women of the U.S. Armed Services, so here’s to you. (Applause.) Do you remember September the 11th? (Applause.) Whenever I find myself starting to forget, I just think of the words of Darryl Worley, “Have You Forgotten? Have You Forgotten?” (Applause.) I am a man of the future, not the past like those ANGRY freaks who don’t realize that life isn’t about getting mad, it is about getting even and then getting the maximum possible advantage. For that reason, or any other you can think of, you should not vote for them. As a passage from the Bible that Americans have quoted for generations says, “a vote for a Democrat is a vote for the terrorists. (Applause.) So I will now talk about my reelection, which will happen this year in November. VOTE FOR ME! (Applause.) Some of you who are with the terrorists might ask, “why should I vote for you President Bush besides the fact that you make sure that I don’t die each day from a terrorist attack?” Well because I am now the president and I will keep doing the same things this year. I will talk a good game about things I don’t care about at time but mostly I will spend my time talking about the battle for freedom so you can applaud. (Applause.) This is fulfilling God’s will for the world, because America is God’s hand in the world He created in six days a couple thousand years ago. (Applause.) I hear it took Him a bit less time to create Mars if you know what I mean. (Laughter.) May God continue to bless America more than all other countries and planets combined. (Applause.) UPDATE: Bush gave a slightly different speech tonight. The major change was a call for pro athletes to stop taking performance enhancing drugs as their being so open about their use of them sets a bad example or something. I may write something about the speech that isn't satirical, but right now I want to say that every Democrat that clapped for Bush is one reason I don't vote for that party. That said, I thought it was cool when what appeared to be an at least mostly Democratic section of the audience clapped when our Lord and Savior said, "Key provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire next year." Also, as much as it pains me to say this, it was cool when the camera panned to Edward Kennedy shaking his head after Bush had said one of the usual idiocies about protecting the United States from the danger that Iraq posed to our very well being, way of life and system of planning trips to the beach each summer. 10:49 p.m. 01/20/04 Monday, January 19, 2004
Today is MLK Day but I am more in the mood for Malcolm X's April 3, 1964 speech "The Ballot or the Bullet." *** "A graphic US military video showing the killing of three Iraqi people is being circulated via the web after appearing on US TV news channel ABC News," Jemima Kiss of journalism.co.uk writes in a January 14 story. The war smut can be found here. Perhaps this tape should be shown to these Iraqi fucks. Who ever told them anything about freedom or democracy? *** Hindrocket and Glenn Reynolds cling to the delusion that Bush never said Saddam was an imminent threat. I wonder if they have come to understand that facts or logic matter little and are in on the game. *** "The Japanese actor Hiroyuki Sanada said yesterday that he came within a centimetre of chopping off Tom Cruise's head while filming the Last Samurai," the AP writes in a story from Friday. In another story published three days ago, David Fickling of The Guardian writes that Molly Kelly, "[t]he woman whose 1,000-mile childhood trek across the Australian outback inspired the 2002 film Rabbit-Proof Fence has died in the country's far north-west." *** UPDATE: Thanks Bush we will soon be free of the Libyan threat. 8:46 p.m. 01/19/04 Sunday, January 18, 2004
So long it's been good to know you Those weapons of mass destruction that once were so important and dangerous so as to justify the U.S. invading Iraq in order to avoid certain doom don't seem that big of a deal now, and they haven't for a while. Tabassum Zakaria of Reuters reports in a story from Friday that an anonymous government source said on Thursday that Iraq Survey Group head David Kay "has told the CIA he will not return to his post" and that last month "officials described Kay as frustrated that no banned weapons were found and that some of his staff had been diverted to other tasks." Hopefully we all won't die as a result. Saturday, January 17, 2004
Notes on talk radio and perhaps other things I listened to way too much talk radio yesterday. Bill O'Reilly told me that the Showtime series The L Word will encourage lesbianism and lead to similar evil such as parents abandoning their children. O'Reilly added that he will watch the program because he is a "guy." Rush Limbaugh informed me that it takes someone as "experienced" as him to follow the inconsistencies of someone like Wesley Clark. Apparently he isn't "experienced" enough to take on the inconsistencies of the Bush Administration. Sean Hannity said that we were less than 300 days away from the re-election of George W. Bush and "ensuring the liberation" of the United States of America. Michael Reagan told me that Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson and Martha Stewart are manipulating the public via money and acting ability and that the reason ?people don?t like the Islam religion? is because of the Nation of Islam. (Have you forgotten, Michael?) UPDATE: "World War III is Avoidable" *** Andy Kaufman 10:39 a.m. 01/17/04 UPDATE #2: My President and his glorious war because it is right no matter what actually happened, says Lawrence B. Lindsey. It is one thing to say the prez and friends should be able to lie "about sex" but when it comes to lying about one of the primary justifications for a war, there ought to be a different standard. Then again, As I said yesterday, probably nobody cares unless they are already convinced. *** Rummy says Uncle Sam controls reality. *** "An attempt by Iran's hardline Council of Guardians to ban many pro-democracy candidates from next month's parliamentary elections has caused a storm of protest. Will it all end in victory for the reformists, or repression?" writes The Economist. *** "In a ground-breaking article to be published soon, hip-hop legend Russell Simmons will urge African-Americans to join forces with Jews, to fight anti-Semitism in Europe and the U.S." Shlomo Shamir writes in Wednesday's Haaretz. " co-written with Rabbi Marc Simmons article was co-written with Rabbi Marc Schneier to mark this year's observances of Martin Luther King Day in America... The new article is ground-breaking for being the first The new article is ground-breaking for being the first time an African American figure of Simmons' stature in popular culture has issued a denunciation of resurgent anti-Semitism. The article will be published this weekend in newspapers which reach Jewish and The new article is ground-breaking for being the first time an African American figure of Simmons' stature in popular culture has issued a denunciation of resurgent anti-Semitism. The article will be published this weekend in newspapers which reach Jewish and black readers across the U.S." *** *** "Saudi Arabia will not allow anybody to attack the Islamic faith in the name of freedom of expression, Crown Prince Abdullah, deputy premier and commander of the National Guard, declared yesterday," P.K. Abdul Ghafour in a January 15 Arab News story. Remember they are an ally in the "war on terror." *** riverbend on "Shari'a and Family Law..." *** John Laughland apparently doesn't understand the concept of asymetrical warfare. *** *** Bernardo Bertolucci's The Dreamers (2003) will be distributed by 20th Century Fox with an NC-17 rating in the land that is hated "because we are free.". This move will result in the film not making any of the hundreds of millions it no doubt otherwise would have made. (The official site of the picture is here.) The Dreamers opens in "select cities" on February 6. Upon hearing this news, Bill O'Reilly said, "This piece of garbage will destroy America by teaching young protesters that it is o.k. to fornicate and young fornicators that it is acceptable to protest. My testicles and I are looking forward to it." Meanwhile the AP reports that police officers (you know the think blue line between us and a country that Osama would love, even if they are morally inferior to sailors) in Portland, Oregon are allowed to profanity on the job while dealing with people and, according to sources of Reuters, the son of the Secretary of State "has proposed barring the F-word from most radio and broadcast television, regardless of the context." Personally I think it is absurd that "mainstream" news stories about this don't actually use "fuck." I mean that it what they are talking about and if someone has yet to hear that word and is reading about this, it seems like it is time for them to hear it even if Rockdale Citizen says, "TV profanity not acceptable." *** Jonathan Rosenbaum gives a quite positive review to Bernardo Bertolucci's 1998 film Besieged. Like much of his criticism Rosenbaum's harsh review of Star Wars: Special Edition is most certainly worth reading, although many of the contentions are highly debateable. This section is particularly interesting: It can be, and has been, argued that all this is a glorious triumph of technology--which was also said of the [1991] gulf war. Of course plenty of Americans lost or risked losing family members in that war, and I certainly don't mean to suggest that any of them experienced that event as light or lite entertainment. But for those of us who experienced the annihilation of Iraqi innocents and the partial destruction of Baghdad as bloodless zaps and light shows, it was a new kind of impersonal warfare, for some even a kind of masurbatory fantasy that Star Wars provided the blueprint for.Yes, but it is an expected element of "America's" spectator wars that nobody is supposed to acknowledge this. Instead "we" are supposed to pretend that it is anything but good fun. It is implicitly expected that "we" publicly wish this didn't have to happen and that it were only possible for "us" to watch fictional scenes of great violence, when in truth, I contend, such a sentiment only exists amongst most people in the U.S. when the target of the violence is the U.S. 3:21 p.m. 01/17/03 *** UPDATE #3: Faith rewarded Last year Tom Izzo benched Paul Davis as they lost to Michigan 60-58 in Ann Arbor. Izzo said Davis wasn't putting out the necessary effort. This year, in East Lansing and the first meeting between the two teams since then, Paul Davis lead all players with 22 points and MSU beat Michigan, 71-54. 6:09 p.m. 01/17/04 Friday, January 16, 2004
