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.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

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
AlterNet (War on Iraq)
Alternative Press Review
Always Low Prices -- Always
Another Irani online
antiwar.com (blog)
Asia Times Online
Axis of Logic
Baghdad Burning (riverbend)
BBC News
blogdex.net ("track this weblog")
bobanddavid.com
BuzzFlash
The Christian Science Monitor (Daily Update)
Common Dreams
Cryptome
Cursor
Daily Rotten
DefenseLINK
Democracy Now
The Drudge Report
Eat the Press (Harry Shearer, The Huffington Post)
Empire Notes (Rahul Mahajan)
frontpagemag.com (HorowitzWatch)
globalsecurity.org
greenandwhite.com
Guardian Unlimited
Haaretz
The Independent
Information Clearing House
Informed Comment (Juan Cole)
Iranians for Peace

Iraq Dispatches (Dahr Jamail)
Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation
Iraq Occupation and Resistance Report (Psychoanalysts for Peace and Justice)
MetaFilter
MLive
Mr. Show and Other Comedy
The Narco News Bulletin (blog)
NEWSMAKINGNEWS
The New York Times
Occupation Watch
Political Theory Daily Review
Press Action
Project Syndicate
Raed in the Middle (Raed Jarrar)
random-abstract.com
Reuters
Salon
The Simpsons Archive
Simpsons Collector Sector
Slate
Sploid
Technorati ("search for mth.blogspot.com")
thi3rdeye
United States Central Command
U.S. Embassy Baghdad, Iraq
venezuelanalysis.com
War Report (Project on Defense Alternatives)
The Washington Post
Wildfire (Jo Wilding)
wood s lot
www.mnftiu.cc (David Rees)

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
As'ad AbuKhalil
Ken Adrian
Christopher Allbritton
Alli
Douglas Anders
Mark W. Anderson
Aziz Ansari
Atomic Archive
Bagatellen
James Benjamin
Elton Beard
Charlie Bertsch
alister black
Blame India Watch
Blixa
Blog Left: Critical Interventions Warblog / war blog
Igor Boog
Martin Butler
Chris Campbell
James M. Capozzola
Avedon Carol
Elaine Cassel
cats blog
Jeff Chang
Margaret Cho
Citizens Of Upright Moral Character
Louis CK
Les Dabney
Dack
Natalie Davis
Scoobie Davis
The Day Job
Jodi Dean
Dominic Duval
Steve Earle
Eli
Daniel Ellsberg
Tom Engelhardt
Lisa English
Faramin
Barbara Flaska
Brian Flemming
Joe Foster
Yoshie Furuhashi
Al Giordano
Glovefox
Rob Goodspeed
Grand Puba
Guardian Unlimited Weblog
Pete Guither
The Hairy Eyeball
Ray Hanania
Mark Hand
harveypekar.com
Hector Rottweiller Jr's Web Log Jim Henley Arvin Hill Hit & Run (Reason) Hugo Clark Humphrey Indri The Iraqi Agora Dru Oja Jay Jeff Lynne d Johnson Dallas Jones Julia Kane Blues Benjamin Kepple Ken Layne Phil Leggiere Brian Linse Adam Magazine Majority Report Radio Marc Maron Josh Marshall Jeralyn Merritt J.R. Mooneyham Michael Scott Moore Bob Morris Bob Mould Mr. Show and Tell Muslims For Nader/Camejo David Neiwert NewPages Weblog Aimee Nezhukumatathil Sean O'Brien Patton Oswalt The Panda's Thumb Randy Paul Rodger A. Payne Ian Penman politx Neal Pollack Greg Proops Pro-War.com Pure Polemics Seyed Razavi Rayne Simon Reynolds richardpryor.com Clay Richards Mike Rogers Yuval Rubinstein
Steven Rubio
Saragon Noah Shachtman Court Schuett The Simpsons Archive Amardeep Singh Sam Smith Soundbitten Jack Sparks Ian Spiers Morgan Spurlock Stand Down: The Left-Right Blog Opposing an Invasion of Iraq Aaron Stark Morgaine Swann Tapped (The American Prospect) tex Matthew Tobey Annie Tomlin Tom Tomorrow The University Without Condition Jesse Walker Warblogger Watch Diane Warth The Watchful Babbler The Weblog we have brains Matt Welch
Alex Whalen
Jon Wiener
Lizz Winstead
James Wolcott
Wooster Collective
Mickey Z

Sunday, February 29, 2004
 
The Haitian example

Jean Bertrand Aristide is out, Boniface Alexandre is in and conditions might be better. (But maybe they aren't.)

Oh yeah, Team Bush is probably quite pleased. "President Aristide resigned," the Aristide of the United States said today. "I would urge the people of Haiti to reject violence, to give this break from the past a chance to work. And the United States is prepared to help."

This represents a huge change in U.S. policy towards Haiti, which historically has been based on trying to control Haiti, a stance that doesn't appear to have changed recently. But Bush is a man of his word, so we all have to assume that things will be different this time.

I suspect what we see here is an example of how the U.S. would prefer to handle all of these disputes. Destabilize a country with a leader who "needs" to be replaced -you listening Hugo?-, broker a deal and allow a government that is in line with U.S. interests, and knows what the punishment for not doing Uncle Sam's business, to come into being. Then they can dance in the Oval Office or whatever Bush and friends like to do when celebrating.

See, it all works out fine for everyone!

UPDATE: Was the U.S. behind Aristide's resignation?

Jim Defede, Carol Rosenberg and Martin Merzer of The Miami Herald write:

Ousted Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide claims he ''did not resign'' and was ''kidnapped'' by U.S. diplomatic and military officials, U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters told The Herald on Monday...

Randall Robinson, former head of TransAfrica and a longtime Aristide friend, also spoke with Aristide and the Aristide's wife on Monday and relayed a similar account. He said Aristide was ''fairly impassioned'' and ``said he did not resign.''

''He said he was taken at gunpoint,'' Robinson said. ``Now I don't know that hands were laid on him. I think when you have big guns, the hands aren't necessary, you get the point.''

It was not completely clear if Aristide was using the term ''kidnapped'' in the literal sense or metaphorically, but Robinson was inclined to take the report literally.

''The point is he was taken against his will,'' Robinson said from his home on the island of St. Kitts. ``That he was clear about, so I don't think it was the metaphorical usage.''

U.S. Ambassador James Foley said in Port-au-Prince on Sunday that Aristide was told Saturday night and Sunday morning that the rebels were advancing, his security could not be guaranteed and he should strongly consider signing a resignation letter and seeking asylum.

Other U.S. officials said they ''facilitated'' Aristide's departure by arranging for a secure airplane and finding a country that would accept him. They said Aristide realized that his shaky hold on power -- and his own safety -- was threatened.

Agence France-Presse writes:
A man who said he was a caretaker for the now exiled president told France's RTL radio station the troops forced Aristide out.

"The American army came to take him away at two in the morning," the man said.

"The Americans forced him out with weapons.

"It was American soldiers. They came with a helicopter and they took the security guards.

"(Aristide) was not happy. He did not want to be taken away. He did not want to leave. He was not able to fight against the Americans."

The radio program Democracy Now says:
Multiple sources that just spoke with Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide told Democracy Now! that Aristide says he was "kidnapped" and taken by force to the Central African Republic. Congressmember Maxine Waters said she received a call from Aristide at 9am EST. "He's surrounded by military. It's like he is in jail, he said. He says he was kidnapped," said Waters. She said he had been threatened by what he called US diplomats. According to Waters, the diplomats reportedly told the Haitian president that if he did not leave Haiti, paramilitary leader Guy Philippe would storm the palace and Aristide would be killed. According to Waters, Aristide was told by the US that they were withdrawing Aristide's US security.

TransAfrica founder and close Aristide family friend Randall Robinson also received a call from the Haitian president early this morning and confirmed Waters account. Robinson said that Aristide "emphatically" denied that he had resigned. "He did not resign," he said. "He was abducted by the United States in the commission of a coup." Robinson says he spoke to Aristide on a cell phone that was smuggled to the Haitian president.

Here's the transcript of Amy Goodman's interview with Maxine Waters on Democracy Now

In a Taipei Times piece entitled "The fire this time in Haiti was US-fueled," Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University says the White House "appears to have succeeded in its long-time goal of toppling Aristide through years of blocking international aid to his impoverished nation."

In a related story, Patrick Markey or Reuters writes:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called U.S. President George W. Bush an "asshole" on Sunday for meddling, and vowed never to quit office like his Haitian counterpart as troops battled with opposition protesters demanding a recall referendum against him.

Chavez, who often says the U.S. is backing opposition efforts to topple his leftist government, accused Bush of heeding advice from "imperialist" aides to support a brief 2002 coup against him.

"He was an asshole to believe them," Chavez roared at a huge rally of supporters in Caracas.

An "asshole" he is, but perhaps one still in the minors. 2:47 p.m. 03/01/04

UPDATE #2: CNN reports that they interviewed Aristide yesterday and that he said he was effectively removed from power by the Uncle Sam.

Aristide "was not kidnaped," Powell said yesterday.

In a story published yesterday, Steven Dudley of The Boston Globe writes:

An accusation in a Miami courtroom last week that President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was personally involved in drug-trafficking apparently gave the United States more leverage to persuade Aristide to leave the country, diplomats in Haiti said yesterday.

The allegation was made Wednesday by Haitian Beaudoin "Jacques" Ketant, a convicted drug-trafficker and a former Aristide confidant, as he was sentenced to a 27-year prison term in federal court in Florida.

Aristide's lawyer angrily denied the allegation, saying Ketant was trying to save himself by making unfounded accusations against Aristide. And the United States has not accused Aristide of involvement in trafficking.

But US officials have been adamant over the last year that Haiti has become an increasingly important transshipment point for cocaine and other illicit drugs into the United States.

The most serious charges of drug-trafficking in Haiti have been leveled not at Aristide but at some of the leaders of the insurgency that had battled to unseat him in a revolt that began Feb. 5 in northern Haiti. Many analysts and diplomats remain nervous of a future Haiti government that includes these powerful rebels, many of them associated with previous, brutal Haitian regimes.

The Florida case highlighted the growth of the drug-trafficking network there. Ketant told the court: "He [Aristide] controlled the drug trade in Haiti. He turned the country into a narco-country. It's a one-man show. You either pay [Aristide] or you die."

Three diplomats based in Haiti who were familiar with the negotiations that led Aristide to leave the country at dawn yesterday said on condition of anonymity that they understood Washington had used Ketant's public words and private cooperation with US prosecutors to add to the pressure on Aristide.

In another March 1 story, Ron Howell of New York Newsday writes:
The departure of Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide is a victory for a Bush administration hard-liner who has been long dedicated to Aristide's ouster, U.S. foreign policy analysts say.

That official is Roger Noriega, assistant U.S. secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, whose influence over U.S. policy toward Haiti has increased during the past decade as he climbed the diplomatic ladder in Washington.

One question that Aristide needs to be asked is if he feels he faces the possibility of retaliation for speaking out. It seems odd, but by no means beyond the realm of possibility, that he would be removed and detained, but allowed to say whatever he wanted. Then again, I suppose if government officials and reporters were not able to contact him, an even bigger scandal would appear to be going on.

***

Hey Haiti, Uncle Sam will tell you what to do so just shut the hell up! 9:22 a.m. 03/02/04


Saturday, February 28, 2004
 
We don't care about democracy, says Uncle Sam

Remember how creating a society "not ruled by corrupt monarchs or brutal dictators" was the real reason the U.S. had to invade Iraq since this would lead to democracy spreading throughout the Arab world?

Well, unless you want to say Arabs are inherently different from other races of people, which goes against the party line, you can scratch that one off the list of still standing reasons for invading Iraq as Team Bush has all but said they don't believe it.

Armed insurgents in Haiti, who may be a proxy army of the United States, seek to overthrow elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. This situation could have terrible results, if it hasn't already. How has the U.S. responded? By backing up democracy? By threatening to intervene in defense of democracy?

Yeah right.

Even as Team Bush promotes democracy for the Middle East, They make it clear they don't care about it in Haiti. Asked on Thursday about whether Aristide should stay in office, good cop Powell said Aristide "is the democratically elected president, but he has had difficulties in his presidency, and I think as a number of people have commented, whether or not he is able to effectively continue as president is something that he will have to examine. I hope he will examine it carefully, considering the interests of the Haitian people."

How the end of Haitian democracy would impact democracy in the Caribbean is not discussed for reasons that you will just have to guess. Personally I’m worried about tyranny coming to Puerto Rico, and you know what that would mean.

Hit a rough spot and democracy has apparently failed, if the Bush Administration wants it to fail.


 
Michigan State 67
Penn State 42

Yawn

***

In last Sunday's Observer, Mark Townsend and Paul Harris write:

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..[sic]

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

More on the fun that might soon happen.

***

a nice little outpost

***

goddamn socialism

***

lying assholes

***

To paraphrase Van Halen, don't tell me what John can do.

***

freedom

***

fiscal responsibility

***

Speaking of the good Christian freedom fighter patriots of Grand Rapids, yesterday in that town, which isn't nearly as monolithic as the story I just linked to would have you believe, I saw a "I'll Fight for Freedom" bumper sticker on some SUV. I wonder if it belongs to Jan Scott:

At a school trip to an ice skating rink in downtown Grand Rapids, three mothers said they, too, were cheering for the amendment. "Gay marriage goes against God's plan for a man and a woman to join together," said Jan Scott, a mother of six and a member of the Revenna Baptist Church. "Homosexuals are disillusioned by lies from Satan."

Still, Ms. Scott said, she was fully committed to voting for Mr. Bush even if he remained silent on the subject. "I would have been disappointed, but I still would have supported him," she said, adding, "I know what Bush is like behind the scenes, things that don't get in the press, because I read Christian publications." She recounted an episode she had read about the president touching the injured arm and kissing the forehead of an amputee returning Iraq. "That is the kind of love that comes from God."

God Damn that Satan and Bless that Bush!

***

more freedom***

Here are interviews with Ken Auletta, Albert Brooks, Dave Chappelle, David Cross, Larry Flynt, Spalding Gray, Michael Hudson, Neal Pollack and Brian Vaughn.

UPDATE: Here are interviews with Roy Ayers, Barry Blaustein, Margaret Cho, Michael Davis, Janeane Garofalo and Neal Pollack. 5:14 p.m. 02/29/04

UPDATE #2: Here are interviews with Terry Jones and Craig Thompson. 6:51 p.m. 03/01/04


Friday, February 27, 2004
 
Micah Holmquist's Press Action piece "Bush to Seek Reelection" is worth a read, IMHO.

***

In a story about concerns that that the Oscars might feature some political comments, Agence France Presse informs us that, "[l]ast year, liberal US documentary maker Michael Moore scandalised Hollywood and America when he lauched [sic] a vitriolic attack on US President George W. Bush for waging war in Iraq."

That seems to be a bit much but then there's this obvious lie:

At the 1993 Oscars, [Tim] Robbins and [Susan] Sarandon caused a sensation by slamming then president Bill Clinton over the treatment of AIDS-infected Haitian refugees detained at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
Laughable. Everybody knows that no one on the left ever criticized Bill Clinton.

***

I'm baffled by lost-in-racism.org, a project of asianmediawatch.net that attempts to argue that Lost in Translation is racist. The character Bob and Charlotte aren't supposed to be perfect and are in fact highly flawed people who we shouldn't be shocked to find out are prejudiced.

Then there's this:

The theme of traveling in a foreign land was not essential to the film.
Save for the metaphor that gives the film a greater meaning than that embedded in the narrative, that's correct.

***

Mark I. Pinsky of The Orlando Sentinel says there is increased interest in Mary Magdalene.

***

Susan Hogan/Albach of The Dallas Morning News reports that some Christians are questioning the significance of the Crucifixion.

***

Is seethepassion.com really needed?

***

jpost.com writes:

Shas leader MK Eli Yishai has demanded that Mel Gibson's new film, "The Passion of the Christ" be banned from screening and distribution in Israel.

"It is unthinkable that a movie whose sole aim is to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Jewish people will be screened in the Jewish State. The movie repeats a blood libel from the dawn of history," the Shas leader said.

Yishai also called for the film's director to be brought to trial, and he called on the Foreign Ministry to ask Jews in the US to boycott the film.

Talk about something that would inspire anti-Semitism.

***

Matt C. Abbott says Hollywood hates God

***

repentantnadervoter.com

***

modernist and post-modernist views

***

What the fuck

***

prayer


Thursday, February 26, 2004
 
"You take my college money and you turn that goddamn AC on buddy!"

           
                                                                             -Bill Hicks

I'd planned to post a tribute to Bill Hicks, who passed away on this day in 1994, but time got away from me and it will have to wait for another day.

***

Hicks recognized in the House of Commons


Wednesday, February 25, 2004
 

Press Release

True Catholic TraditionalistSociety

Mel Gibson Shakes Hands with the Devil to Take the Unsuspecting on a Trip to Hell

The True Catholic Traditionalist Society calls upon Mel Gibson to immediately renounce soul damning ecumenicalism and to publicly and incontrovertibly state that salvation without membership in the Church is impossible and then spend a lot of time in the Confessional. Furthermore we call up all Catholic traditionalists to boycott Gibson until Gibson denounces all heresy.

Gibson directed and produced the new film The Passion of the Christ, which documents the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ. The filmmaker intends for viewers of the picture to understand "the enormity of [the] sacrifice" of Christ, but in promoting the picture Gibson has
made unholy alliances with heretics who seek to prevent people from joining the One True Church.

According to a story by Bob Baker and William Lobdell that first appeared in the January 30 edition of The Los Angeles Times, "Gibson's production company... is courting the [Christian] market by hiring several Christian marketing companies to work various segments of the potential audience. The best known is a Vista, Calif., company called Outreach Inc."

Outreach Inc. describes itself as "a non-denominational ministry that works with all Bible believing Christian churches that embrace traditional Christian theology."

There is no mention of the necessity of belong to the one true Church on either the homepage of Outreach Inc. or on the site this group of heretics have set up specifically to promote The Passion of the Christ.

The producers of the film have also screened the The Passion of the Christ to "churches" that are not part of the One True Church, according to an article in the January 31 edition of the radical leftist British newspaper The Guardian. (It cannot be ruled out that some of these outfits may even explicitly reject the One True Church.

These same "churches" are already planning to use this movie to spread their falsehoods. There is the risk that many will go from merely being disobedient to God to actively working against Him!

Like the members of The True Catholic Traditionalist Society, Gibson practices traditional Catholicism. We reject that Vatican II was infallible and condemn the many errors and heresies of John Paul II. We affirm the true and infallible traditional teachings of the Catholic Church, knowing that the Dogmas of Faith should never change.

We are adherents and members of One True Church. Most importantly, we understand, "Outside the Church there is no salvation." Non-members go directly to purgatory or whatever the hell we believe in. These facts are clear to all who can read as each appears on no less than 19% of the pages of the Bible.

Gibson was a follower of these truths until very recently. His Latin public service advertisements for us consistently rank amongst the most popular PSAs done for any group in a dead language. In an interview with The New Yorker last year, Gibson says salvation can only come through membership in the Church. "There is no salvation for those outside the Church." And, more recently Gibson has said that his wife, a heretic of the Episcopalian variety, will not be saved.

What explains Gibson's change of heart and embrace of Satan?

We have to believe that, like many men before him, Satan's promise of a little gold in his pocket has corrupted him so that he now rejects God's message. While we pray that Gibson returns to the fold, this example shows how just how dark and evil Lucifer really is. This fallen angel seeks to capture us at every point in our lives. From the pits of hell he probably saw Gibson making a movie that would bring people to Salvation and decided to tempt Gibson. It is only through God's One True Church that we can defeat this evil.


Tuesday, February 24, 2004
 
(cliched sportswriter bullshit) It wasn’t the first time this season Michigan State looked left for dead. Trailing Michigan, 52-40, it looked like a repeat of the loss to Illinois two weeks earlier. Or the loss to Kansas, or Duke, Oklahoma, Kentucky, UCLA, Syracuse, Wisconsin and Purdue. It looked like this MSU team was incapable of winning the big game.

Oh they would make it look close, but they couldn’t win. The team that Magic Johnson promised would bring MSU its third national championship could not do that or much of anything else.

Not this time.

When it mattered –the final 11 minutes- Michigan State played their best ball of the season in Ann Arbor, scoring 32 points and holding Michigan to 17.

The crowd primed on "Hail to the Victors" went home, having seen MSU prevail, 72-69. (/cliched sportswriter bullshit)

Tremendous game. Kelvin Torbert most likely was the difference. He scored 15 of his 18 points in the second half.

Never doubt Izzo.

There was a beautiful moment in the second half when Michigan missed a shot and four Spartans surrounded the basket, each closer to the ball than anybody from Michigan.

***

Funny how I can write economically about sports with far more ease than I can when the topic is more serious, or even my inability to write without including more words than I probably should include.

UPDATE: More on the win. 11:29 a.m. 02/25/04


 
Grey Tuesday

***

"If Aristide must fall," I suspect that investors from the U.S. will look slightly more favorably upon the country.

***

John Lahr on Bill Hicks

***

"A Historical Argument Against the Separation of Church and State: The Christian Heritage of the United States, and its Woeful Destiny as a Backslidden Nation"

***

CovenantNews.com and openconfrontation.com are Christian fundamentalist sites that are "interesting." Via the latter, I came across bushrevealed.com.

***

What an asshole

***

I take it that Frank doesn't support animal rights.

***

"In its effort to relieve overstretched U.S. troops in Iraq, the Bush administration has hired a private security company staffed with former henchmen of South Africa’s apartheid regime," Marc Perelman writes in Forward.

***

"’The Passion’ Poses a Unique Problem for Messianic Jews," says Max Gross of Forward.

***

Jews for Jesus on The Passion of the Christ

***

" Day by day, the nation's capital is becoming a fortress, turning a city known for graceful beauty into a virtual armed camp. In response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, federal security agents along with their counterparts in the Washington, Maryland and Virginia governments began a huge effort to build permanent safeguards for the capital area's most important buildings and monuments," Michael Janofsky writes in a New York Times story dated February 21.

***

Margaret Cho on Rev. Jackson

UPDATE: GOD BLESS PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH FOR STANDING UP TO THOSE HOMOSEXUALS IN A POSITIVE MANNER! 6:56 P.M. 02/24/04

UPDATE #2: Norma Sherry on men of God

***

"According to organisations connected with film, theatre, music, opera and dance, new American immigration and visa policies are making it extremely difficult, sometimes impossible, for foreign artists of all sorts to come to the US to perform and show their work," James Verini writes in the February 18 edition of The Guardian.

***

liberation

***

This really sure makes sense.

***

Three cheers for Jap militarism

***

God Bless America 9:56 a.m. 02/25/04

UPDATE #3: "Ten months after their 'liberation', Iraqi women have only just started to leave their houses to carry out ordinary tasks such as taking their kids to school, shopping or visiting neighbours. They do so despite the risk of kidnapping or worse. It is women and children who bear the brunt of the absence of law and order, the lack of security and the availability of weapons," Haifa Zangana writes in last Thursday's Guardian. "Ten months on, most women graduates are still unemployed. Seventy-two per cent of working Iraqi women were public employees, and the public sector is in tatters. Other workers are suffering too."

***

More fruits of victory

***

yes

***

LOL 11:25 a.m. 02/25/04


Monday, February 23, 2004
 
The problem with this democracy or why the fact that Nader could be a "spoiler" shows there are bigger concerns than electing the non-Bush

Ralph Nader is running for president again.

From the look of the media, Nader's big campaign issue will be whether or not he can prevent the democratic nominee from beating George W. Bush.

I for one am furious at Nader for messing up the nice fun binary political system that has served us so well.

Actually, in case the sarcasm wasn't clear, no I'm not. The two-party system is a sad joke and if these enraged Democrats who are so furious about Nader running and ruining their chance of beating Bush should be, especially after 2000, pushing for electoral reform so that the impact of third-party candidates is lessened.

More importantly, isn't it odd that, despite how much they dislike Bush, none of these Democrats seem to think Bush shouldn't be running. Apparently a non-stop festival of war and corporate cronyism is a record that needs to be considered, but Nader is beyond what's acceptable.

Essentially what the Nader shouldn't run crowd is saying that the U.S. not only has a two-party political system but that it should have a two-party political system. (When will be the right time to run?)

If that's their view of "democracy" in the Uncle Sam's land, fine. But don't expect me to be satisfied by the "solutions" that come from such a limited vision.

UPDATE: The above grafs were more of a rant than most posts on this blog are. It sharply put forward my opinion on one of the main issues related to Nader's candidacy, but was not a complete assessment.

For the record, I think Nader running as an independent, as opposed to as the candidate of the Green Party, is problematic because it lessens the potential for leaving behind institutions, and Nader is delusional if he thinks he could actually win.

Nader's gambit of not running on social issues is interesting, but I'm doubtful if it will pay off politically or ethically.

Most importantly, while I think there is merit to Nader's critique of corporate power, I suspect that the "war on terror" will be the biggest issue in this campaign and I'm doubtful that Nader's criticisms of it will be particularly to the point. 2:35 p.m. 02/23/04

UPDATE #2: Last night I watched CSPAN's broadcast of Nader's responses yesterday to questions from reporters. Unlike more mainstream prez candidates Nader neither looks particularly happy nor talks as if his election would solve most of the problems they want to solve. These qualities, along with the realities of the electoral system, probably ensure that Nader will never gain much popular support.

***

It would be such a shame if Kerry isn't elected. Such a shame. It might be the worst moment ever, and I do mean ever. 8:48 a.m. 02/24/04


Sunday, February 22, 2004
 
We care a lot like Faith No More

Once upon a time Al Haig was at least as much the Secretary of State as he was a punch line and the policy of the U.S. government was that fighting terrorism and protecting human rights were not one in the same, and that the former was more important.

Now, however, the U.S. knows better and fighting terrorism and promoting human rights, freedom, democracy and all sorts of other good things is seen as mutually inclusive activities.

This change hasn't been the result of a linear change. As Rodger A. Payne has noted, Bush campaigned in 2000 on the idea that the U.S. military should only be used to defend U.S. interests, not human rights as Bush said the Clinton Administration had done. At the same time, the Persian Gulf War in 1991, which was run by the current president's father, in the words of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri's Empire (Harvard University Press, 2000), "presented the United States as the only power able to manage international justice, not as a function of its own national motives but in the name of global right."

The exact course that U.S. policy took to achieve this change isn't as important as that beyond any doubt it became part of the rhetoric of the "war on terror" at the very start of that "war." This past November 6 Bush said:

Liberty is both the plan of Heaven for humanity, and the best hope for progress here on Earth.

The progress of liberty is a powerful trend. Yet, we also know that liberty, if not defended, can be lost. The success of freedom is not determined by some dialectic of history. By definition, the success of freedom rests upon the choices and the courage of free peoples, and upon their willingness to sacrifice. In the trenches of World War I, through a two-front war in the 1940s, the difficult battles of Korea and Vietnam, and in missions of rescue and liberation on nearly every continent, Americans have amply displayed our willingness to sacrifice for liberty.