Are critics of the "war on terror" Principal Skinner? The children of Springfield have taken over Springfield Elementary and are rampaging through the facility like they are in a Bakhtinian carnival. At one point they find out how much Principal Skinner gets paid a year and they decide that, including money he makes from painting in the summer, he must be a billionaire. Skinner denies this and says that if he were a billionaire he wouldn't live with his mother. In response, the children laugh. Skinner mutters something about how they are not responding to logic. All of this comes from "Skinner's Sense of Snow," an episode from the 12th season of a little show called The Simpsons. What interests me is how much people like me who criticize the "war on terror" come across as "Principal Skinner" compared to the children who just want to cheer for America, flags and feeling good about feeling good. (That doesn't include everyone who supports Team Bush and/or the "war on terror," of course.) I would go as far as to say that we most certainly do. They want to believe what they want to believe and "logic" won't get away. They are the group of children laughing because it is far easier to laugh at the individual than being the individual or even risk looking like you might be "the individual." Thursday, January 15, 2004
Good cop Powell (Inspired by the comments of Avedon Carol and Jim Henley on Colin Powell.) Last year I said that Powell was effectively a "good cop" who only looked in comparison to the others and that his position actually reinforced the arguments of the "bad cops." (Think of it as similar to Slavoj Zizek's argument on "Why We Love to Hate Haider.") Powell said and says the same things that the less reputable members of the Bush Administration say but because he is viewed as "good" he is seen as having more credibility. If Rummy says it, it is viewed with, at the very least, suspicion whereas if Powell says it must be The God's Truth. But Powell has done nothing to earn this position. He has executed and promoted the "war on terror" and all of the falsities involved -ranging form the concept of fighting "terror" to the administration's numerous problems in keeping a straight narrative about Iraq including whether or not "they" knew Saddam's regime had ties to al Qaeda- with that project. In short, whatever Powell may feel personally or would do if he were in control, he has carried water and chopped wood for Team Bush. *** Michigan State 76 Too much shouldn't be made of this victory but it was MSU's best looking performance so far this season and Penn State did come into the game with three straight wins over Bucknell, Minnesota and Ohio State. Saturday's game against Michigan in East Lansing is huge for a variety of reasons. *** I guess I should mention Brandon Cotton and this milestone: TECHNICALLY SPEAKING: Izzo received his first technical foul of the season for arguing a call early in the second half.*** good news for Michigan State football. *** *** Juan Cole's "Mass Demonstrations by Women, Others, Against Sudden Islamization of Iraqi Law" is an important read. *** "U.S. tests on mortar shells found in Iraq and suspected of containing blister agents have turned up negative, though further tests will be conducted, a Danish army spokesman said Wednesday," Matthew Rosenberg of the AP writes. This probably won't get as much attention as was bestowed up a report indicating that chemical weapons could be found in the shells did. *** UPDATE In a January 13 New York Post piece about comedy shows in the Big Apple, Raven Snook writes: It's not exactly stand-up, but New Yorker Stephen Colbert, a correspondent on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" (as well as the star of several recent Mr. Goodwrench commercials), will discuss "the future of comedy" along with fellow wits Calvin Trillin, Roy Blount Jr. and Nora Ephron tonight at 8 at Symphony Space (2537 Broadway, [212] 864-5400).I feel that Daily Show reporters should not be allowed to do commercials since it weakens the trust I have in them. 12:08 p.m. 01/15/04 UPDATE #2: Who would ever think that Clinton might have been dishonest? Such an idea can't be considered. 4:48 p.m. 01/15/04 UPDATE #3: The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press writes: Cable news networks are the most frequently cited source of campaign news for young people, but the Internet and comedy programs also are important conduits of election news for Americans under 30. One-in-five young people say they regularly get campaign news from the Internet, and about as many (21%) say the same about comedy shows such as Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show. For Americans under 30, these comedy shows are now mentioned almost as frequently as newspapers and evening network news programs as regular sources for election news.I love the Daily Show but I worry about people who learn about politics from it. It is best understood when you know what actually happened. *** *** If the quotes in this article by Bernard Weinraub of The New York Times are correct, the Dennis Miller is an idiot. Actually I'm pretty sure that's true no matter what the accuracy of these quotes. One choice graf: The Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Miller said, changed him. "Everybody should be in the protection business now," he said. "I can't imagine anybody not saying that. Well, I guess on the farthest end of the left they'd say, `That's our fault.' And on the middle end they'd say, `Well, there's another way to deal with it other than flat-out protecting ourselves.' I just don't believe that. People say we're the ones who make them hate us because of what we do. That's garbage to me. I think they're nuts. And you've got to protect yourself from nuts."Two more: He said he had transcripts of some of Mr. Sahl's early shows and was amazed by them. But then he lost interest. Mr. Sahl, he said, became too close to the Kennedy family and was "a savage name-dropper." Mr. Miller added, "It always reminded me to watch myself."*** Margaret Cho on the "Magical Night with MoveOn.org." *** *** Sometimes you can tell a lot about people based on who they hate. *** *** "The Belgian High Court threw out a war crimes complaint Wednesday against retired U.S. Gen. Tommy Franks, backing a lower court ruling that Belgium had no jurisdiction in the case against the commander of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq," Constant Brand of the AP writes. *** Perhaps hypocritical and self-serving triumphalism about a presidential candidate and making fun of a deposed dictator who, despite what the parody suggests, was nowhere near having nuclear weapons, is just more fun than dealing with a destructive and power-hungry president. Why engage in actual criticism when you can suck up to power? 6:12 p.m. 01/15/04 Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Bush says he is an idiot and links and things I didn't go with this yesterday because I thought it was something of a cheap shot but fuck it... On Monday American Lord and Savior George C.W. Bush said, "September the 11th... changed how I viewed the world. September the 11th made me realize that America was no longer protected by oceans." If Bush is being honest here, and I doubt he is, what he is effectively saying is that he was completely oblivious to the fact that there were a number of people who might want to attack the U.S. of A. before September 11, 2001 and that they could do so with a fair amount of ease. (If anything the attacks of "September the 11th" were more complex than more deadly attacks involving bombs likely could have been.) Moreover Bush is saying that he was unaware of the events of December 7, 1941. [Cue to Bush family living room Kennebunkport, Maine around 1985 where C.W. and H.W. have just finished watching Tora! Tora! Tora! (Richard Fleischer, Kinji Fukasaku, Toshio Masuda and Akira Kurosawa, 1970) on a Sony VCR] "Wow what a great story," C.W. says. H.W. responds, "son, you know..." "I mean I understand a movie like a Red Dawn [John Milius, 1984] about the Cubans and Sandinistas taking over since they are as dangerous now as that Saddam guy would be if he turned on us or we turned on him," C.W. blurts out. "But Japan? Now why would those electronic geeks who make our VCRs and video games want to attack us?" H.W. shakes his head while thinking, "good thing I have Jeb." *** It is nice to know Bush is keeping us safe from by standing up to Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela. (Here is the transcript of our King's speech.) In all seriousness, there might be a justifiable argument for isolating Cuba if the U.S. itself had a better bill of health wasn't partners with the governments of China, Colombia, Egypt and Turkey. Bolivia and Venezuela, whatever their faults, would hardly stack up their with Cuba unless the real criteria for exclusion (or, depending on how you want to look at it, inclusion) is not getting in line with what Uncle Sam wants, which of course is the real criteria. Maybe a good rule of thumb is that when the President of the United States of America talks about human rights in another country, one is advised to always look to independent evidence to substantiate the charges and never believe that the Prez actually gives a shit. *** Tom Regan of csmonitor.com looks at Richard Perle and David Frum's new book on Monday as does Jim Lobe in a Inter Press Service column from yesterday. Go to them for more details on the text; I just want to focus on the fact that the book is entitled An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror. That's right, they are suggesting that "evil" can come to an "end." This is utopianism worthy of Marx and something that I wished I could share on even some small level. But as it is, I can't help but laugh. *** Democracy and self-rule in Iraq? *** "U.S. military forces in Iraq appear to have violated the laws of war by demolishing the homes of relatives of suspected insurgents or wanted former officals, Human Rights Watch said today," Human Rights Watch writes in a statement from yesterday. "In a letter to U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Human Rights Watch said that at least four house demolitions over the past two months appeared to be for purposes of punishing families of suspected insurgents or compelling their cooperation. Destroying civilian property as a reprisal or deterrent amounts to collective punishment, which is prohibited by the 1949 Geneva Conventions." *** Luke Harding of The Guardian writes: The international news agency Reuters has made a formal complaint to the Pentagon following the "wrongful" arrest and apparent "brutalisation" of three of its staff this month by US troops in Iraq.