The sacrifices of Americans have not always been recognized or appreciated, yet they have been worthwhile. Because we and our allies were steadfast, Germany and Japan are democratic nations that no longer threaten the world. A global nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union ended peacefully -- as did the Soviet Union. The nations of Europe are moving towards unity, not dividing into armed camps and descending into genocide. Every nation has learned, or should have learned, an important lesson: Freedom is worth fighting for, dying for, and standing for -- and the advance of freedom leads to peace.

And now we must apply that lesson in our own time. We've reached another great turning point -- and the resolve we show will shape the next stage of the world democratic movement.

Our commitment to democracy is tested in countries like Cuba and Burma and North Korea and Zimbabwe -- outposts of oppression in our world. The people in these nations live in captivity, and fear and silence. Yet, these regimes cannot hold back freedom forever -- and, one day, from prison camps and prison cells, and from exile, the leaders of new democracies will arrive.

Or so the Bush Administration wants us to believe.

Too bad they can't make this argument with any sort of consistency. In the same speech, Bush says, " For the Palestinian people, the only path to independence and dignity and progress is the path of democracy."

And, two days ago, the Haig of today said, "We hope other governments, too, like Syria, will realize that chemical weapons and other WMD programs won’t make their countries safer, their people more prosperous, or their own hold on power more secure. To the contrary. It goes in the other direction."

Lady Liberty cares about the second half of her name just enough so as to give those who are deemed to be the antithesis of what it wants tips on how to maintain their power.

It isn't just in rhetoric that the Bush Administration has problems carrying through on promoting freedom. In a statement from Monday, the International Institute for Strategic Studies writes:

President George W Bush’s administration has on many occasions, since 11 September 2001 argued that when governments respect both the rule of law and human rights, the contribute to a world where terrorism cannot thrive. For this reason, as well as the US commitment to the promotion of its values, the US claims that it will not relax its vigilance when it comes to the advancement of human rights. However, since 11 September there are many examples that suggest the US has compromised its stance in the sphere of human-rights promotion, as it searches for military bases, intelligence cooperation and political support in the struggles against terrorism.
Kim Sengupta of The Independent has more on the IISS's findings.

A February 18 report by Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives makes it clear that the U.S. military has worked to keep knowledge of how many civilians have been killed by the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq from impacting public discourse. If Bush and friends actually cared, they would want to know what impact their actions were having and they would want others to know as well. After all, it was Bush who, in the same November 6 speech quoted above, said, "Successful societies limit the power of the state and the power of the military -- so that governments respond to the will of the people, and not the will of an elite."


Saturday, February 21, 2004
 
Two examples of why Bill Hicks would not be pleased with the world and other notes

Ten years ago this Thursday, February 26, the brilliant Bill Hicks passed away. Two examples of why Hicks would not be pleased...

-As noted yesterday, there's this story:

Jeremy Hinzman said he could barely stomach chanting "kill we will" during basic training and, as a Quaker, he didn't want to shoot anybody. But it was the thought of serving U.S. interests in Iraq that made the 82nd Airborne Division specialist flee to Canada last month.

"I would have felt no different than a private in the German Army during World War II," he said by phone from Toronto, where he is seeking refugee status...

...from the beginning, basic training bothered him. He said he was horrified by the chanting about blood and killing during marches, by the shooting at targets without faces and by what he called the dehumanization of the enemy.

"It's like watching some kind of scary movie, except I was in it," he said. "People would just walk around saying things like, 'Oh, I want to kill somebody.'"

He felt that the prospect of killing should be taken more seriously and that soldiers should not talk about death in such a cavalier way, he said.

This is they type of thing that could have been avoided if Hinzman have heard Hicks scream about the military, "Aren't you a bunch of hired killers? Shut Up! You are thugs and when we want you to kill a bunch of brown people - we'll let you know!"

(Chuck Simmins says hang Jeremy Hinzman. That seems a just a bit extreme to me.)

-In Thursday's New York Post, William Neuman writes:

Replicas of the nails used to hang Jesus on the cross have become the red-hot official merchandise linked to Mel Gibson's controversial new movie, "The Passion of the Christ."

Pendants made from the pewter, 2 1/2-inch nails - selling for $16.99 - all but flew out of the Christian Publications Bookstore on West 43rd Street as soon as they were put on display.

"A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks," Hicks once said. "Do you think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to look at a fucking cross? It's kinda like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant on. 'Just thinking of John, Jackie, just thinking of John. Just thinking of John, baby.'"

***

Time may change my opinion but I think "The commercial war" is one of my better posts.

***

I need to move.

***

Brendan O’Neill seems oblivious to the fact that Saddam was a bad guy and that means anything bad and everything worse said about him was correct.

***

"The largest object to be discovered in the Solar System since Pluto was found in 1930 was spotted by a sky survey on Tuesday," NewScientist.com news service writes yesterday. "Tentatively called 2004 DW, the object lies beyond Neptune in the mysterious Kuiper Belt. This shadowy belt is a collection of primordial icy bodies which circle our Sun and are thought to be the remnants of planetary formation."

***

"Confronting problems on critical fronts, the CIA recently removed its top officer in Baghdad because of questions about his ability to lead the massive station there, and has closed a number of satellite bases in Afghanistan amid concerns about that country's deteriorating security situation, according to U.S. intelligence sources," Greg Miller and Bob Drogin of The Los Angeles Times write in yesterday's edition. "The previously undisclosed moves underscore the problems affecting the agency's clandestine service at a time when it is confronting insurgencies and the U.S.-declared war on terrorism, current and former CIA officers say. They said a series of stumbles and operational constraints have hampered the agency's ability to penetrate the insurgency in Iraq, find Osama bin Laden and gain traction against terrorism in the Middle East."

***

J Hoberman's "With God, and the Constitution, on His Side" is a fascinating look at the controversy that surrounded The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988.

UPDATE: Michigan State 66
Northwestern 56

Next up, a road game against Michigan on Tuesday.

***

That somebody got paid to write this is sad.

***

In a February 4 story for The Dartmouth about a speech given by Lewis Lapham, Rebecca Leffler writes:

Lapham proceeded to equate the war on terror to "declaring a war on an unknown enemy, an abstract noun. It's like declaring a war on lust." Thus, Lapham said, there is a great deal at stake in the upcoming election, which he referred to as an "urgent moment of national identity."
While I certainly agree with the first part, this election doesn't seem all that important since it doesn't appear like it will lead to a change in course as far as the "war on terror" is concerned.

This, on the other hand, seems to be on target:

Late in his speech, Lapham stunned the crowd when he said: "The government in Washington does not bear any good will to the American people." He also spoke somewhat condescendingly of news anchor Peter Jennings, saying: "You have to think of Jennings along the lines of Donald Duck. If you understand that, it won't upset you."

Lapham also spoke to The Dartmouth about his views on the relationship between "truth and ethics" and journalism.

"Truth is not something that the media is very good at," he said. "The journalist's first objective is to obtain an audience and to tell this audience more or less what it wants to hear."

***

I'd like to believe that the Iraqi Resistance Solidarity Network is a joke. 2:16 p.m. 02/21/04


Friday, February 20, 2004
 
Advice to the Department of Defense's Information Ministers

Josh Marshall has posted the Department of Defense's Talking Points - Iraq's WMD: February 12, 2004" (PDF) for all to see and not be impressed.

The DOD ought to say, "We invaded Iraq to stop the threat posed Saddam. Everybody knows Saddam was a threat, or at least they ought to since, amazingly enough, you in the press didn't challenge that contention prior to the invasion. What we don't understand is your change of heart. Don't you still love us? The American people love us!"

UPDATE: And now for some odds and ends...

In a February 15 New York Times story on the evangelization efforts of Southern Baptists in New York City, David D. Kirpatrick writes:

...New York may also present the ultimate test of the Southern Baptists' evangelism. To many evangelical Christians and more than a few New Yorkers themselves, the city occupies a special place as something close to an American Babylon, perhaps the least Christian and most secular metropolis in the country. "I don't know if I thought of it as Sin City, but I knew it wasn't the closest place to God," Mr. Rourk said, diplomatically.

The missionaries may also face some hostility. The city is home to millions of people of other religions, including Hindus, Muslims and Catholics and Jews, who may not appreciate the Southern Baptist efforts to draw others to their faith. Jewish groups, in particular, have often complained that the Southern Baptists target Jews for special proselytizing.

The missionary board has a special division for Jewish ministries and seeks to start "Messianic Jewish" churches, including one on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. The Southern Baptists also support Messianic Jewish groups like Jews for Jesus that try to persuade other Jews that they can become Christians without renouncing Judaism — something most Jewish authorities reject...

The theology, however, sticks closely to the Southern Baptist tradition. "For those who are Christians, you will have eternal life," Mr. Searcy told the mostly 20-something crowd that filled the theater in a recent Sunday morning. "For those who are not, Jesus describes it as eternal punishment," he continued, warning, "You don't want to go there."

I have no idea how anybody could reconcile a loving God with this eternal damnation. The concept of "free will" sounds nice, but why does God give a damn about it? Isn't it a bit odd that an all-powerful God would be bound by the constraints that humans face when dealing with other humans? (Of course, all of this just assumes that God has a good answer for, "why bother with creating anything?")

***

This past February 15 was the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in New Jersey, Chris Newmarker reports in a February 16 AP story.

***

yet another reason to not vote for John Kerry

***

"Jeremy Hinzman said he could barely stomach chanting 'kill we will' during basic training and, as a Quaker, he didn't want to shoot anybody. But it was the thought of serving U.S. interests in Iraq that made the 82nd Airborne Division specialist flee to Canada last month," Julia Oliver writes in yesterday's The Fayetteville Observer.

***

Why not ethnic cleansing for Iraq? It isn't like Uncle Sam cares what happens to those poor fucks or anything. "We only don't kill them all," Sam says, "because we are smart enough to know that would make us look bad."

***

In a Wednesday story, the AP writes:

The Bush administration is considering a major shift in its plan for transition to Iraqi self-rule, possibly extending and expanding the U.S.-appointed Governing Council so it can take temporary control of the country on July 1, a senior U.S. official said Wednesday.

The serious consideration of that option comes as the Bush administration waits for U.N. help now delayed by at least a week in settling differences among Iraqi leaders on how to meet the July 1 U.S. deadline.

Under active consideration is extending and expanding the U.S.-handpicked Iraq Governing Council so that it could take interim control in Baghdad until a legislature could be elected, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The administration is eager to see if U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan approves of the idea, the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

LMDL (laughing my disgusted laugh) 4:51 p.m. 02/20/04

Thursday, February 19, 2004
 
Acceptable risk: kudos to Rummy and quit insulting my intelligence

On February 10, when asked "What does this devastating bombing today say about their ability to do that when you've trained tens of thousands of policemen to stop such attacks?" Rummy said perfect security is not obtainable:

...look at any city on the face of the Earth. Everyone's against homicide, and yet in every city -- major city on the face of the Earth, homicides occur every week...

Now why, if we have all those policemen; why, if we have everyone against homicides, do they still occur? The answer is because human beings are human beings.

Now what do we do about it? Well, we keep training the Iraqis, and we keep working with them, and they'll become more and more effective. And at that point where security responsibilities are increasingly transferred to the Iraqis, we'll find that they will have probably better situational awareness in the areas than coalition forces ever could. They'll know the language, they know the neighborhood, and they have reasons to want those areas to be secure.

Does that mean that terrorists or people who want the old regime back won't continue to try to kill them? No. They will probably do that.

I suspect this was just a way to avoid answering a question, but Rummy deserves credit for implicitly acknowledging that the rhetoric of the Bush Administration, which Rummy is a part of, is wrong when it puts forward absolute security as an obtainable goal.

The question that should arise from this is, what risk is acceptable? It won't be put forward or discussed, at least in part due to the near certainty that if it were, it would give the Democrats an easy, but unfair, way of saying that Team Bush is weak on security.

But to just blame it on "politics" is to ignore the ways in which the Bush Administration uses this rhetoric to justify specific actions. When Bush says that as a result "of September the 11th, 2001, I will not take risks with the lives and security of the American people by assuming the goodwill of dictators," he is saying that invading Iraq was justified because not doing so meant taking a risk with Saddam while ignoring that he takes risks every day with all sorts of dictators.

The Bush Administration, I suspect, believes that the general public and the mainstream media either doesn't care or can't/won't see this distortion. I suspect Bush and friends are right.

***

Josh Marshall notes the difficulty the Bush Administration is having telling the difference between a goal and a prediction.

***

The notorious anti-American radical leftist terrorist known as James Webb has some interesting things to say about Bush in yesterday's USA Today:

The Bush campaign... claims... that Bush has proved himself as a competent and daring "war president." And yet his actions in Iraq, and the vicious attacks against anyone who disagrees with his administration's logic, give many veterans serious pause.

Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence.

There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment that he deserves.

At the same time, those around Bush, many of whom came of age during Vietnam and almost none of whom served, have attempted to assassinate the character and insult the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them. Some have impugned the culture, history and integrity of entire nations, particularly in Europe, that have been our country's great friends for generations and, in some cases, for centuries.

Bush has yet to fire a single person responsible for this strategy. Nor has he reined in those who have made irresponsible comments while claiming to represent his administration. One only can conclude that he agrees with both their methods and their message.

Most seriously, Bush has yet to explain the exact circumstances under which American military forces will be withdrawn from Iraq.

I'm sure God is getting ready to punish Webb.

Wednesday, February 18, 2004
 
Those WMDs once again

In Saturday's edition of the Australian newspaper The Age, Mark Forbes writes:

Intelligence agencies told the Federal Government in the weeks before the Iraq war that some of the Bush Administration's claims justifying an invasion were exaggerated, according to one of Australia's most senior intelligence officials.

Assessments provided to Prime Minister John Howard stated that US Secretary of State Colin Powell's prewar address to the United Nations "went beyond the available evidence" in at least two areas, the official said.

It is believed these included claims of mobile biological weapons laboratories and alleged links between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

The official - who spoke on condition of anonymity - said the Government was told before the war that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction did not pose an immediate threat. Iraq's chemical and biological warfare capabilities were largely latent, they said.

"The head of the Defence Intelligence Organisation, Frank Lewincamp, has told a Senate committee he was the principal source for a report in Saturday's Age on assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," Brendan Nicholson writes in tomorrow's edition of The Age. "...Mr Lewincamp told a Senate committee last night that he recognised some of his statements in The Age's story. He said he did not make all the statements in the article."

A little later in the story:

Mr Lewincamp said he did not make and would never make some of the statements attributed to the official in the report.

"For example, I have never said the Bush Administration's claims justifying an invasion were exaggerated," he said. "Nor have I said that the Government was told that Iraq WMD did not pose an immediate threat."

It be interesting to know what the U.S. government told Australia.

A news.google.com search for "Frank Lewincamp" does not turn up any sources outside of Australia, FWIW.


Tuesday, February 17, 2004
 
The sport of trying to make sense of the "war on terror"

The threat posed by "the terrorists" and weapons of mass destruction has been said to have been so great that the U.S. needed to invade Iraq and set up a new government in that country.

One could be excused for being shocked by a report on 60 Minutes this past Sunday, which revealed that there is plenty of reason to believe that security at "the nine nuclear weapons factories and research labs" in the U.S. is not anywhere near what it should be:

...a recent investigation by the government's General Accounting Office found that... security at these sites is inadequate.

Richard Levernier, a senior Department of Energy nuclear security specialist, whose job it was to test how well-prepared America's nuclear weapons sites were to defend against a terrorist attack, says security is not only inadequate, but some facilities are at high risk...

These were tests in which U.S. Special Forces, playing the role of terrorists, armed with simulated weapons, would try to penetrate the facilities, steal imitation nuclear material, and then escape. The security guards there were expected to stop the attackers.

“Overall, the test results that I was responsible for showed a 50 percent failure rate,” says Levernier. “If you understand the consequences associated with the loss of that kind of material, it would make the World Trade Center event of Sept. 11 pale in comparison.”

In fairness to the Department of Energy, which is responsible for security at these plants, it isn't as if there was a Cold War or anything.

(I haven't been able to find the GAO report but POGO has done work on this topic.)

While a similar lack of interest in the dangers of weapons of mass destruction in a case where greater interest would not lead to another war on the part of the Bush Administration has been noticed before, perhaps there is a reasonable explanation for this.

It might have been necessary to divert valuable resources to the effort to make sure the invasion happened. "A joint British and American spying operation at the United Nations scuppered a last-ditch initiative to avert the invasion of Iraq," Peter Beaumont, Martin Bright and Jo Tuckman write in an important story in Sunday's Observer. (More on this story can be found here.)

Or those resources could have been put into making sure Bush doesn't read everything. In the February 12 edition of USA Today, John Diamond writes:

A classified U.S. intelligence study done three months before the war in Iraq predicted a problem now confronting the Bush administration: the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction might never be found.

The study by a team of U.S. intelligence analysts, military officers and civilian Pentagon officials warned that U.S. military tactics, guerrilla warfare, looting and lying by Iraqi officials would undermine the search for banned Iraqi weapons. Portions of the study were made available to USA TODAY. Three high-ranking U.S. intelligence officials described its purpose and conclusions.

"Locating a program that ... has been driven by denial and deception imperatives is no small task," the December 2002 report said. "Prolonged insecurity with factional violence and guerrilla forces still at large would be the worst outcome for finding Saddam's WMD arsenal."

The report went to the National Security Council but was not specifically shown to President Bush, the officials said...

The study looked at scenarios including Iraqi use of chemical or biological weapons and the possibility that no weapons would be found. The study considered but rejected the possibility that Iraq had no banned weapons.

The study said arms searchers would be "trying to find multiple needles in a haystack ... against the background of not knowing how many needles have been hidden."

Some of the obstacles outlined by the study included the expected rapid movement of U.S. ground forces over wide areas, leaving critical sites vulnerable to looting. Guerrilla warfare, the report predicted, also would make the weapons search difficult.

It would be an error to think that the answer would lie in unglamorous possibilities. A desire to crackdown on porn could be the culprit.

Richard B. Schmitt reports in Saturday's Los Angeles Times that a new appointment to the Justice Department makes it look like the "U.S. Plans to Escalate Porn Fight"

Officials said the appointment of Bruce A. Taylor, who worked in the department during the heyday of its anti-porn efforts in the late 1980s and early '90s, shows that Justice is serious about cracking down on porn after what critics called lax enforcement by the Clinton administration...

Taylor, who in recent years has headed a conservative advocacy group fighting for tougher regulation of the Internet, has been given the title of "senior counsel" within the criminal division at Justice, with a focus principally on federal adult obscenity issues.

The department's obscenity chief, Andrew Oosterbaan, who has been drawing much of the flak from conservatives, will retain his position. But instead of reporting to him, Taylor will answer to a more senior-level assistant attorney general...

The department has made other moves recently to shore up its anti-porn effort, including assigning for the first time in years a team of FBI agents to focus exclusively on adult-obscenity cases.

In his fiscal 2005 budget proposal released this month, President Bush sought increased spending to fight obscenity; it was one of the few spending increases — besides for anti-terrorist efforts — in the otherwise austere proposal.

In addition to being an overture to the Christian Right, a new effort against pornography to get the support of people who have noticed the lack of porn in post-apocalyptic stories and concluded that the utopian possibilities of this period must be tied in with that.

Then again, maybe the explanation is that securing nuclear weapons sites doesn't amount to war and thus isn't any fun for George and the boys.

***

The rest of this post is an attempt to clean out bookmarks and may lack in the area of organization.

***

Bush spent some time with the people of NASCAR over the weekend. This would be preaching to the choir if not for how ungodly those musical types can be.

***

"British soldiers called hooded Iraqi detainees by footballers' names as they kicked and beat them, The Independent on Sunday has been told," Andrew Johnson and Robert Fisk write in Sunday's Independent.

***

"Iraq's U.S. administrator suggested Monday he would block any move by Iraqi leaders to make Islamic law the backbone of an interim constitution, which women's groups fear could threaten their rights," Robert H. Reid of the AP writes.

***

John Dean doesn't think much of Bush's commission to look into WMD intelligence.

***

"The White House is declining to make public the financial histories of the commissioners President Bush appointed to investigate U.S. intelligence failures," Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times writes.

***

Jonathan Yardley on James Baldwin

***

nomediakings.net

***

In a story from Friday, Gary Schaefer of the AP writes:

Near where the atomic bomb detonated over Hiroshima, the faces of the victims silently appear and fade on a wall of television monitors in a relentless display of the attack's terrifying human toll.

Amid the thousands of faces, one stands apart: that of Cpl. John Long Jr., U.S. Army Air Force.

Long, who died in the blast while being held by the Japanese, last month became the first American serviceman to be enshrined at a memorial here, throwing light on the little-known story of U.S. prisoners of war who perished at Hiroshima.

***

"Iraq's deposed dictator Saddam Hussein is unlikely to stand trial for at least another two years, the Guardian has learned," Rory McCarthy writes in yesterday's Guardian. "The Iraqi special tribunal for crimes against humanity is months away from hearing its first case, and when the trials begin in October or November the first defendants to appear will be high-ranking Ba'ath party officials."

***

Tessa DeCarlo of The New York Times profiles Sophie Crumb.

***

Mahmood Mamdani's "Why the US practises double standards" is a bit weak on dates and, much more importantly, implies that the U.S. did not support authoritarian rightist regimes prior to Reagan's presidency.

***

The Central Intelligence Agency and terrorists that are part of "the terrorists"

***

Larry David's "My War" is entertaining, and I say that as someone who does not like Seinfeld or Curb Your Enthusiasm. (I strongly dislike the former, FWIW.)

***

Joy Press on Tanner '88

***

valley.vcdh.virginia.edu

***

"Christians, Let's Take Back Our Nation"

***

Jeff Jarvis is apparently unable or unwilling to see that "terrorism" and the U.S. are connected in ways that go beyond being adversaries. I just hope we can survive what Jarvis calls "Mexican soccer holligans."

***

"The teenagers of Ardoyne talk about suicide in the most shockingly matter-of-fact way, recalling the friends who have killed themselves. Many also talk of how they often think of killing themselves," David McKittrick writes in today's Independent. "The Northern Ireland war is supposed to be over but this tough north Belfast Catholic ghetto goes on counting its dead, with young people continuing to go to early graves because of the remnants of paramilitarism."

Militarism is always dangerous due to its ability to become the one thing it should not be, a way of life.

At the same time, events in Haiti show the fallacy of believing that an outside force is capable of entering and forcing a solution upon societies that have no resolved on their own. (This idea shows up in a variety of place, including the argument that democracy in Iraq will lead to democracy throughout the Arab world and Slavoj Zizek's in many ways brilliant Welcome to the Desert of the Real (Verso, 2002).

Sometimes a society has to sort its self out.

***

Daniel Gross:

With remarkable speed, renting videotapes has become passé. Instead, buying DVDs has become popular. You can play them anywhere, on portable devices, in the minivan, on your laptop. You can burn copies with a computer or digital recording device. And DVDs are comparatively cheap. By the time you go to Blockbuster, rent a movie, and pay the late fees on the video you forgot to return, you're half way to owning a DVD. Driving to a video store—twice—to deal with a single movie is a supremely inconvenient transaction.
I don't understand people.

***

Bryan Curtis of Slate on "The roots of Bush's Daytona strategy"

***

The BBC writes (February 10):

Foreign troops must target traffickers if Afghanistan is to win its war on drugs, a senior UN official says.

Antonio Mario Costa, head of the UN office on drugs and crime, said a rare US raid on an Afghan opium-processing lab last month should be repeated.

US and Nato-led forces have so far resisted calls to tackle drugs traffickers, saying their first responsibility is to maintain security.

Three-quarters of the world's opium was produced in Afghanistan last year.

Mother Jones has more.

***

Jane Mayer on "What did the Vice-President do for Halliburton?"

***

Here are some interviews with Gilbert Achcar, Kathy Acker, Sami Al-Deeb, Theodore W. Allen, Tariq Ali, Isabel Allende, Martin Amis, David Aguilar, Gregg Araki, Hanan Ashrawi, Sherman Austin, Anthony Aziz, Jean Baudrillard, Greg Bear, Walden Bello, Peter Berger, William Blum, Neve Campbell, John Carlos, Margaret Cho, Larry Clark, Sofia Coppola, Roger Corman, Ernest Crichlow, Barry Crimmins, Clare Danes, Gretta Duisenberg, Johanna Drucker, Umberto Eco, Ntone Edjabe, Barbara Ehrenreich, Carl Elliott, Norman Finkelstein, Joe Gage, Neil Gaiman, John Gerassi, Paul Giamatti, Terry Gilliam, Adam Goldberg, Fe'lix Guattari, Che Guevara, Günter Grass, Michael Hardt, Louise Hassing, Peter Hedges, Edward Herman, Jaime Hernandez, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Hudson, Eric Idle, Fredric Jameson, Ben Katchor, Sam Keith, Paul Krassner, Nancy Kress, Jean Laplanche, Geert Lovink, Rahul Mahajan, Sarat Maharaj, Mike Marqusee, Ray McGovern, David Meggysey, Russ Meyer, Evo Morales, Tom Morello, Johan Norberg, Tim O'Brien, Patton Oswalt, John Pilger, Melinda Rackham, George Ritzer, Edward W. Said, Danny Schechter, Hideaki Sena, Wallace Shawn, R.U. Sirius, Sam Smith, Annie Sprinkle, David Suzuki, Serj Tankian, Alex Villar, Sarah Vowell, Malcolm X, Michael Yates, Patrice Zappa and Slavoj Zizek

UPDATE: Tom Izzo once again shows himself to be a class act.

From today's Lansing State Journal, Joe Rexrode looks at Shannon Brown and "Spartan fast break: A weekly wrap-up and look ahead."

***

Robert Chalmers profiles Randy Newman in this past Sunday's Independent:

A front of cynicism - in the music, as in the man - conceals a smouldering rage at injustice and bigotry. In 1972 he released his study of US foreign policy, "Political Science": "No one likes us, I don't know why/We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try/But all around even our old friends put us down/ Let's drop the big one and pulverise them/ Asia's crowded and Europe's too old/Africa is far too hot and Canada's too cold/And South America stole our name/Let's drop the big one, there'll be no one left to blame us..."

Performing in the US, he used to introduce "Political Science" (which contains his most famous single line "Boom goes London, and boom Paree") by saying: "You know, over in Europe, they believe this song to be a joke."

Three decades ago, "Political Science" was wryly amusing song noir in the mould of Tom Lehrer. Today, after Donald Rumsfeld's remarks about "Old Europe", it reads more like Nostradamus.

"I doubt that Rumsfeld had those lines at the back of his mind when he said that," Newman says. "It's more worrying than that. He's a like-minded guy to the character in the song."

"It's a bizarre coincidence."

"It is, because he used the phrase practically word for word. 'Political Science' is closer now than ever to being something beyond jingoistic exaggeration. It's like the current US administration just don't know the rules. They don't understand that you can't consign a nation - Germany or France, say - to being part of an Old Europe that we don't need any more."

Maybe Rummy attended too many Lakers games.

Newmans's official site, randynewman.com, features a journal. "The wind is howling outside my window and I must take it to the streets," he says.