*** "More than 240,000 soldiers and marines are to move into and out of Iraq from now to May, testing the military's ability to handle a major logistical feat while battling the Iraqi insurgency. From remote camps in northern Iraq to the port here, this swapping of forces amounts to the United States military's largest troop rotation since World War II," Eric Schmitt writes in a January 11 New York Times story. *** "For me, there is no escaping the fact that the prewar intelligence estimates regarding Iraq's WMD programs—and particularly its nuclear program—were wrong. Iraq was not 4-5 years away from having a nuclear weapon, as I and the rest of the Clinton administration had been led to believe," Kenneth Pollack writes in a Slate dialogue. In the same exchange, Paul Berman writes: What was the reason for the war in Iraq? Sept. 11 was the reason. At least to my mind it was. Sept. 11 showed that totalitarianism in its modern Muslim version was not going to stop at slaughtering millions of Muslims, and hundreds of Israelis, and attacking the Indian government, and blowing up American embassies. The totalitarian manias were rising, and the United States itself was now in danger. A lot of people wanted to respond, as any mayor would do, by rounding up a single Bad Guy, Osama.This argument is problematic even when taken on its own terms is that it suggests doing something, in part, for "the other" while at the same time explicitly stating that so long as "the other" was not a threat to "us" then any damage to "the other" would be something that could be tolerated. In effect, it says that the lives of those in Muslim countries and even Israel are only important to the extent that those lives impact those of us who live in the United States. It thus follows that if doing damage to such people would benefit the people of the U.S., then doing damage to them would be worth it. *** *** "President Bush ordered the Pentagon to explore the possibility of a ground invasion of Iraq well before the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, an official told ABCNEWS, confirming the account former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill gives in his new book," John Cochran ABC News writes. Nothing is mentioned about whether or not this official -"The official, who asked not to be identified, was present in the same National Security Council meetings as O'Neill immediately after Bush's inauguration in January and February of 2001"- said he had been made aware of any evidence that Saddam's regime had weapons of mass destruction or even whether ABC News asked him about this. *** Via antiwar.com (as are many of the links I throw out), Linda Diebel of The Toronto Star writes about "Surreal times at the Pentagon" in this December 28 piece: We never learned the identity of the little boy killed by a 900-kilogram bomb on a Monday afternoon in Baghdad during the "shock-and-awe" stage of Operation Iraqi Freedom.All of column is worth reading. *** From the "[e]ither you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" file, Scotsman.com writes: ALMOST 100 countries have failed to enforce United Nations sanctions against the al-Qaeda terror network and Afghanistan’s ousted Taleban.BOMB THEM ALL TO HELL AND THEN BACK AGAIN AND THEN AROUND PURGATORY AND THEN UP TO EDGE OF HEAVEN SO THAT THE FALL BACK TO HELL (and the "everlasting fire" that makes hell an "eternal" "place of torment") IS AS GREAT AS IT POSSIBLY COULD BE!!! *** *** The email headline for this American Forces Press Service story was "Myers Thanks Mongols for Iraqi Freedom Help." *** "North Korean officials told an unofficial U.S. delegation last week that many claims about their nuclear program were exaggerated and that they did not have a nuclear warhead or a program to secretly enrich uranium for such a weapon, said sources familiar with the trip," Barbara Demick of The Los Angeles Times writes. *** " President Bush pledged yesterday to help India with its nuclear energy and space technology in return for India's promise to use the assistance for peaceful purposes and to help block the spread of dangerous weapons," writes Peter Slevin in yesterday's Washington Post "A series of reciprocal steps is designed to produce stricter Indian controls over the spread of weapons and technology, in return for expertise and supplies India has long sought from the United States, where a succession of wary U.S. administrations has refused to approve sales." *** Matt Drudge has posted a "partial transcript" of comments by celebs at a moveon.org event held in New York City on Monday. Predictably some bloggers have deried these comments as being out of line, but what struck me is how moderate these comments are. Of course my idea of "moderate" would certainly be different if I thought Margaret Cho was "washed up has been comedienne," believed that having "contempt" for Bush made one a "moonbat" and thought of war as a fun activity. And for those who think someone like Julia Stiles goes too far when she says, "I was afraid that Bill O'Reilly would come and, with a shotgun at my front door and shoot me for being unpatriotic" if she criticized Operation Iraqi Freedom while it was going on, I say just think of it as using exaggeration to get across a point about how certain segments of society saw -some still do see- any criticism of U.S. foreign policy that doesn't advocate the use of more force as treasonous and deserving of punishment. It is a lot like how in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq Team Bush said Saddam could attack the U.S. with biological and/or chemical weapons on any day when what they really meant was that they had not eliminated the possibility that at some point Saddam may have a notion to once again attempt to develop some weapons with which it would be possible for either him or allies that he might develop at some point to attack the U.S. *** "The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider whether the government properly withheld names and other details about hundreds of foreigners detained in the months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks," the AP writes. *** "The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police may set up roadblocks to collect tips about crimes, rejecting concerns that authorities might use the checkpoints to fish for unrelated suspicious activity," Gina Holland of the AP writes. *** Bruce Schneier's January 9 salon.com piece "Homeland insecurity" is very much worth reading as is this MetaFilter post. *** Scott McPherson on "Enola Gay, Just War, and Mass Murder." In high school debate and forensics I was often judged by a guy named Scott McPherson, although judging by politics, they are too completely different people. *** BBC News writes: A new law has been passed in Cuba which will make access to the internet more difficult for Cubans.Yeah that makes sense. *** "Many plant and animal species are unlikely to survive climate change. New analyses suggest that 15–37% of a sample of 1,103 land plants and animals would eventually become extinct as a result of climate changes expected by 2050. For some of these species there will no longer be anywhere suitable to live. Others will be unable to reach places where the climate is suitable. A rapid shift to technologies that do not produce greenhouse gases, combined with carbon sequestration, could save 15–20% of species from extinction," says Nature *** Michael Hopkin of Nature writes: Have you ever given a friend part of your dessert just so they will stop bugging you for some? You're not alone - chimpanzees and monkeys share their food with others to avoid hassle too.Stupid human. *** *** *** *** "America's Christian conservatives... are more American than they are Christian or conservative," says Alan Wolfe in this month's issue of Prospect. Much of the confusion that Wolfe alleviates -although he does not give this explanation- I believe is caused by the perception of "fundamentalist" practitioners of a religion being set apart and not impacted by the current epoch. (In part, if not primarily, this happens because such "fundamentalists" often see themselves in such terms.) Tariq Ali and others have argued that although such a belief is common about Islam that in fact "fundamentalist Islam" is a product of "modernity." (Arguably it is more the product of "postmodernity" but such a description is problematized by the fact that outlook of such practitioners is hardly postmodern. To be more precise, the "fundamentalist Islam" of today holds to a set of beliefs that is not postmodern but rather premodern. At the same time, the ideology of "fundamentalist Islam" is the result of a factors that largely stem from the unipolar world of the current and recent segments of the postmodern period.) Similarly, I would contend, "Christian fundamentalism" in the U.S. is shaped by broader sacred and secular currents as evidenced by the fact that no matter how "fundamentalist" a church is, there is almost certainly another one that would condemn it for not staying true to their preferred interpretation of their preferred translation of the Bible. With this in mind, it should come as no surprise that "Christian fundamentalism" in the U.S. has the face of Uncle Sam and that "Americanness" will be at the center of any even moderately popular movement for increasing the influence of Christianity on the U.S. Speaking of Christian fundamentalism in the Land of the Free, in their little talked about book Empire (Harvard University Press, 2000), Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri write, "Christian fundamentalisms in the United States have also continuously been oriented (in different times and different regions more or less overtly) toward a project of white supremacy and racial purity. The new Jerusalem has almost always been imagined as a white and patriarchal Jerusalem." While Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. has a long history of racism and no doubt still have connections -the Bible arguably justifies slavery so this should come as no surprise- but I think Hardt and Negri go too far. They ignore Christian fundamentalism amongst non-whites -most notably blacks- and discount that, for whatever reason, many of even the "most fundamentalist" of Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. are not explicitly racist and largely seek neither to lessen racism and the effects of racism nor to strengthen racism or the effects of racism. *** Leslie Camhi of The Village Voice profiles Saadi Yacef. *** increasingly realistic outlook *** "Many teen blogs are short-lived experiments. But for a significant number, they become a way of life, a daily record of a community's private thoughts -- a kind of invisible high school that floats above the daily life of teenagers," Emily Nussbaum writes in a fascinating piece from this past Sunday's New York Times Magazine. Key graf: For many in the generation that has grown up online, the solution is not to fight this technological loss of privacy, but to give in and embrace it: to stop worrying and learn to love the Web. It's a generational shift that has multiple roots, from Ricki Lake to the memoir boom to the A.A. confessional, not to mention 13 seasons of ''The Real World.'' The teenagers who post journals have (depending on your perspective) a degraded or a relaxed sense of privacy; their experiences may be personal, but there's no shame in sharing. As the reality-television stars put it, exposure may be painful at times, but it's all part of the process of ''putting it out there,'' risking judgment and letting people in. If teen bloggers give something up by sloughing off a self-protective layer, they get something back too -- a new kind of intimacy, a sense that they are known and listened to. This is their life, for anyone to read. As long as their parents don't find out.Although I don't write much about my personal life anymore, I am once again thinking that perhaps I spend way too much time blogging and that I do so because I tend towards compulsive behavoir and blogging isn't particularly destructive. The "damage" that it does really amounts to the time that I take to blog is time that I potentially could be spending on other things. The thing about blogging is that the risks involved with it are small but so are the rewards. Tuesday, January 13, 2004
"Where do you think you're going Mr. President?" In a better world Scott McClellan would be fired for dishonesty by people who cared. In this world, he is a "respected" minister of propaganda who, like he does many days, took questions from reporters yesterday. Asked about whether Paul O'Neill had made "false claims or accusations," McClellan said: David, you've heard me say repeatedly that we're not in the business of doing book reviews. I don't get in the business of selling or promoting or critiquing books. I would say that you all are well aware of a lot of these facts on issues that have been raised over -- that some of you raised over the weekend.That's logical, if not exactly intelligent since looking at the past is one of the best ways to decide what actions to take for the sake of the future, but then David and McClellan get into this exchange: Q You're declining to take on specific assertions, such as --Leaving aside the bizarre statement that Bush "exhausted all possible means to... resolve the situation peacefully," it should be noted that when McClellan attempts to justify the invasion of Iraq he does so by looking at the past, so apparently Bush wasn't aware of Saddam's record in the past and he has never attempted to use any of that to justify the invasion and in fact has never attempted to use the past to justify anything. Bush always keeps his eye on the prize, you could say about that great visionary. *** Also from yesterday, Bush responded to a question about whether or not his administration had planned to remove Saddam before September 11, 2001: First, let me say, I appreciate former Secretary O'Neill's service to our country. We worked together during some difficult times. We worked together when the country was in recession, and now we're coming out of recession, which is positive news. We worked together when America was attacked on September the 11th, which changed how I viewed the world. September the 11th made me realize that America was no longer protected by oceans, and we had to take threats very seriously no matter where they may be materializing.Am I the only one bothered by the fact that if Bush is saying he was unaware that the United States could, with relative ease, be attacked before September 11, 2001? Maybe he is an idiot. Bush continues: And, no, the stated policy of my administration towards Saddam Hussein was very clear. Like the previous administration, we were for regime change. And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with Desert Badger, or fly-overs and fly-betweens and looks, and so we were fashioning policy along those lines. And then, all of a sudden, September the 11th hit. And as the President of the United States, my most solemn obligation is to protect the security of the American people. That's my -- to me that's the most solemn thing an American President -- or any president -- must do. And I took that duty very seriously.Bush seems to be looking backwards, which confuses me. Perhaps what McClellan meant was that Bush is "forward looking" only when looking to the past doesn't help him politically. And thanks for protecting me from Saddam Mr. President! Bush would add a few more words but nothing of consequence before saying, "[t]hank you very much" and leaving. "That was too close for comfort," Bush is rumored to have muttered once he got to safety. *** It has become evident that asking the Bush Administration legitimate questions is pointless now as they will just refuse to answer them. Most of the reporters covering the White House don't seem to mind but if, as a group, they ever decide to act as if they have a little bit of self-respect, I recommend that when Bush wants to leave, they run to the door and block it. Bob Dylan's "You Ain't Goin' Nowhere" will play on the loudspeaker and the prez will be informed that he's staying in the room till he answers some real questions. What's he going to do? Explain that he doesn't have to answer questions about his beloved "war on terror"? Actually Mr. Holmquist that is exactly what he'd do and it would play well amongst Americans who believe that they love their country more than people who don't support Bush You are probably right, but mth.blogspot.com is my blog and this is my dream. Monday, January 12, 2004
A message to Iraqis, the comedy of Sue Murphy and other matters Bill O'Reilly should tell those stupid Iraqi fuckers to shut up or face the consequences. *** The comedy of Sue Murphy –or more precisely the comedy of Sue Murphy that was presented in a Comedy Central Presents special that I watched on Sunday- has conventional themes. Murphy thinks she’s unattractive and has a long history of personal embarrassment. She apparently isn’t ashamed to get on stage and present this to the world in search of laughs. And yet for all that normalcy, Murphy came across much different than the average comedian on Comedy Central. She seemed to be having a good time and yet was awkward, much like the man or woman at a bar or social gathering who is a bit too loud and who doesn’t always make sense as she tells stories, but who entertains herself at least as much as any one else in the audience. I’m not sure when the special was recorded but my guess is in 1998 or 1999 due to an early reference to Titanic (James Cameron, 1997), a film that is neither particularly good nor anywhere near as bad as it is now fashionable to say it is, which seems appropriate if Alain Badiou is correct about the twentieth century being greatly characterized by a “passion for the Real” and stand-up is a play covered by the mask of conversation. Murphy’s act was most likely more the product of revision than improvisation, but it didn’t seem that way, which made it made beautiful and perplexing. *** "Coalition experts are examining dozens of mortar shells found in southern Iraq which could contain chemical weapons," BBC News writes in a Saturday story. "...US officials played down the find, saying the shells were probably left over from Saddam Hussein's 1980-88 war with Iran. Thank Bush that we got there in time. *** In a January 11 story, BBC News writes: Mr Blair told the BBC's Breakfast with Frost he still believed that weapons of mass destruction would be found.*** John F. Dickerson of Time on Paul O'Neill: Discussing the case for the Iraq war in an interview with TIME, O'Neill, who sat on the National Security Council, says the focus was on Saddam from the early days of the Administration. He offers the most skeptical view of the case for war ever put forward by a top Administration official. "In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," he told TIME. "There were allegations and assertions by people. But I've been around a hell of a long time, and I know the difference between evidence and assertions and illusions or allusions and conclusions that one could draw from a set of assumptions. To me there is a difference between real evidence and everything else. And I never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence."O'Neill doesn't impress me and he certainly is no Daniel Ellsberg. Assuming that this is true, and I suspect that it is, why didn't O'Neill come out and say this last year around say March when it might have changed the course of events? *** *** I find it hard to dislike Dean when he says stuff like, "George Bush is not my neighbor." *** Thomas E. Ricks of The Washington Post writes: A scathing new report published by the Army War College broadly criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an "unnecessary" war in Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest against terrorism that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat...Why treasonous trash such as this report, which is entitled "Bounding the Global War on Terrorism," is allowed to be published is beyond me. It can only strengthen our enemies and convince Americans to forget September 11. *** Who does Hugo Chavez think he is? *** "Hunger and homelessness continued to rise in major American cities over the last year, according to the new U.S. Conference of Mayors-Sodexho Hunger and Homelessness Survey, released today at the Conference of Mayors Headquarters. As the overall economy remained weak, requests for emergency food assistance increased by an average of 17 percent over the past year, and requests for emergency shelter assistance increased by an average of 13 percent in the 25 cities surveyed," The U.S. Conference of Mayors writes in a December 18 press release. Read the report here and find out more about Sodexho at sodexhousa.com. *** *** Jennifer and Richard Pryor on the government's new emblem. *** Via in search of Sasquatch I find Aidin Vaziri of The San Francisco Chronicle saying, "Chris Rock is still the best stand-up comedian to hit a stage since Sinbad." When I read stuff like this, I can't help but think this country deserves Bush and the "war on terror." Sunday, January 11, 2004