***

"As the violence continued in Iraq yesterday, the head of the American occupation administration admitted the US was waiting for the United Nations to find a way out of the impasse on handing over power to Iraqis. Speaking on two American talk shows, Paul Bremer admitted the US was now pinning its hopes on the UN, an organisation it had written off as irrelevant at the time of the invasion of Iraq. Rejected by the Americans and forced to flee Iraq last year after two bombings, the UN is suddenly back in the frame in Iraq," Justin Huggler writes in yesterday's Independent.

***

"Plans to plough up to €2bn (£1.3bn) a year of EU cash into defence and security research were presented yesterday, raising the prospect of Europe spending as much as the US Department of Homeland Security," writes Stephen Castle in today's Independent.

***

"Tony Blair's plan to lower the burden of proof for prosecuting terrorists and gangland criminals will lead to innocent people being sent to prison, the head of the body that reviews miscarriages of justice has warned," Robert Verkaik writes in yesterday's Independent. "Professor Graham Zellick, the new chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), said the move would mean a return to the flawed convictions of the 1970s and 1980s."

Brendan O'Neill of Spiked has more on Britain's defense of freedom, as does the BBC.

***

Tara Bagrampour looks at tensions between Hasidic Jews and artist/hipster types in Williamsburg, Brooklyn in today's New York Times.

Peter M. Nichols looks at some movies that have just made it to DVD in today's New York Times.

I'm amazed that Nicholas Ray's Johnny Guitar (1954) is only available as a region 2 DVD. I mean I know the French love Ray, as they should, but that doesn't excuse the rest of us.

***

Michael E. Grost's "Classic Film and Television homepage" is worth a look if the subject matter described in the title interests you. Grost argues that the study of auteurs and genres are can got together in "Auteurism and Genre Studies." What's interesting about this is I, a younger person, never doubted this and in fact consider some of the great genre projects such as Charlie Chaplin's mutual shorts, John Ford's The Searchers (1956) and Jean-Luc Godard's À bout de souffle (1960) to be the work of auteurs. Could there be a conflict? Yes, of course, but given the similarities of the recording material and the source material, there is plenty of room for overlap.

***

In today's New York Times, Marc Lacey writes:

It was 10 years ago that members of Rwanda's ethnic Hutu majority went on a rampage, killing their countrymen in a 100-day fury that left bodies strewn along roadsides, floating down rivers and piled up in churches, stadiums and schools. An estimated 800,000 people, Tutsis and moderate Hutus, died in the frenzy of ethnic animosity, fueled by an extremist government known for the motto "Hutu Power."

To commemorate what happened, Rwanda's leaders are planning a string of memorial services across the country on the 10th anniversary of the day the killing began, April 7, 1994. There will be testimonials from survivors, the unveiling of new memorials and speeches.

Raoul Peck, the Haitian-born film director who made "Lumumba" in 2000, is at work on his own remembrance, "Sometimes in April," an HBO movie that will recreate the horror as well as the heroism of 1994. It winds up filming at the end of February and is planned for television in the United States next year.

The film follows one family, using actual events as a guide, and switches from now to 10 years ago. Mr. Peck's movies have a documentarylike edge and mix politics with engaging story lines.

Already, though, the project is bringing the events of that April back to life for many Rwandans. Survivors fill most of the acting roles in the film and make up much of the crew. Recreating the horror has been a traumatic exercise for many of them, but a therapeutic one as well...

[one] scene required the intervention of Mr. [Simon] Gasibirege, the psychologist [at the National University of Rwanda]. The special-effects crew had scattered fake cadavers in a swamp outside Kigali that had been a killing ground and hiding place for thousands of Tutsis.

In the re-creation, some of the very Tutsi survivors who had crouched in the muck to save their lives returned to their old hiding spots. They were eager for the jobs, and for the world to know what they went through. They refused the boots that the movie crew offered. They had been barefoot 10 years ago. "They made the film just like it was back then," said Joseline Uwangabe, 25, who survived a month in the swamp in 1994 with her mother and two brothers. Six other siblings were killed.

The swamp scene was too much for one onlooker, a young woman from a nearby village who thought the corpses were real. She began shouting hysterically and sobbing. Then she couldn't move. "It took two hours for her to come out of it," Mr. Gasibirege said.

There are onlookers at every scene. Some hope to be given employment, which is in short supply here. But others are drawn by curiosity. Why is that man wearing the despised uniform of the now-disbanded Forces Armées Rwandaises? What are those loud bangs? Why are those girls screaming?

"It hurts so much to remember," said Jean de Dieu Butera, 32, who was in a crowd of gawkers. He had lost his parents and seven of his brothers and sisters in 1994. What happened to him, he said, would make a horrifying movie. Although remembering was painful, Mr. Butera said he was pleased that the movie would spread the word of the fate of his relatives and so many others. "Foreigners need to know what happened here," he said. "It could happen in other places, too."

***

Human cloning may still be a long way off, Stephen S. Hall reports in today's New York Times.

***

I wish I could make sense of this.

***

riverbend marks the Amiriyah Shelter massacre, which happened 13 years ago.

***

In an AP story from this past Friday, Ken Guggenheim writes:

The Bush administration is hampering efforts to improve intelligence by clinging to the false hope that weapons of mass destruction may be found in Iraq, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector said Thursday.

"My only serious regret about the continued holding on to the hope that eventually we'll find it is that it eventually allows you to avoid the hard steps necessary to reform the process,'' David Kay said in an interview with The Associated Press.

***

Afghan Freedom

***

"Most members of Iraq's U.S.-appointed Governing Council no longer support the Bush administration's plan to choose an interim government through caucuses and instead want the council to assume sovereignty until elections can be held, several members have said," Rajiv Chandrasekaran writes in today's Washington Post.

They want more power. Fancy that.

I suspect they will "their way."

(more)

***

Iraqi Democracy

***

Nicholas Blanford looks at the structures of Iraqi democracy that are being considered in tomorrow's Christian Science Monitor:

The first is to expand the Governing Council from 25 to 100 members to make it more representative.

The second plan calls for reducing the council to around 15 members until elections are held.

The third idea is to scrap the council altogether and hold a national conference of up to 2,000 prominent people to choose a new government among themselves, a plan echoing Afghanistan's loya jirga process.

A final decision is expected toward the end of the month. The United Nations is to announce Feb. 21 the conclusions of a recent fact-finding trip to Iraq. The mission assessed the feasibility of holding national elections before the June 30 deadline.

***

The Feminist Majority Foundation is calling on people to "Send a message to the Bush Administration that the recent move to cancel current family laws and to place family law under the jurisdiction of Islamic (sharia) law [in Iraq] is unacceptable."

There is undoubtedly something unsavory about feminists, or anyone else from the outside, trying to make sure that Iraq turns out as they want it to. At the same time, such a process is going on, so those who attempt to move things into a better direction are arguably not the cause of the problem so much as they are a product of U.S. control of Iraq in the same way that a vaccine is a product of a disease. It wouldn’t exist if not for which it is designed to ameliorate or destroy.

***

"U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that almost all of the Iraqi defectors whose information helped make the Bush administration's case against Saddam Hussein exaggerated what they knew, fabricated tales or were 'coached' by others on what to say," Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay of Knight Ridder write in a story from Saturday. (If that link is expired, you can try to find the story by clicking here.)

***

In Sunday's New York Times, Elaine Sciolino writes:

RAN is embroiled in one of the most serious crises it has faced since clerics seized the palaces of kings in Tehran and declared an Islamic republic a quarter century ago.

To protest the rejection of the eligibility of thousands of candidates in parliamentary elections this month, more than a third of parliament has resigned, and the reformists have vowed to boycott the election.

But it is a curious crisis. While parliament may not survive in its current form, there have been none of the street protests that rocked the big cities in 1999 and have occurred sporadically ever since...

"The conservatives know they face no serious challenge," said Saeed Leylaz, an economist. "They know that people will not come out into the streets for the cause of reform."

***

Bushist nepotism

***

"Aid agencies have warned of a humanitarian crisis in Haiti, which is on the brink of a civil war between rebel forces and armed supporters of the president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide," Tash Shifrin of The Guardian writes today. "In a joint statement, 15 UK and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs), including ActionAid and Oxfam, have warned that the economy is collapsing, with a threat to food supplies as transport breaks down exacerbated by a doubling in the price of petrol."

***

"[M]ob rule" exists in the Haitian city of St Marc, according to Gary Younge's first-hand report in Saturday's Guardian.

***

"Haitian rebels seeking to topple President Jean-Bertrand Aristide have brought in reinforcements from the neighbouring Dominican Republic, including an alleged former death squad leader [Louis-Jodel Chamblain] and a former police chief [Guy Philippe] accused of fomenting a coup, according to witnesses," Ian James writes in yesterday's Guardian. "The rebellion, which broke out nine days ago in Gonaives, 70 miles (112km) northwest of Port-au-Prince, has so far killed some 50 people. Although the rebels are still thought to number less than Haiti's 5,000-member police force, their ranks have been strengthened by paramilitary leaders and police living in exile in the Dominican Republic."

***

The Guardian:

...Haiti is one of those places where the news is usually either bad, or very bad. At present, amid an upsurge in violent attempts to unseat President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, it falls into the latter category. Looked at up close, Haiti is a deeply depressed, deeply dysfunctional society. Its people live, for the most part, in abject poverty. Two-thirds of the 3.6m workforce has no formal jobs and no skills. About half the 8m population is illiterate; less than 70% complete primary education. Average life expectancy is 52 years; only 3.7% make it to 65 or over, and HIV/Aids infection rates are rising. Haiti has few natural resources; its economy is mainly agricultural. Its budget is in deficit and its external debt runs into billions of dollars. Haiti receives a mere $120m in annual economic aid. Britain chips in £125,000.

However bad or indifferent the political situation may be at any given moment, such figures provide the true measure of Haiti's tragedy. That tragedy has changed only in magnitude since Toussaint L'Ouverture led the slave revolts that won independence from France 200 years ago last month. Since then, free Haiti has never had a fair crack. The old colonial empires that helped destroy its aboriginal population turned their backs on the world's first black republic. The US ignored its existence until 1862. Later, beginning in 1915, it occupied Haiti for 19 years and then abruptly left. Years of dictatorship and coups ensued. To a degree, history repeated itself when the US intervened again in 1994 to restore Mr Aristide. Bill Clinton halted the influx of Haitian boatpeople that had become politically awkward in Florida. Then he moved on. Although the US has pumped in about $900m in the past decade, consistency and vision have been lacking. In 2000, George Bush dismissed even Mr Clinton's half-hearted approach as a misguided exercise in nation-building. Partly for that reason, another, direct US intervention is seen as unlikely.

The unpalatable truth is that Haiti just does not matter very much, strategically, economically or politically, in the world as presently organised. The Foreign Office's assessment is unusually candid on this point: "Intrinsic UK interests in Haiti are limited".

One could hope that this insignificance could open up a space for Haiti to develop and solve its own problems, but the simple fact is that self-sufficiency is impossible. Control and neglect may lead to different results, but either way the story is sad. 4:25 p.m. 02/17/04

UPDATE #2: It wasn't beautiful but Michigan State beat Purdue 62-55 tonight.

***

Somebody needs to tell Jeff Shelman that even the best of Tom Izzo's teams looked left for dead at some point.

***

Ward Sutton's cartoon "Bush Answers Questions With More Questions" is highly inaccurate. The press doesn't point out that Bush is dodging their questions.

***

Joy Press of The Village Voice invasive t.v. programs

From the same publication, Cynthia Cotts on capaigndesk.org and J. Hoberman on The Magnificent Ambersons

***

"The Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, yesterday angrily accused the United States of being behind a 2002 coup and of helping continuing opposition attempts to overthrow him," Alexandra Olson writes in tomorrow's edition of The Independent "Mr Chavez said the US Government was providing millions of dollars to Venezuelan groups."

Crazy Bastard. You'll never find a good patriotic writer in a publication like The National Review who admits to America's history of controlling other countries.

I love this part of Olson's article:

A visit to Venezuela on Monday by Peter DeShazo, US deputy assistant Secretary of State for western hemisphere affairs, was part of the campaign "to try to destabilise Venezuela", Mr Chavez said. The US official urged the election authorities not to use technicalities to invalidate petitions demanding a recall referendum that could lead to a new presidential election.
Listen you stupid spics, it is not enough to have a democracy. You have to do it our way! 10:04 p.m. 02/17/04

Monday, February 16, 2004
 
The commercial war

Yesterday I saw and add that asked "What's more patriotic than saving big money" at Kohl's this President's Day? The t.v. spot also informed me that going to Kohl's to save money was what George Washington would want me to do.

Maybe I'm giving the people who came up with this ad and the public too much credit, but I have a hard time believing that anybody can take this seriously. If they did, I imagine that one day they expect to be asked something along the lines of "what did you do on September the 11th, Grandpappy?"

"Well little George, I went to Kohl's to get some great deals and, unlike those cowards in the National Guard, I kept shopping in order to fight the terrorists."

"Wow Grandpa Luke! You're my hero!"

Nobody could expect that, and so this ad is better understood not as conveying any information beyond there is a sale going on at a specific store on a specific day, but rather as setting a mood much as is done in a great deal of other commercials for companies like Nike that have little to do with any product and use few words.

If Kurt Vonnegut is correct about the government of the United States now being "a made-for-TV movie," it follows that the speeches of the Bush Administration are really just commercials. And, given the changing stories told in them, they would have to be commercials that, like the one I've described for Kohl's, are not intended to give information beyond what a person should do -whether that be buy a product or support a policy- and yet use other details to convey the message. FReeper The Wizzard's February 13 message "***The Hard & Fast Facts The Democrats & Media STILL Don't Understand***" is in line with this thinking. The arguments are idiotic but the message is clear; George W. Bush and friends are to be supported no matter what because of his response the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 so either adopt the correct point of view or shut the fuck up.