Lee Greenwood’s legacy in space It looks like we are going to be going to the Moon and maybe even to Mars. According to a The New York Times report, Bush wants to do this in order to look like a leader with a vision. Funny I would have thought that wanting to take the country back 40 years wouldn’t qualify someone as a visionary. What’s next? Are we going to hear about the need for a Great Society? What about how if we don’t kill this village of gooks we are going to lose our freedom? O.K. o.k. I guess this really isn’t anything new. I sure would have loved to be at the meeting in the White House where they decided on the need to pick up space travel a bit... “So we are going to go to the moon and then Mars, right boss?” Rummy said to Bush. “That’s the plan,” the president responded, “but I’m starting to have my doubts. With the deficit and these war against that bitch named Terra, maybe we should stay at home.” Rummy shook his head in disbelief. “You remember that little talk we had yesterday boss? About how we can’t invade a place we can’t reach?” “Yes,” Bush said while trembling. Rummy continued. “Do you want the Moon men and the Martians to attack and kill Americans like their allies did on September 11? Do you boss?” “Do they have weapons of mass destruction? Can we connect them to Syria?” Bush asked. “Sure, why not?” Rummy replied. “Well damn we have to go in for the sake of freedom and my re-election! God Bless America!” the prez screamed. *** The plan is that we send at least one American to the moon and then Mars. When –should I say if?- the latter happens, I fully expect to see hear some astronaut say, “This is one small leap for man and one giant leap for the struggle against the terrorists.” He will set foot on Mars and rant, “Back on September 11 the terrorists attacked us. They thought they could kill our way of life and freedom itself! They though they could prevent us from reaching Mars but they were wrong! The flag still stands for freedom and they can’t take that away/So I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free.” Saturday, January 10, 2004
From the file of things that I had already figured out, CBS News writes: The Bush Administration began laying plans for an invasion of Iraq, including the use of American troops, within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001 -- not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks as has been previously reported.I'm glad they are protecting each and every one of us. FWIW, Drudge says, "NYT SUNDAY: Bush 'wholly absorbed by 2004 campaign race'... Developing..." *** "This could well be the year that Izzo gets swallowed by the college basketball creature he's created. The year when the time-tested recipe fails and the cookies crumble under the weight of great expectations," Todd Schultz writes in today's Lansing State Journal "But history suggests otherwise." UPDATE: Or maybe not. I have nothing to say on this. *** On his radio show Thursday, Sean Hannity said that Madonna's endorsement of Wesley Clark wouldn't matter because Madonna's fans were too young to vote. WHY THE FUCK IS THIS GUY ON T.V. AND RADIO? *** Saddam's been given POW status. *** NBC News and MSNBC write: Secretary of State Colin Powell reversed a year of administration policy, acknowledging Thursday that he had seen no “smoking gun [or] concrete evidence” of ties between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida...Glad somebody is picking up on this. Friday, January 09, 2004
A conversation and other notes Yesterday I was enjoying a fine dinner prepared by the employees of one Long John Silver's eatery when a small Chinese man with no right hand and only three fingers on his left hand used his cane to hobble up to my table and, as several dozen do each day, tell me, "Dr. Holmquist, I used to be a follower Howard Ahmanson Jr. but then, in a moment of great need, I came across your teachings and brought you into my life. I now know a perfect peace that I try to share with others." "Thank you," I said as I always tell my faithful disciples. "That means a lot to me." The man continued by asking two questions that millions have asked me since the posting of "Help me Dr. Zaius" yesterday. "How did you figure out that Bush was trying to emulate Dr. Zaius and is their ostensible interest in La Battaglia di Algeri (Gillo Pontecorvo, 1965) really an attempt to keep us from knowing the truth?" "The answer to your second question my dear friend," I said, "is yes. The answer to your first question is that it is certainly possible and I have yet to see any proof that this is not a valid explanation." *** Plenty More on The Battle of Algiers. *** I'm thoroughly unimpressed with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's report "WMD in Iraq - Evidence and Implications." Yes it is nice to know that it appear that intelligence was likely exaggerated and distorted by the Bush Administration to bolster their case for war, but the report falls like a bad fishing analogy for the idea that Saddam/Iraq having weapons of mass destruction meant Saddam/Iraq was a threat. Furthermore it doesn't acknowledge that the continuation of the status quo was hardly a good thing for the people of Iraq and, given how things have turned out so far, the act of the U.S. removing Saddam from power was arguably better than the continuation of sanctions. Such a failure is common amongst many of those who want "peace," by which they mean anything less than an all-out war. *** Responding to "WMD in Iraq - Evidence and Implications" yesterday, State Department head Colin Powell said, amongst other things, "[w}here the debate is, is why haven't we found huge stockpiles, and why haven't we found large caches of these weapons. Let's let the Iraqi Survey Group complete its work." Along with ignoring a question about whether or not Iraq was an "imminent threat" to the United States, Powell addressed the issue of a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq by saying, "I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did." Funny Powell had something quite different to say in September of 2002. *** "The failure to find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction looks set to dog the Bush administration in an election year amid persistent accusations it exaggerated evidence in making a case for war," Tabassum Zakaria writes in a Reuters story published yesterday. *** *** Are we safe yet? Apparently not. Rummy is said to be considering "a proposal to expand special operations forces and send them to destroy insurgency strongholds along the Lebanese-Syrian border" and actions in Somalia may happen before the shortest month of the year begins. Thursday, January 08, 2004
Help me Dr. Zaius Last night I tried to come up with a justification for Team Bush's propensity for deception. And I did, even if the result is a long-shot. George W. Bush of course sees the world in binary terms with good and evil being the primary categories of distinction, categories that are perhaps all-encompassing so that evil has no qualities of good and good has not qualities of evil. As a result, when Bush saw Planet of the Apes (Franklin J. Schaffner) in 1968 he didn't respond by seeing the moral ambiguity in the character of Dr. Zaius (Maurice Evans), who was suppressing knowledge in pursuit of the greater good of keeping humans stupid so that they could not develop the weapons necessary to fight the wars that have become all too common when humans have guns and even more advanced weaponry. No, unlike just about every other person who attempted to discern a simplistic message from Planet of the Apes, Bush saw Zaius as heroic and came to believe that deception in pursuit of the greater good and thus, with regard to the "war on terror," Bush has tried to emulate his hero Dr. Zaius. Or maybe he is just trying to be like his dad, Reagan and fellow Texan LBJ. Whatever explanation suits you at the moment is just fine. I learned that from Bush *** The 400-member team withdrawn from Iraq, known as the Joint Captured Matériel Exploitation Group, was primarily composed of technical experts and was headed by an Australian brigadier, Defense Department officials said. Its work included searching weapons depots and other sites for missile launchers that might have been used with illicit weapons, the officials said, and it was withdrawn "because its work was essentially done."Fortunately Stuart Cohen is still looking out for the lives of us Americans. In a January 6 story Tabassum Zakaria of Reuters writes: Stuart Cohen, vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which produced the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate report on Iraq's banned weapons, said he was "not at all" surprised that stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons had not yet been found...Hopefully we will get through this without the weapons of mass destruction killing too many of us. Wednesday, January 07, 2004
Stupidity The issue of the intelligence of supporters of the "war on terror," as opposed to the intelligence of American Lord and Savior George W. Bush, has become something of a hot topic. In Monday's Seattle Post-Intelligencer Neil Starkman argues that stupidity on the part of large swaths of the public is responsible for Bush's popularity: The people I'm referring to cannot understand the phenomenon of cause and effect. They're perplexed by issues comprising more than two sides. They don't have the wherewithal to expand the sources of their information. And above all -- far above all -- they don't think.Jeffrey A. Tucker charts a similar course in lewrockwell.com piece published yesterday entitled "Stupid Vogue." In this month's issue of Reason Brendan O’Neill asserts that beneath much of liberal and leftist complaints about the dishonesty of the international War Party "suggest a disregard for the public" because members of the public are capable of making up their own minds and that these complaints also to an attempt by liberals and leftists to absolve themselves of failing to successfully counter pro-invasion propaganda. "[T]he influence of propaganda is determined by the broader political climate and by the general level of public debate," O'Neill writes. "If those who are anti-war spent less time wringing their hands over Big Bad Bush and the fickle people, and more time developing a coherent case against war, then maybe we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in now. Surely the pro-war lobby is best challenged by being shouted at, rather than shouted about." O'Neill's piece, which is partially a review of Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber's Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq (Tarcher/Penguin, 2003), is best understood as a continuation his argument that anti-war forces are far too impoverished of politics and as result the pro-war argument appears stronger than it would otherwise. There is plenty of merit to this argument so far as it goes, and O'Neill has regularly pointed out the problematic politics of those who are subjectively anti-war, but all of this leaves out the issue of analyzing how the recent