Somebody's smiling.

***

It seems to me that a lot more holidays need to be commercialized. I bet everyone would like 50% off airline tickets each September 11, 0% financing for five years on all slaves purchased on Juneteenth, 1/3 off all Sony products each August 6 as part of a celebration of how the dropping of nuclear bombs lead to modern home entertainment and, of course, a Buy One Get One Free deal on all pork products every November 9 to commemorate Kristallnacht.

America would unquestionably be a better country if retailers and shoppers gave these holidays their due, but we also need to set a day aside to show how generous we are as a people. So, in honor of the Ghost Dance, we should set aside October for the hunting of buffalo. Any meat that we do not want should be given to impoverished Native American children.


Sunday, February 15, 2004
 
Why Rumplestiltskin envies Team Bush

Jeff Jarvis writes:

Fred Wilson lists 11 character traits that make CEOs fail.
As I read the list, I couldn't help but think the list fits someone running for President pretty well.
You guess.
Looking at the list, I suspect there is a chance that there just might be a possibility that it is Bush, but first it should be noted that Wilson says the list is from a book entitled Why CEOs Fail.

O.K. here are the traits:

Arrogance— you think that you're right, and everyone else is wrong.
Melodrama— you need to be the center of attention.
Volatility— you're subject to mood swings.
Excessive Caution— you're afraid to make decisions.
Habitual Distrust— you focus on the negatives.
Aloofness — you're disengaged and disconnected.
Mischievousness— you believe that rules are made to be broken.
Eccentricity— you try to be different just for the sake of it.
Passive Resistance— what you say is not what you really believe.
Perfectionism— you get the little things right and the big things wrong.
Eagerness to Please— you try to win the popularity contest.

Bush has been known to not answer questions that have been asked of him but just go over the themes he wants to cover thereby indicating that he doesn't feel his decisions should be questioned (arrogance). Bush wants other countries to follow his orders or, to put it another way, he wants everything to revolve around him (melodrama). Before the invasion of Iraq Bush couldn't decide whether Saddam's regime was an imminent threat or not and, in a highly related manner, Bush has said that it was known that Saddam's now deposed regime had weapons of mass destruction but, at another time, only that Saddam could develop them at some point (Volatility). Bush took a fair amount of time to respond to the ostensibly imminent threat of Iraq and wasn't too forceful about finding and neutralizing the weapons of mass destruction that could kill us all once the invasion had begun (Excessive Caution). Bush always focuses on the negatives in terms of the dangers face by the U.S. (Habitual Distrust).

Perhaps what I termed to be an example of "Arrogance" on the part of Bush is really just "Aloofness." The fact that Bush doesn't think he should be held accountable for his administration's changing story is example that fits this definition of "Mischievousness." Bush may not be "Eccentric" but that is probably just because he appears to be a boring person aside from his exercise of power. His rampant dishonesty -"the terrorists" is perhaps the most striking example of this- shows that he fits this definition of "Passive Resistance." The son of H.W. wants to defeat terrorism. Talk about "Perfectionism"! The guy is either extremely manipulative or doesn't understand the absurdity of such a goal. As far as "Eagerness to Please," in his State of the Union addy Bush said "the American people are using their money far better than government" before talking about all the government spending he wants to do. Everyone was supposed to be made happy by this.

So will Bush fail?

My guess is not, either because these metrics don't apply to presidents and/or my responses were as much sarcastic as not. (Take your pick.) I don't fear Bush will "fail." I fear that he will succeed in the most significant arena of his presidency.

Maybe it is just my pessimism but I suspect that Bush will be reelected easily if he puts the focus on his "record," by which I mean the "war on terror" with its very popular narrative. The "war on terror" should be the primary issue in this election and, ironically enough, it most likely will be.

And even if Bush does lose to Kerry, or whoever the Dems nominate, it appears almost certain that the "war on terror" will continue. Bush will still have succeeded with flying colors on the primary project of his administration.

The Bush Administration reminds me of Rumplestiltskin -a character I always had a hard time as seeing morally inferior to the miller's daughter because taking someone's baby as a payment seems no worse than agreeing to give one's baby away for services to be rendered- dancing around the fire, confident of victory. But unlike Rumplestiltskin they can, in the aggregate, admit the secret -that the "war on terror" represents the manipulation of the public as much as anything else- that could in theory cause them to lose. They can do this because just about nobody amongst those of Respectable Opinion will make the critique and point out the truth. There may be spies combing the cyberwoods, but they won't be taken seriously.

***

The above grafs reflect one of the two things that worry me most about my criticism of the "war on terror." Am I becoming a crank? A paranoid obsessed conspiracy theorist? I don't think so but such people are often not the best judge of their own state.

I also want to avoid personalizing this criticism. Yes I think Bush, Rummy, Powell, Wolfie, Rice and the rest are despicable people but the "war on terror" is best understood not so much as a new physical project but as a new ideological project that aims to give an all-encompassing justification to the interventions Uncle Sam would otherwise have had to come up with a new explanation for in order to participate in. They are products of a system, not those who control the system. (I should point out that I don't believe there actually is anybody in "control." One of the primary deficiencies of much of even the best of Marxist thought is the reliance on the existence of a "ruling class" to explain why something happens, when in fact they should be talking about the dynamics of real existing economic/political systems, which are based, with only very few exceptions, a combination of authoritarianism, central planning, democracy and free markets.)

***

You'll notice I didn't list "the ability to effect change" in the above section. I've given up on that.

Is it better to be Him than Bugs Raplin, or just more depressing?


Saturday, February 14, 2004
 
International Quirkyalone/Valentine's Day notes

After completing a nice quiz, quirkyalone.net (which I found via Kevin Smokler, who I found via blogdex) tells me:

How quirkyalone are you?
Your score was 128. Very quirkyalone:
Relatives may give you quizzical looks, and so may friends, but you know in your heart of hearts that you are following your inner voice. Though you may not be romancing a single person, you are romancing the world. Celebrate your freedom on National Quirkyalone Day, February 14th!
I more than suspect that the "the quirkyalone movement" is largely an attempt to get people who to feel good about their lives. About time my emotional needs were catered to. (And it looks like I am in good company.)

***

"BE MY ANTI-VALENTINE"

***

The AP writes:

Police banned peace marches planned by women activists to celebrate Valentine's Day, saying they would "shoot to kill" if the bans were defied, organisers said on Saturday.

Women of Zimbabwe Arise -- a women's movement -- had planned peace processions by women carrying red roses in the capital Harare, the second city of Bulawayo and provincial centres.

Women of Zimbabwe Arise does not appear to have an official website.

UPDATE: Here is an interesting AP story on Christianity and NASCAR. The article quotes Morgan Shepherd as saying, "There's nothing bad in the Bible."

Shepherd is right unless you count endorsements of the death penalty, sexism, slavery and probably some things not mentioned in "Dear Dr. Laura." 12: 12 p.m. 02/14/04

UPDATE #2: MSU 69
Minnesota 58

The first half featured some of the worst ball yet from this team. The second, some of the best.

***

"While the Guard and reserves have been stalwarts in the war of terror, most of the units deployed have been in the combat service and combat service support areas," Jim Garamone of the American Forces Press Service writes. 6:26 p.m. 02/14/04

UPDATE #3: It is too bad Ici et ailleurs (Jean-Luc Godard, Jean-Pierre Gorin and Anne-Marie Mieville, 1976 (1974?)) does not appear available since it deals with the lives of the Palestinians. 7:46 p.m. 02/14/04


Friday, February 13, 2004
 
Today I finished "Why Bush doesn't deserve respect," which sums up my feelings pretty well on the titular subject.

My favorite section? "Welcome to your permanent war! War is life! Life is war!"

I at least try for intensity of Hardt and Negri.

***

Nicolas Pelham of The Financial Times writes in February 12 story:

A confidential report prepared by the US-led administration in Iraq says that the attacks by insurgents in the country have escalated sharply, prompting fears of what it terms Iraq's "Balkanisation"...

"January has the highest rate of violence since September 2003," the report said. "The violence continues despite the expansion of the Iraqi security services and increased arrests by coalition forces in December and January."

The report, which is based on military data and circulated to foreign organisations by the US aid agency USAid, diverges with public statements by US officials who claim that security in the country is improving.

"The security risks are not as bad as they appear on TV," Tom Foley, the coalition official overseeing Iraq's private-sector development, said at the US Commerce Department headquarters in Washington on Wednesday. "Western civilians are not the targets themselves. These are acceptable risks."

According to the report, "January national review of Iraq", strikes against international and non-governmental organisations increased from 19 to 26 in January. It said that high-intensity attacks involving mortars and explosives grew by 103 per cent from 316 in December to 642 in January; non-life threatening attacks, including drive-by shootings and rock-throwing, soared by 186 per cent from 182 in December. It also recorded an average of eight attacks a day in Baghdad alone, up from four a day in September, and a total of 11 attacks on coalition aircraft...

The report makes clear how dependent Iraq's stability is on investment in the country's economy. "A fear of some is the 'Balkanisation' of Iraq if security, economic and infrastructure situations do not improve," it says.

It attributed much of the civilian violence to rising ethnic tensions between Kurds, Shias and Sunnis, noting that several bodies were found in the south "with hands bound and bullet wounds to the head".

But attacks on military targets, which had seen two months of decline, rose even faster than those on civilians, it said, particularly in the "Sunni triangle", north and west of Baghdad. It described the "profuse availability" of roadside bombs, the favoured weapon of the insurgents, as "alarming", saying attacks had surged almost 200 per cent.

The report shed little insight into who was behind the attacks, but said "multiple reports confirm the presence of al-Qaeda in the country".

I've quoted large chunks because stories on ft.com tend to disappear.

***

Jonathan Miller of C4 News on "The unseen cost of the war in Iraq" (February 10)

Channel Four News has been allowed a rare opportunity to meet some of America's wounded soldiers.

In a dark corner of Andrews Air Force base on the outskirts of Washington DC, America's war-wounded come home...

More than 11,000 medical evacuees have come through Andrews in the past nine months, the Air Force says.

Most, we suspect, from Iraq. But that's 8,000 more than the Pentagon says have been wounded there.

Most of those wounded in action come through the vast Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington.

The American public is, for the most part, unaware that the true casualty count of the war in Iraq may actually be higher than official figures suggest.

The apparent discrepancy is fuelling suspicion that the US government's got something to hide.

There'd been a suicide at the Center the previous week. Another of what the Pentagon terms a "non-hostile" death - in other words, one that won't figure on its list of fatalities...

when it comes to the wounded, an astonishing situation has arisen: the Pentagon's figures clash wildly with those of the US Army.

The Pentagon lists 2,604 wounded in action and just 408 "non-hostile wounded".

But the Army says many thousands more have been medically evacuated from the conflict zone.

Why the discrepancy? Well, the Pentagon doesn't count as victims soldiers who come back with brain injuries or psychiatric disorders, those hit by friendly fire or those who've crashed in their military vehicles...

Some suspect the government's been deliberately massaging the figures.

According to Steve Robinson, from the National Gulf War Resource Center:"Information warfare is a tenet of war. It's part of the strategy in war and it's something we employ in Iraq to win to gain the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. And in some cases it looks as if the Department of Defense is employing information warfare back doing this at home by not releasing accurate information or making it difficult to obtain information. That prevents the story from being told or it makes it take longer for the story to be told or it frustrates people to where they don't even try to tell the story."

***

the good war

***

Friday the 13th

***

Drew Barrymore sang "Milkshake" on yesterday's Daily Show.


Thursday, February 12, 2004
 
American values

"[T]he characteristics of American society that we cherish – our freedom, our openness, our great cities and towering skyscrapers, our modern transportation systems – make us vulnerable to terrorism of catastrophic proportions," say the heroic men and women of the Bush Administration.

***

"A former Marine guard testified yesterday that it was common practice in Iraq to kick and punch prisoners who didn't cooperate – and even some who did," Rick Rogers of The San Diego Union-Tribune writes in a February 3 story. "Lance Cpl. William S. Roy, granted immunity for his testimony, said guards often abused prisoners at the Camp White Horse detention center."

***

God Bless Pol Pot

***

"As the Haitian crisis deepens, with violence flaring and President Jean-Bertrand Aristide locked in an impasse with his opponents, the Bush administration has placed itself in the unusual position of saying it may accept the ouster of a democratic government," Christopher Marquis writes in today's New York Times. "A senior State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the administration favored dialogue to ease Haiti's crisis, but that it might support replacing Mr. Aristide, who has two years left in his term... Administration officials stopped short of calling for President Aristide's resignation, but their remarks were seen as emboldening a widening and unwieldy opposition — including former supporters, armed gangs, demobilized army members and political foes — that seeks his removal."

Rummy has reportedly said, " "We have no plans to do anything." While a decent position, this is hardly consistent with the administration's rhetoric about democracy. (Rummy must have been misquoted.)

Then again, Powell says Iraqi control of Iraq will be determined by whether or not "all goes well."

***

The lesser nations of the world must follow America's orders.

***

Freedom of expression for the Iraqis, according to CPA Senior Advisor Daniel Senor (January 4):

Ambassador Bremer issued a decree several months ago that sought to strike a balance between the freedom -- protecting freedom of the press and freedom of speech in Iraq, while also protecting against violence and the incitement of violence and using the media as a tool to incite violence against coalition troops and the Iraqi people. That is a decree that was modeled after similar policies and similar standards and guidelines in the United States, in the United Kingdom, Australia, and elsewhere. That continues to be the policy in Iraq. It is something the Governing Council strongly supports. And it is focused on television, radio, newsprint...