past happened. The arguments of Team Bush for either some aspect of the "war on terror" or the "war on terror" in totality take place during a time "when," O'Neill correctly writes, "serious political debate is hard to find." Understanding how they responded to such a situation is essential to understanding how they were able to successfully promote the "war on terror" and get away with their many absurd statements. The response of antiwar.com's Matthew Barganier showcases another problem with O'Neill's argument: What does one say, what can one say, to the kick-ass jingo (even one with gobs of raw intelligence) who cannot locate the countries he/she wants bombed? How much can one do in a 1,000-word essay to change that person's mind? Won't he/she be much more likely to accept Pentagon/Fox music videos that reinforce his/her gut beliefs? I've had friends and family members--ones who can find the countries they want annihilated-- compliment me on my work, tell me how it made them think, then go right back to gushing over George Bush and Bill O'Reilly. Sometimes tossing one's hands up and laughing is the only option.Sometimes it seems like it is the only option. The public" may or may not be stupid but that the Bush Administration certainly talks to them like they are. From “the terrorists” to the “threats” that come in and out of existence based solely on the rhetorical needs of the Bush Administration, they play the public for saps who lack even the most basic training in logic. By not responding negatively to these claims the public effectively says they don't mind being talked to like they are idiots, either because they don't care or don't realize it. Either way is disturbing. I certainly don’t think every supporter of Team Bush or the “war on terror” is stupid –there are reasons to logically support Bush and friends that range greatly in validity- but I must admit to not understanding how any intelligent person who cared about the foreign policy of the U.S. would not be disturbed by the mendaciousness of the Bush Administration in this area. I suspect that the Bush Administration fully knows how idiotic they sound. Recently C-SPAN ran an interview with Team Bush Shill Scott McClellan that was conducted on December 23. As I flipped to the program I heard McClellan talking about how it was important to "uphold the dignity" of the White House. It sounded good but a bit strange till I realized he was talking about the need to dress up at the White House, except for on weekends when things could be a bit more casual McClellan was quick to clarify. What the fuck is the message here? "The Bush Administration is dignified because of the clothes we wear on days that The Wall Street Journal is not published on. Please ignore our lack of honesty when it comes to reasons to go and kill non-Americans"? They have to know how idiotic stuff like this sounds to anybody who is critically thinking about what is said. But perhaps the key there is that only those who are applying a bit a thought and not simply soaking in all that they hear will realize the disgusting nature of these comments. My theory is that most of those with flags on their SUVs and foreheads don’t really care what the reason for the war is. They just want the thrill of rooting for their “team.” Tell them what the reason is and they will accept it, not because it makes sense but because they were told it was the reason to go bomb some undesirables. *** One more thing that needs to be considered is that the media doesn’t do anything even close to what could be called a good job of keeping the Bush Administration honest. Most of the questions they ask of officials are softballs. When one of them does have enough nerve to ask a real question, they rarely respond to the official’s non-answer or nonsensical answer with a statement on the problems with that response. Occasionally, however, that does happen but it doesn’t matter since hardly anyone will report on the exchange and not enough read transcripts or watch C-SPAN. It certainly won’t be the lead story on ABC, CBS, CNN, FNC MSNBC, NBC or PBS. While it would be nice to see that, I have doubts about whether it would make much difference. I suspect that too many people in the public would just respond, “hey you leave Rummy alone. He is working hard to defend America. You and your thinking should just shut up!” And, given their track record, the mainstream media would probably do a poor job of holding Team Bush’s feet to the fire if they even tried. Some examples… -Albert Eisele and Jeff Defour report in today's edition of The Hill that it looks Donald Rumsfeld turned down Time magazine's offer for him to be the "person of the year." Since Time isn't likely to ever give the honor to a "bad guy" again -Osama didn't get in 2001- one can only conclude that the editors think highly of Rumsfeld. -In an AP story from Yesterday Mohammed Daraghmeh writes: Palestinian aid groups have refused to accept money from the U.S. government because of a requirement they sign a pledge the money would not be used for terrorism, organizers said Monday.As a general rule writers should refrain from using the fourth paragraph of a piece to contradict a statement a statement they made in the first. -Ralph Z. Hallow of The Washington Times writes: Americans are as deeply divided over party, ideology and values as they are over the legitimacy of the presidency of George W. Bush, a new poll shows.Maybe the press is stupid as the public. Tuesday, January 06, 2004
I love the "war on terror" The "war on terror" is a multi-faceted struggle against evil sanctioned by God that take many forms including setting up a secret police unit for Iraq (I hear those Iraqis won't have to spend much time adjusting), beating prisoners, limiting civilian casualties in certain situations and just generally abusing human rights. Hot Damn! Is this a fun time to be alive or what? The only problem is figuring out what the glorious "war on terror" is supposed to be about. Remember those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that meant the United States had to invade Iraq in order to prevent the death of every man, woman, child and household pet within Uncle Sam's borders? Perhaps it is best that you don't. The AP writes in a December 30 article: The teams have closed their chemical and nuclear files and David Kay, the man currently leading the search, is considering stepping down, those involved in the hunt told AP on condition of anonymity.Ah but that is an old reason for the invasion. A more recent reason is to create utopia in Iraq, although perhaps that is a bit much. In a peice published by The Age yesterday, Robin Wright and Rajiv Chandrasekaran write: After eight months of debate and delay, the United States will formally launch the handover of power to Iraq this week with the final plan still not fully in place.And I thought we only wanted sufficient ground to bury our dead. Of course, as Edward Wong illustrated in Sunday's New York Times, there is a chance the whole thing could fall apart: As the countdown to the handover of power in Iraq enters its final six months, American officials are focusing on how to create a working democracy. They are trying to walk a fine line between giving ethnic and religious groups the territory, resources and autonomy they demand, and ensuring that such power does not give rise to dangerous nationalisms.Typical problems for when you are trying to control a country without looking like you are controlling it. By the way, don't think every group is going to be treated equally. And don't believe freedom freedom is the focus of this "war." James Bovard writes in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle: When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.*** Since the threat from those commonly considered to be amongst "the terrorists" doesn't appear as great as America's Lord and Savior George W. Bush and His apostles tell us it is, perhaps it is time to find new enemies. In an AP article published yesterday, George Gedda writes: The Bush administration is becoming increasingly concerned about what it sees as a joint effort by Cuba and Venezuela to nurture anti-American sentiment in Latin America with money, political indoctrination and training.How dare these Che Guevara wannabes interfere in the affairs of another country without the permission of their uncle. Everyone knows you don't do that. Monday, January 05, 2004
Sarcastic "Response to a rant" *** UPDATE: Richard Pryor's advice to aspiring comics. *** OK- pimps, whores, sluts and bitches! Let's have a great 2004 and be productive and have a social conscience-ya know, like back in the day-when we cared about things other than bling bling and designer labels and Michael Jackson and when we marched on Washington with Dr. King for civil rights, stood along side him in Selma, Alabama fighting injustice and water hoses-banded together against that insane Vietnam war and finally brouught our poor lost men and women home. When women fought for birth control and the right to choose legal abortions. Where are we now?? We all need to ask ourselves what are we doing and how did we become so blind and lost. The good news about being lost is -we need to find ourselves! Let's all figure out what we can do-besides voting that toxic, corporate, visionless President Bush out of office-what can each of us do to give back and get back our self-respect and dignity- What book can we write? What piece of art should be created? What child can we help? What animal can we save? What block can we clean up? What voice can be given to the homeless? What food to the needy? What hug to the unloved? Please let us all find a way to find our way back to giving a shit!3:42 p.m. 01/06/04 UPDATE #2" From the file of things that make me laugh, in a November 29, 2001 lewrockwell.com article, Karen De Coster writes: If you are eating a vegetarian diet that consists primarily of grains, fruits, and vegetables, you are probably eating an unbalanced diet. If you are active, it becomes even more difficult. Although vegetarian athletes can consume adequate protein from their diet, they have to be willing to eat large amounts of plant proteins, and this becomes unrealistic in the long run. That's why veggie athletes are an uncommon lot. The fruit & nut & grain crowd harp on the evils of protein, and peddle their diets as the natural way, ignoring that we are natural carnivores and not omnivores or herbivores, as they would have us believe.There are no doubt vegetarians who fit this description but they are hardly in the majority. *** Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism 9:29 p.m. 01/06/03 UPDATE #3: Sounds like a good deal. *** That's good news but I suppose the same thing could once have been said about their father. *** Why don't I live anywhere near California's largest city? 11:45 p.m. 01/07/04 UPDATE #4: smart piece *** Ron Pisaturo's September 28, 2001 piece "Why and How to Conquer the Savages" has the following summary: "A murderous leader of a foreign government forfeits his right to life, and a murderous government forfeits its right to exist." But if they are in the domestic government... The author goes on to write, "We must destroy not only those governments that 'harbor' terrorists in the future, but also those that have harbored terrorists in the past." Oddly enough he doesn't mention destroying the U.S. government, although he does say, "[a]ny nation that does not support us in our moral action is not worthy of our friendship and should be cut off from trade with and military support from America" and then "[a]fter our nuclear and other overwhelming attacks, we must demand the total surrender of these evil regimes. We must confiscate all oil properties of all Arab nations." I wonder if this "actor, playwright, screenwriter, philosopher, and student of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism" has ever thought to consider what might be some of the possible complications from such actions. 