It does not reference music specifically. But I could talk to our lawyers and find out if music would apply. You can follow up with me after that. But I would think that any sort of public expression used in sort of an institutionalized sense, in some sort of institutionalized media that would incite violence against the coalition, incite violence against the Iraqis, would be subjected to this decree. But I can check on that.

***

"Senior American officials concluded at the beginning of last May that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, The Observer has learnt," Peter Beaumont, Gaby Hinsliff and Paul Harris write in the February 1 edition of The Observer. "Intelligence sources, policy makers and weapons inspectors familiar with the details of the hunt for WMD told The Observer it was widely known that Iraq had no WMD within three weeks of Baghdad falling, despite the assertions of senior Bush administration figures and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair."

***

budget fun

***

Iraqi fun

***

Lifting sanctions on Libya just in time to slap them on Syria?

***

FReepers on religion

***

"A rat is a dog is a pig is a feminist (with profound apologies to rats, dogs and pigs)" says FReeper martin gibson.

***

"Modern feminism is nothing more than a liberal effort to turn women into men and degrade the unique role given to women by their Creator," says FReeper Guelph4ever.

***

"Enemy of Our State" Janeane Garofalo guest-starred on The King of Queens last night and played a woman who was supposed to be "annoying," which is interesting since she was by far the least "annoying" character on the show.

***

So far everything in this entry indicates that America is better than ever, but there does exist a disturbing new trend away from filth. The BBC writes, "MTV in the US has moved Britney Spears' new video to its late-night schedule, saying it is too racy for day viewing."

Seems one can't turn to MTV at any hour for a little T&A. The once proud home of Undressed has, beyond any doubt, lost its way.

We all are a little poorer as a result.


Wednesday, February 11, 2004
 
War notes

Veep Dick Cheney on Sunday:

We know that Saddam had the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction. He had the science and the technology he needed. We know that he had the necessary infrastructure because we found the labs and the dual-use facilities that could be used to produce chemical and biological agents...

We know that Saddam had the intent to arm his regime with weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam Hussein had something else -- he had a record of using weapons of mass destruction against his enemies and against innocent Iraqis.

Precisely do "we" know "Saddam had the intent to arm his regime with weapons of mass destruction"? Cheney just asserts that this is the case. In some ways, the fact that Saddam had all the materials yet it does not appear had the WMDs in any form that he would them suggests that he was not intent on developing them again. What was Saddam supposed to be waiting for?

***

"I have made clear to all the policy of this nation: America will not permit terrorists and dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most deadly weapons," Bush said today.

"Gore is always a very good indicator of where the country isn't," says Andrew Sullivan.

Think about those.


Tuesday, February 10, 2004
 
The perfect plan, an imperfect game and a mind that is somewhere else completely

Jennifer Loven of the AP writes:

President Bush is launching a new push for greater international cooperation against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, with particular criticism aimed at the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency, a senior administration official said.

In a speech Wednesday at the National Defense University, Bush also will outline the role that good U.S. intelligence has played in recent nonproliferation successes in places such as Libya and Pakistan, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity...

On Wednesday, the president planned to sketch the change in the threat from weapons of mass destruction from the Cold War to the post-Sept. 11, 2001, era, the official said. Now, nuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction can no longer be considered a tool of last resort in a world where terrorists seek maximum destruction, Bush will argue...

I suggest killing every person on the face of the planet. That will take care of the threat.

***

Illinois 75
MSU 51

***

"I have a question on this WMD thing. So, apparently we are now concluding that Hussein did not, in fact, have a huge stash of nuclear weapons aimed at New York and Washington DC. That’s a good thing, isn’t it? It means that the thing the administration wanted to prevent was, in fact, prevented," Andrea Harris writes. (Glenn Reynolds approves, FWIW, which could be thought of as proof that it is an idiotic idea.)


Monday, February 09, 2004
 
Life

"Who the fuck is that?" I thought to myself seven days ago. I had just woken up. The evening was in full swing. It was sometime between 9:30 and 10:30. Sean Hannity was interviewing someone who was complimenting George W. Bush and I knew I recognized the voice.

"Oliver North," I said silently a few seconds later having recognized the voice. "How can this guy seriously be interviewed about issues that involve integrity? Oh yeah it happens in the same society that treats Sean Hannity like he is an intellectual."

North was talking about the commission that Bush had said he wanted to create to look into intelligence failures involving weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The commission has come into existence but don't expect anything valuable from it. Its title -"Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction"- says it all. It will look at the processes of intelligence gathering and analysis. It will not consider whether Bush and friends actually believed Iraq was a threat or whether or not they acted accordingly. (On a related note, I don't see any merit to the praise that has been bestowed upon Tim Russert for his interview with Bush on Saturday. While maybe not "another softball game," Russert's interview was anything but hard hitting. A performance worthy of the subject would have to include plenty of instances where the interviewer said something tot he effect of, "you did not answer my question...")

As Bush said on Friday when announcing the commission:

The commission I have appointed today will examine intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and related 21st century threats and issue specific recommendations to ensure our capabilities are strong. The commission will compare what the Iraq Survey Group learns with the information we had prior to our Operation Iraqi Freedom. It will review our intelligence on weapons programs in countries such as North Korea and Iran. It will examine our intelligence on the threats posed by Libya and Afghanistan before recent changes in those countries.
And then a day later:
The commission I set up... is one that will help future presidents understand how best to fight the war on terror, and it's an important part of the kind of lessons learned in Iraq and lessons learned in Afghanistan prior to us going in, lessons learned that we can apply to both Iran and North Korea because we still have a dangerous world. And that's very important for, I think, the people to understand where I'm coming from to know that this is a dangerous world.
The legitimate anger of Team Bush's dishonestly has been channeled so as to strengthen the "war on terror," a project that is based on that dishonesty.

The commission, which includes John "The president of the United States, I believe, did not manipulate any kind of information for political gain or otherwise" McCain, will most likely conclude that mistakes were made but that Team Bush was generally correct to have made them and that it is time to move on.

And, as much as this angers me, most people will. It will probably become acceptable to say that those who haven't as conspiracy theorists. Unless something unexpected happens, Team Bush will get away with their deception.

This situation used to puzzle me more than it does now. As recondite as this might sound, "terrorism" and "threat" only exist in popular discussions in the United States when coupled with a campaign, which is widely considered reasonable, to eliminate the threat in some way. Virtually nobody was worried that Saddam might get into the preemption business and attack the U.S. before the U.S. invaded Iraq because considering that possibility means acknowledging that risks of the sort that the “war on terror” is ostensibly designed to eliminate do exist and that nothing is being done about some of them. Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction could only be widely talked about as a "threat" because there was a "solution" on the table – the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam’s government.

The case of North Korea illustrates this. Ruled by a dictator who has abused "his own people" and may be a "madman" (Bush has described Saddam as a "madman"), believed to have weapons of mass destruction, said to be sponsoring terrorists and a charter member of the "axis of evil," North Korea is every bit as much of a "threat" now as Iraq was. And yet Bush has said:

...the reason why I felt like we needed to use force in Iraq and not in North Korea, because we had run the diplomatic string in Iraq... in North Korea, excuse me, the diplomacy is just beginning. We are making good progress in North Korea.
Magically enough not advocating attacking North Korea is not seen an act that "hurt[s]" "national security."

Across the board, the same phenomenon can be seen. When a plan to counter a "threat" is suggested by the executive branch, the "threat" increases to the point of being a primary concern. (For example of this phenomenon that has lost all direct or practical applications due to the events of the past year, see the December 12, 2002 entry "If you don't favor war with the United Kingdom, you support the Official Secrets Act.")

***

When I woke up to Ollie's voice, I was on the floor. I'd been on a couch when I went to sleep. Normally all of this would be a depressing experience that would make me think I really need to be more productive and stop wasting so much time. But I was in a waiting room of Munson Medical Center in Traverse City, Michigan. My father was having back surgery done. It had been planned for months and appears to be going well so there is no need for concern there.

Hospitals seem to be about death to me. It appears like nobody, outside of the maternity ward, can express joy even in situations where it would be appropriate for fear of offending others. And there is the transient nature of the hospital. Yes there are employees, but the majority of "civilians" don't want to be there. Unlike airports, there is nobody in a Hawaiian shirt to lighten the mood as they loudly say, "I missed you so much... I have to tell you about this great bar & grill..." Waking up in a place other than where I went to sleep during the mid-evening and hearing the idiot who I remember wearing that goddamn uniform to testify before congress didn't seem all that bad given the circumstances.

***

For a long time I believed that life is easier for those who believe in some God or Gods that they deem to be just. Life would have inherent meaning then, I thought till last week.

Although there may be some religion that I don't know about that makes sense, all of those I have looked at do not. The contradictions and illogical nature of their narratives are too much for me. It seems that looking past these contradictions would be as difficult as believing in any grand narrative. Perhaps that indicates something about me.

In particular I suspect that it indicates that I will have trouble finding any meaning in life that I can fully believe in. When you get right down to it, the lack of an after-life does mean that no punishment for what is done can be greater than what can be doled out. There is no meaning other than what you produce in the realm of subjectivity.


Sunday, February 08, 2004
 
The hope of yesterday has faded away

After a bout of (most likely unintentional) honesty, Bush and friends are back to their usual games.

Yesterday, in an interview with Tim Russert of NBC News, Bush came across as the arrogant asshole there is no reason to doubt he is. Some highlights:

The commission I set up, Tim, is one that will help future presidents understand how best to fight the war on terror, and it's an important part of the kind of lessons learned in Iraq and lessons learned in Afghanistan prior to us going in, lessons learned that we can apply to both Iran and North Korea because we still have a dangerous world. And that's very important for, I think, the people to understand where I'm coming from to know that this is a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't.

I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them...

You know, I don't testify? I will be glad to visit...

Russert: The night you took the country to war, March 17th, you said this: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

President Bush: Right.

Russert: That apparently is not the case.

President Bush: Correct...

I expected to find the weapons. Sitting behind this desk making a very difficult decision of war and peace, and I based my decision on the best intelligence possible, intelligence that had been gathered over the years, intelligence that not only our analysts thought was valid but analysts from other countries thought were valid.

And I made a decision based upon that intelligence in the context of the war against terror. In other words, we were attacked, and therefore every threat had to be reanalyzed. Every threat had to be looked at. Every potential harm to America had to be judged in the context of this war on terror...

I expected there to be stockpiles of weapons. But David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we’ll find out. That's what the Iraqi survey group let me let me finish here.

But David Kay did report to the American people that Saddam had the capacity to make weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with the ability to make weapons...

I don't think America can stand by and hope for the best from a madman, and I believe it is essential I believe it is essential that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It's too late if they become imminent. It's too late in this new kind of war, and so that's why I made the decision I made...

if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests. But what I do want to share with you is my sentiment at the time. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America... because he had the capacity to have a weapon, make a weapon. We thought he had weapons... It's important for people to understand the context in which I made a decision here in the Oval Office. I'm dealing with a world in which we have gotten struck by terrorists with airplanes, and we get intelligence saying that there is, you know, we want to harm America. And the worst nightmare scenario for any president is to realize that these kind of terrorist networks had the capacity to arm up with some of these deadly weapons, and then strike us.

And the President of the United States’ most solemn responsibility is to keep this country secure. And the man was a threat, and we dealt with him, and we dealt with him because we cannot hope for the best. We can't say, Let's don't deal with Saddam Hussein. Let's hope he changes his stripes, or let's trust in the goodwill of Saddam Hussein. Let's let us, kind of, try to contain him. Containment doesn't work with a man who is a madman.

And remember, Tim, he had used weapons against his own people...

In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences. People look at us and say, they don't mean what they say, they are not willing to follow through.

And by the way, by clearly stating policy, whether it be in Afghanistan or stating the policy that we expect you, Mr. Saddam Hussein, to disarm, your choice to disarm, but if you don't, there will be serious consequences in following through, it has had positive effects in the world. Libya, for example, there was an positive effect in Libya where Moammar Khaddafy voluntarily disclosed his weapons programs and agreed to dismantle dismantle them, and the world is a better place as a result of that...

that's a legitimate question as to why we like felt we needed to use force in Iraq and not in North Korea. And the reason why I felt like we needed to use force in Iraq and not in North Korea, because we had run the diplomatic string in Iraq. As a matter of fact, failed diplomacy could embolden Saddam Hussein in the face of this war we were in. In Iraq I mean, in North Korea, excuse me, the diplomacy is just beginning. We are making good progress in North Korea...As I've said in my speeches, every situation requires a different response and a different analysis, and so in Iran there is no question they're in danger, but the international community is now trying to convince Iran to get rid of its nuclear weapons program. And on the Korean peninsula, now the United States and China, along with South Korea and Japan and Russia, are sending a clear message to Kim Jung Il, if you are interested in a different relationship, disclose and destroy your program in a transparent way...

free societies are societies that don't develop weapons of mass terror and don't blackmail the world...

...the best way to secure America for the long term is to promote freedom and a free society and to encourage democracy...

Russert: Now looking back, in your mind, is it worth the loss of 530 American lives and 3,000 injuries and woundings simply to remove Saddam Hussein, even though there were no weapons of mass destruction?

President Bush: Every life is precious. Every person that is willing to sacrifice for this country deserves our praise, and yes...

I've got a foreign policy that is one that believes America has a responsibility in this world to lead, a responsibility to lead in the war against terror, a responsibility to speak clearly about the threats that we all face, a responsibility to promote freedom, to free people from the clutches of barbaric people such as Saddam Hussein who tortured, mutilated there were mass graves that we have found a responsibility to fight AIDS, the pandemic of AIDS, and to feed the hungry. We have a responsibility. To me that is history's call to America. I accept the call and will continue to lead in that direction...