12:34 p.m. 01/08/04 UPDATE #5: Dreams: The Terry Gilliam Fanzine *** What the fuck? 12:55 p.m. 01/08/04 UPDATE #6: Aluf Benn of Ha'aretz makes the not exactly risky prediction that there won't be much progress in achieving "peace" between the Israelis and Palestinians this year in a January 7 salon.com piece entitled "A year without hope." *** Interesting lists of items. 12:47 p.m. 01/09/04 UPDATE #7: Two more reasons to live on the east coast. *** *** Peace between India and Pakistan appears right around the corner. 8:50 p.m. 01/10/04 UPDATE #8: "US military stretched too thin?" is the title of Tom Regan's January 9 csmonitor.com blog entry. 5:59 p.m. 01/11/04 UPDATE #9: In a January 10 Guardian story, Angelique Chrisafis writes: Northern Ireland, which is 99% white, is fast becoming the race-hate capital of Europe. It holds the UK's record for the highest rate of racist attacks: spitting and stoning in the street, human excrement on doorsteps, swastikas on walls, pipe bombs, arson, the ransacking of houses with baseball bats and crow bars, and white supremacist leaflets nailed to front doors.I think of Liam (Stephen Frears, 2000). *** liberation 9:33 p.m. 01/11/04 Sunday, January 04, 2004
Badly organized And with that comes the end of the most disappointing pre-conference season for the MSU men's basketball team that I can remember. Todd Schulz of The Lansing State Journal says it best, "Missing in action - Spartans' defense." Underneath all the wreckage and woe of a non conference season that saw MSU go winless in six big games lies the unavoidable truth that this team hasn't played defense.MSU is now 5-6 on the season. They start Big Ten play this Saturday against Wisconsin in Madison. I still believe the pieces are there for this team to start playing well but I'm highly doubtful that it is going to happen. Then again, sometimes Izzo has been at his best when the team is at its most desperate. *** *** Jonathan Rosenbaum on Charlie Chaplin: I don't have much patience with colleagues who dismiss Charlie Chaplin by saying that Buster Keaton was better (whatever that means). To the best of my knowledge, with the arguable exception of Dickens, no one else in the history of art has shown us in greater detail what it means to be poor, and certainly no one else in the history of movies has played to a more diverse audience or evolved more ambitiously from one feature to the next.*** "How Can You People Support David Cross" *** Tom Engelhardt says 2003 was the "Imperial Gong Show Year." Certainly everything didn't go smoothly for the "war on terror" partisans but they aren't the fast moving bunch as shown by the fact that they spent 2002 only planning new adventures, not actually engaging in them. *** I don't like Howard Dean much, but his blunt style isn't one of his drawbacks for me. In fact, it and his "anger" are what I like about him most. I could do without Dean's newfound piousness. *** Although Sean Wilentz calls it "sickening," I find myself largely in agreement with Christopher Hitchen's September 13, 2001 Guardian piece "Americans ask How, but not Why." *** Ken MacLeod's "For the sake of the argument" makes the mistake of connecting the justness of the invasion of Iraq with the issue of whether or not the Bush Administration was dishonest in the build-up to the war. A decent pro-invasion argument was of course that the removal of Saddam would result in improving the lives of most Iraqis as even some critics of the invasion, like Slavoj Zizek, recognized. That in no way means that Team Bush's acts of deception were justifiable as that deception poses problems that are not all related to the Iraqi theater of the "war on terror" and in fact involve whether or not, or to what extent, the United States is a democracy and/or a republic. *** Via Eli, Aws Al-Sharqy of Islam Online writes: A statement issued by the U.S.-led authority and broadcast by the Iraqi media network Wednesday, December31 , said no individual or group is allowed to organize marches or demonstrations or even gather in streets, public places or buildings at any time without a prior from the occupation command.I'm suspicious of this report because the statement is never quoted and I can't find anything about by searching the CPA's website. Nonetheless if true... *** Two great FReeper quotes. What kind of world will this become if the U.S. government has a blank check to drop commandos, assassins, and bombs wherever it wants?hchutch: "What kind of world will this become if the U.S. government has a blank check to drop commandos, assassins, and bombs wherever it wants?"One of the things that I find interesting about much of the modern conservative movement in the U.S. is how it has clearly defined lines between good and evil. The U.S. government, in their view, is always right outside of the U.S. and just about, if not always, wrong inside the U.S. Grover G. Norquist illustrated this in one passage from his mid-1990s description of the "Leave Us Alone" coalition: During the Cold War, Americans who were rightly concerned about the threat of Soviet imperialism were a strong part of the "Leave Us Alone" coalition. They wanted to be left alone from foreign aggression. Today, Americans with the same concern about predatory criminals are also part of the coalition. They know that the Left's response to the Soviet Union - that it wasn't hostile, that it wasn't a real threat, and that it behaved badly only because we mistreated it - is also the Left's response to crime and criminals. They also know that the Left's solution to crime, which is gun control, mirrors its belief that unilateral arms control was the proper response to the Red Army.Later he says: Let me close with an anecdote from a reunion meeting of my liberal college newspaper that took place in 1991. A now prominent liberal writer came up to me and said, "Grover, you conservatives must be so unhappy now that Bush has betrayed you on taxes.""Don't mess with us. That's our job" doesn't quite work as a slogan for Norquist's crew. I probably should write more about this topic at some point. *** I have a hard time believing that it matters all that much who captured Saddam but if this is what causes people to see Team Bush for the find adherents to the first part of the Boy Scout Law, so be it. Maybe my five years in the Boy Scouts influenced me far more than I usually think of them as doing. *** Potentially good news from Afghanistan. *** *** "Who forged the Niger uranium papers?" asks Don Sellar of the Toronto Star. *** "Five teenaged conscientious objectors who refused to join the Israel Defense Forces were sentenced to one year imprisonment each on Sunday," Lily Galili of Haaretz writes. "The time they have already served will not be deducted from their The time they have already served will not be deducted from their sentences." *** Gideon Alon of Haaretz writes: Six percent of West Bank territory will effectively be annexed into the Green Line with the completion of the separation fence planned for the end of 2005, a security official said on Sunday.*** Ze'ev Schiff of Haaretz writes: Cuts in the 2004 defense budget will constrain the war on terror in the territories, and will include the dismantling of reservists battalions that serve in the territories and guard detention centers where Palestinian prisoners are held. Also, the number of days slotted for the defense of settlements will be reduced, and training flights for Israel Air Force pilots will be canceled.*** *** "The Christian Science Monitor feature A Continent at Peace: Five African Hot Spots Cool Down describes how action by the Africans themselves and the US War on Terror has brought comparative tranquility to the continent," writes Wretchard. Funny I read Abraham McLaughlin's piece and read this graf: ...outside powers, including the United States, are more engaged. They may be motivated by antiterror fears, need for oil, or guilt for inaction during Rwanda's 1994 genocide, but they're increasingly supporting Africa's peaceful impulses.So the motivations may not be all directly died to the "war on terror" as Wretchard would have you believe and others are playing a role as well. Who? France and the United Nations are named, but I suppose they don't count anymore than Iraqis, Palestinians and other mistakes of God. Gideon Levy of Haaretz says Israelis "are all soldiers at checkpoints" or more specifically all implicated in the human rights violations of the Israeli military. Following the same logic, it could be said that all people in the "axis of the willing" are responsible for what "the coalition." Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? Don't worry though, as Chief Wiggum said tonight, "just close your eyes and club them." Saturday, January 03, 2004
Sometime in 2004 I plan to write an essay but I haven't yet "The north of Iraq was threatened by ethnic conflict yesterday as crisis talks between Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen in Kirkuk failed to prevent continuing bloodshed in the divided city," Harry de Quetteville writes in today's Telegraph "At least one man was killed after a demonstration by ethnic Arabs and Turkmen culminated in an exchange of gunfire with Kirkuk's mostly Kurdish police. The march followed a similar clash on Wednesday when five people died." *** I don't know what to make of the North Korean development. *** *** *** Apparently Britney Spears still needs to learn about self-promotion. *** I bet Al Gore is furious at unmarried women. And what are these "singles" doing in our churches? *** Don't you hate it when criminals let us all down? *** Norman Solomon on Lenny Bruce: n a noncommercial radio station about 30 years ago, while the war was still raging, I used to air an obscure record that featured some of Bruce’s final performance. He did a bit he’d presented many times before, reciting (with a thick German accent) a poem by the radically humanistic Trappist monk Thomas Merton -- a meditation on the high-ranking Nazi official Adolf Eichmann.*** Everybody knows that "Christian" rock is evil but did you the same is true of Mazda, The Promise Keepers and the Trinity Broadcasting Network? *** *** Friday, January 02, 2004
A real reason to hate Osama and other things While perhaps not as much fun as writing about "doing our best to make the Palestinians suffer," Glenn Reynolds talks about patriotism in this January 1 post: The CNN coverage was interesting, as the tone -- at least of the part I saw -- was quite unabashedly patriotic. They spent a good deal of time with a young man who was about to go off to Fort Benning, and many flags were in evidence. I noticed that the ceremonies seemed rather patriotic in tone, too, right down to the playing of "Proud to Be An American" just before midnight. You wouldn't have seen that a few years ago. . . .Now I have a legitimate reason to dislike like those motherfuckers in al Qaeda. I mean sure killing three thousand people isn't very nice but I didn't know any of them and probably wouldn't have gotten along with most. The fact that I have to deal with every idiot who's "proud to be an American" is personally distressing, on the other hand. So I say kill them all and let George C.W. Bush sort them out. *** There seems to always be a reason to laugh at Reynolds. Today he writes, "The quality is about like Super-8 -- not great, but not terrible." *** Pat "From Swinger to Saint" Robertson informed the audience of today's 700 Club that he recently had spent a great deal of time in prayer, which lead to the revelations that the presidential election in the United States will be a "blowout" this year because Bush is a "man of prayer" and that "God loves China." *** Pat on "the United States in end-times events." *** *** "Stop the Disease of Masturbation" *** In a December 31 AP story, Gavin Rabinowitz writes: Israel is looking for ways to gag a whistleblower who is due to be released from prison in the new year, fearing that he may have more nuclear secrets to disclose that will embarrass the government, officials said yesterday.I think we all know what would be said if this was being done by a country that Uncle Sam and/or God didn't care for. Bradley Burston of Haaretz reports on a new Israeli military refusals and raises my level of optimism slightly. *** *** "British troops will still be in Iraq on New Year's Day 2005, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has said," BBC News writes. Hopefully nobody was expecting anything different. In a story from yesterday, Will Dunham of Reuters writes: The Pentagon is gearing up for a massive rotation of about a quarter million troops in and out of Iraq, a giant logistics chore complicated by concerns about opportunistic attacks targeting Americans as they arrive or depart.*** Helen Thomas on the assholes who run the U.S. more... *** Amos Harel and Arnon Regular of Haaretz write: A member of Sweden's parliament, arrested as he took part in a protest against the construction of the West Bank security barrier, is to be freed Thursday evening and fly home, a spokeswoman for the Interior Ministry said.Although I'm opposed to both family and heritage, there are moments where I can say I take small amount of pride in my Swedish roots. *** Since Ralph Nader has said he won't run for president this year as the Green Party candidate, perhaps Dennis Kucinich should leave the Dems and carry that banner. It appears he would have some support. David Cobb, Paul Glover, Kent Mesplay, Carol Miller and Lorna Salzman have all announced they are seeking the nomination. *** Somebody has the right attitude.Robert Dreyfuss of The American Prospect on new para-military fun. *** Mark Twain's "The War Prayer" may be my favorite piece of writing ever. *** What was that shit about human rights and democracy and freedom? *** John Zarocostas of The Washington Times writes: Cuban National Assembly President Ricardo Alarcon, dismissing U.S. charges that Cuba is developing weapons of mass destruction as the words of a "liar," says Bush administration policies have made the risk of U.S. invasion "a real, present danger for us."Of course Castro's government has been saying this for a long time. More: Mr. Alarcon, a former foreign minister and one of the founders of the Cuban Revolution, took strong exception to remarks by Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton.The similarity is probably lost on most. *** I suppose nobody wants to send me to "Three Minutes to Midnight: NPRI Symposium on the Impending Threat of Nuclear War." *** CBS News writes: The Energy Department is conducting a widespread review of security at America's nuclear weapons laboratories after reports of hundreds of missing keys, some of which could allow access to sensitive areas.Remember Bush had to invade Iraq to avoid a possible catastrophic attack on the U.S. and he is our president so he deserves respect. Thursday, January 01, 2004
The fifth year of the decade that began when 1999 ended I'd love to wish everyone a happy new year but I really don't see the point. It will be a great year for some but others will die, unless of course we all die, and more will suffer. There's no way around this reality that each new day brings both greater joy and greater pain. I would make predictions but I don't see much point in that either. Reading William Safire's predictions may be fun but I can't help but think that such predictions are snap judgments better suited for gambling advice than any analysis. That said, I fully expect that Team Bush will give me plenty of slightly different reasons to dislike them and that the bulk of his opponents will do the same. As far as 2003 was for me personally, I'm not really sure how I would evaluate it as the year seemed more like a mix of everything as opposed to have any consistent themes. I did well in some areas but not very well in others. In 2004 I plan to spend more time "reading" and engaging with the writings of Theodor Adorno, Mikhail Bakhtin, Jean Baudrillard, Jacques Derrida, Michael Hardt, Linda Hutcheon, Frederic Jameson, Antonio Negri, Robert Stam and Slavoj Zizek, the films of Stan Brakhage and Charlie Chaplin and the mulit-format comedy of Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor and those in and around Mr. Show/alt-comedy milieu. That isn't exactly a modest list and I don't expect to get "through" any of them in the next 12 months but I do plan to focus on these entities and related digressions along with current events and the "end times" and rapture theories that fascinate me. No guarantees but these topics will most likely show up in my blog. I'd also like to get into performing comedy, as well as writing it in a more organized manner. I believe I could be successful in this field if I just could get up enough gumption to try it. My plan is to start performing stand-up, make it huge in show-business, become well-known for brilliant comedy and associating with the likes of Lewis Black, David Cross, Rosario Dawson, Vanessa Martinez and Mary Lynn Rajskub. Then Cribs will take a look at my domicile and the entire world will know I really like Simpsons merchandise. As far as this blog goes, I don't know for sure how much content I will be creating or what I will be focusing on. I guess the cliché "only time will tell" is apt. *** Ken MacLeod and Micah Holmquist *** Blixa writes: At the end of this post (about - what else - the "dishonest"y of Bush's "Team"), it appears as if Micah Holmquist has generously extended an invitation to the Secret Service to come pay him a visit for the New Year.LMAO Blixa takes a critical look at various sides -not exactly a common trait amongst bloggers- in his excellent blog. In particular, I suggest checking out these two posts. *** And I'm sure Uncle Sam will soon be leaving Afghanistan. *** *** Freedom of press in Uncle Sam's Iraq: Another soldier pushed away two Western women who were trying to videotape the scene.*** In a wonderful piece entitled "Life During Wartime: Squinting at the many hues of terror" Brian Linse of Reason writes: ...even the most imaginatively fearful can't help but notice that if our nation is indeed crawling with al Queda sleeper agents with the desire and ability to pull off murderous assaults on our way of life, they are sleeping suspiciously soundly. It seems most likely that America really isn't acrawl with such enemies, and if it is, they are singularly unimaginative and incompetent. Any random gang of Soldier of Fortune-reading teenagers could land serious blows to America's infrastructure every day if they didn't care if they lived or died.The only change I would make is replacing "can't" with "shouldn't be able to" since "war on terror" partisans have a tendency to not let reality get in the way of their arguments. *** Some don't the "war on terror" is expansive enough at this point. In a December 31 Telegraph story -found through blogdex- David Rennie writes: President George W Bush was sent a public manifesto yesterday by Washington's hawks, demanding regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites.The text in question is An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror (American Enterprise Institute, 2003). One thing to keep in mind is that, however expansive this agenda is, it is perfectly logical if you accept the Bush Administration's publicly stated basis for their "war on terror." "[A]ll the latest right-wing agenda demands is that Bush should prepare for war against Syria, Iran, North Korea, with an option for future action against Saudi Arabia and France," Betsy Devine writes. She forgot to mention the part about arming other countries so we can pretend they are a threat in the future. *** Willie Nelson isn't exactly on the same page as Frum and Perle. Nelson tells Reuters that he was inspired to write "What Ever Happened To Peace On Earth" last Thursday (Christmas Day) in response to the news. The lyrics: There's so many things going on in the worldI don't think every supporter of invading Iraq or the broader "war on terror" is part of a "bewildered herd" but most, not just many, are and that is evidenced by how they haven't spent a single second thinking about whether or not what Team Bush is currently saying makes sense in light of what they previously said. Oh, I hear the Iraqi women just love "freedom." |