In my judgment, we had no choice when we look at the intelligence I looked at that says the man was a threat. And you know, we will find out about the weapons of mass destruction that we all thought were there. That's part of the Iraqi survey group and the group I put together to look at.

But again, I repeat to you, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but David Kay, who is the man who led the Iraqi survey group, who has now returned with an interim report, clearly said that the place was a dangerous place. When asked if President Bush had done had made the right decision, he said yes. In other words, the evidence we have uncovered thus far says we had no choice...

I'm not going to change, see? I'm not trying to accommodate I won't change my philosophy or my point of view. I believe I owe it to the American people to say what I'm going to do and do it, and to speak as clearly as I can, try to articulate as best I can why I make decisions I make, but I'm not going to change because of polls. That's just not my nature.

I feel like I should critique America's Lord and Savior but, to be honest, I can't think of any reason to do so. If something Bush says doesn't make sense to me, I think it is best that I just accept that there is a very good reason I am not making important decisions and people like Bush are.

***

Why did the above interview have to be taped?

***

Cheney had more to say on this topic yesterday.


Saturday, February 07, 2004
 
Honest George

Charles Wolfson of CBS News says Team Bush is attempting "to revise the political and diplomatic record before it becomes the historical record on why the Bush administration went to war in Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein."

"What we don't know yet is what we thought and what the Iraqi Survey Group has found, and we want to look at that," Bush said on Monday.

Bush should just say, as I urged him to say on April 9, "You realize we're making this shit up as we go along, right?"

***

Michigan State 84
Ohio State 70

The good: This was a road win against a decent Ohio State team that had won its previous two games, against Purdue and Northwestern. MSU pulled down 26 boards compared to 20 for Ohio State, and the Spartans made nearly three out of every four shots.

The bad: The defense was soft and Michigan State was unable to put away Ohio State early in the second half.

On Tuesday my beloved Spartans play against Illinois in Champaign.

***

Northwestern beat Wisconsin, 69-51!, today so MSU (7-2) and Wisconsin (6-2) are virtually tied for first in the Big Ten.

***

When I was in grade school I used to dream of a weekly publication that would have all the usual statistics and box scores for Major League Baseball teams. It exists for baseball and many more sports, and it is better than weekly, on the net.

***

My latest contribution to HorowitzWatch.

***

I actively dislike campaign politics because nobody who could win ever represents anything close to my outlook on life and I dislike the idea that discussions of ideas should be first and foremost based on whether the idea can gain "popular support," a term that does not have a consistent definition. I know there is a very good reason why nobody comes out says, "Idea X is the best possible option but it will never be popular," but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

That said, the reason for these words is to say that sometimes campaign politics have a positive effect.

***

A "federal judge has ordered a university to turn over records about a gathering of anti-war activists," Ryan J. Foley of the AP writes. "In addition to the subpoena of Drake University, subpoenas were served this past week on four of the activists who attended a Nov. 15 forum at the school, ordering them to appear before a grand jury Tuesday, the protesters said."

***

WE MUST NOT APPEASE CUBAN MUSICIANS!

***

"Tony Blair was sent three intelligence reports in the six months during the run up to the Iraq war, including one that warned him that information on whether Saddam Hussein still held any chemical or biological weapons was 'inconsistent' and 'sparse'," Andy McSmith writes in tomorrow's Independent. "The revelation adds to the mystery of how the Prime Minister could tell Parliament last week that, when war began, he still believed that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction capable of being deployed in just 45 minutes."

Well you see Blair is quite gullible. He even believes the terrorists can be defeated.

" The 'reliable source' who provided MI6 with the information that Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes was an Iraqi exile who had left the country several years previously, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. That fact alone should have prevented the intelligence being used in the Government's September 2002 dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," Raymond Whitaker and Kim Sengupta write in tomorrow's Independent.

Andy McSmith, Andrew Buncombe and Raymond Whitaker have more.

***

Civilain deaths as part of liberation.

***

These Iraqi scumfucks need to learn who is in charge.

***

Sean Hannity with brilliant people

***

"Norm Miller, chairman of Dallas-based Interstate Batteries, replaced his own company's hood-sized logo with an ad for 'The Passion' on NASCAR driver Bobby Labonte's No. 18 Chevrolet. The car will carry the ad during the Daytona 500 race Feb. 15," Bo Emerson writes in a February 5 story for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

I'm sure this will please God on his day of rest. I hear he is a big fan of American motor sports.

***

"Tratorous Maggots want to harm the United States and we have to stop them"

***

"AMERICA - The Right Way!!"

***

Don't be like Andrew Sullivan and use a term like "preventing genocide" without defining the terms.

***

Did I mention this?

***

"Alaskan's assault on the Mackinac Recalled" by Danny K. Shepherd.

***

David Edelstein asserts in a piece published by Slate yesterday that the denunciation of Maoist China by one of the characters in Bernardo Bertolucci's The Dreamers is the result of "60ish filmmakers talking with 20/20 hindsight, not the anti-Vietnam-War American trying to sort it all out in the middle of this tumultuous moment." Seems to me that Edelstein should read up on the "New Left" as well as the "hippie" sub-culture.

And didn't somebody sing "But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao/You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow"?

***

Students for an Orwellian Society

goodspeak newsservice

***

From the file labeled "Proof that Journalism Should Not be Taken All That Seriously," Neil Steinberg uses a January 23 Chicago Sun-Times column to argue that people should get married around age 30 or so. Steinberg says they will be happier as a result of being married and accepting imperfection and that anybody who doesn't is not "normal." (I'm still a few years from turning 30 but I think it is pretty safe to say I won't be married when I turn 30 and, by the way, I've long realized and, more or less, accepted that I am not "normal." The fact that an adult thinks this would be an insult to another adult is quite odd.)

Steinberg says those (happily married) people who urge marriage "are trying to help our single friends salvage what's left of their lives before the years pass, irretrievable." Funny, I was under the impression, which I have formed through both experience and thought, that any choice in life means blocking off some possibilities, including those which are not known.

Steinberg writes:

How do single people know they wouldn't like marriage? It's as if I lived my entire life completely within the limits of Cook County and refused to leave. Yes, Cook County's great, and yes, I could be happy. But if I start claiming there is nothing good beyond the border, nobody would buy that.
I'm not sure who the people who say there's "nothing good" about marriage are. Most of the people who don't want to get married, or at least don't make it a priority in their life, that I've talked to see plenty "good" in marriage but feel that it wouldn't work for them and/or that the bad outweighs the good.

Steinberg brushes this aside by saying that marriage is about accepting imperfection. This sounds good but Steinberg doesn't back it up and the theory is hardly universal. "The Serenity Prayer," for instance, asks a "higher power" to "grant me the serenity/to accept the things I cannot change/courage to change the things I can/and wisdom to know the difference." Whether or not one is married is certainly something that is in the control of a person who is presently single. So, according to adherents to this prayer, refusing to get married for the sake of getting married requires "courage" and people who do so are not, as Steinberg would have you believe, "cowards."

Perhaps wrongly, I suspect a column such as this could only come from someone who has never felt out of line with the rest of society, which is fine if that's the life you want to live.

***

Now it is time to laugh at Zell Miller.

***

"We wake up every morning thinking, like, what more can we do in this world to make it a better, happier, more peaceful and beautiful place?" Drew Barrymore reportedly said yesterday. Too bad she did it as the U.N.


Friday, February 06, 2004
 
You must support Miracle
By Max Standard

Hollyweird, or as I like to call it, and Janeane Garofalo and Danny Glover's Personal Piggybank, has long put out anti-American propaganda. For every Return of the King (Peter Jackson, 2003) there are hundreds of films like Born on the Fourth of July (Oliver Stone, 1989) that attempt to tear America down.

This makes it very important that we all go out and see Miracle (Gavin O'Connor, 2004), a wonderful pro-American movie that comes just at a time when we need such uplifting entertainment.

It is important to note, however, that Miracle entails a great risk on our part. If the American hockey team should lose to the Iraqi hockey team in the semi-finals, there is a chance that people will stop being "Proud to be an American." They will take down their flags from pick-ups and SUVs and will, most tragically, lose faith that we can defeat the terrorists. They will vote for John Kerry or whatever anti-Christian radical leftist the Dimorats put up against President Bush and if they should cheat to win the Democrats would immediately be able to move in legalize homosexual marriage and defund the military so that the terrorists can win! Next thing you know the likes of the youngest heir to throne of Pop is not exposing herself during the Super Bowl halftime show not out of any moral stand or renunciation of wickedness but just because she fears being shot at. This means that the Christian idea of sinful desires being sin will be lost.

Is that the type of America you want to live and your raise your children in?

Of course not! So it is up to us Christian Americans to go out and see Miracle! The future of freedom in the era before the defeat of Satan is all we have to gain!


Thursday, February 05, 2004
 
Michigan State 89
Iowa 72

This win was the 200th of Tom Izzo's head coaching career.

***

good football news!

***

Good Mr. Show news?

***

Somehow I just don't have the money for a F/A-18A Navy Blue Angel Hornet.

***

Today Bush said:

We know Saddam Hussein had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. He had the scientists and technology in place to make those weapons. We know he had the necessary infrastructure to produce weapons of mass destruction because we found the labs and dual use facilities that could be used to produce chemical and biological weapons. We know he was developing the delivery systems, ballistic missiles that the United Nations had prohibited. We know Saddam Hussein had the intent to arm his regime with weapons of mass destruction, because he hid all those activities from the world until the last day of his regime.
Assuming that the WMDs don't exist, which looks more likely than not, Bush wants us to believe that a "threat" that had to be removed existed because it could develop WMDs at some point in the future even though when faced with an impending invasion the said "threat" saw no need to get the process humming.

Later Bush said:

If some politicians in Washington had their way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. All of the Security Council resolutions and condemnations would still be issued and still be ignored, scraps of paper amounting to nothing. Other regimes and terror networks, had we not acted, would have concluded that America backs down when things get tough. Saddam would still have his weapons capabilities, and life would sure be different for the Iraqi people. The secret police would still be making arrests in the middle of the night. Prisons and torture chambers would still be filled with victims. More innocent Iraqis would have been sent to mass graves. Because we acted, Iraq's nightmare is over. (Applause.) Their country, our country and the entire world are better off because the regime of Saddam Hussein is gone, and gone forever.

Because of American leadership, the world is changing for the better. Other dictators have seen and noted our resolve. Colonel Ghadafi in Libya got the message, and is now voluntarily disclosing and eliminating his weapons of mass destruction programs.

These are historic times, times of change. In Afghanistan and Iraq, more than 50 million people once lived under tyranny. And now they live in free societies, societies that are moving toward democracy; societies that will set an example for all of the Middle East. And that's important. That's important for our own security. Free societies do not attack their neighbors. Free societies do not develop weapons of mass terror. Freedom and peace go hand-in-hand.

The really funny, and sad, thing is that Bush can say this type of stuff without being widely ridiculed.

Wednesday, February 04, 2004
 
They still say Saddam was an imminent threat

"[T]he decision to confront Saddam Hussein was because he was a gathering threat," Scott McClellan said Monday. "Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat, there was no debate about the fact that he was a threat. We knew he had weapons of mass destruction... He had the intention and he had the capability."

More:

... we already know from Dr. Kay, from his testimony, from the progress report that he oversaw as head of the Iraq Survey Group, that Saddam Hussein had the intention and had the capability. He was a threat. He was a gathering threat...

...what we know is that what we've already learned from Dr. Kay only reconfirms the fact that Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat and that it was the right decision to remove his regime from power. the American people know that the decision that the President took was the right decision to confront a gathering threat and remove that threat...

...we knew Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction...

Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat. And what we have learned today only reconfirms the fact that he was a gathering threat. The decision that the President made was the right decision, in the interest of doing everything we can to protect the American people from the new and dangerous threats that we face in the 21st century. We know he had the intention, we know he had the capability, and we acted to remove that threat...

...we got it right that Saddam Hussein was a grave and gathering threat. We got it right that he had the intention and capability. He was a threat. We got it right. And it was the right decision to remove him from power.

***

I've been particularly busy the last three days. I will most likely write more on that later.


Monday, February 02, 2004
 
Cold Mountain

Cold Mountain (Anthony Minghella, 2003) is a far better movie than it ought to be. None of the technicals are notable and the acting is fine, but the characters never show any sort of self-doubt when it would seem to be a common emotion within and amongst them. Still the film succeeds because it tells details the horrors of the U.S. Civil War that happened on the periphery, but which had little to do with slaves. Specifically it covers the struggles of those who deserted the Confederate Army. There are story has seldom been told on the screen.

The film doesn't pull any punches about the brutality of both sides, which is important to keep in mind since so often arguments in the U.S. amount to "X is a justified cause so those who fought in the military for X were justified in whatever they did." History and Cold Mountain teaches otherwise.

In fact, Cold Mountain makes a strong and implicit argument for the morality of refusing to comply with injustice even when a political alternative is not available and the fruits of this effort will be primarily personal. The war torn remains of the southern U.S. thus come to represent not just the destruction of one society but the modern world.

***

The biggest flaw with the politics of the film is that the political atmosphere that lead to the Civil War is not explored in any depth. This is a minor flaw, however, since it most likely reflects the character's quite believe flaws.

***

I saw Cold Mountain with my good friend Mr. Max Standard. Shockingly his reaction differed from mine.

"This 'film' was nothing but a defense of cowardice and fornication," Standard told me. "Cowardice is never acceptable no matter what the cause. This is made most clear by how Saddam of course should have killed a few Americans before he was captured instead of being a pussy. And the film's scandalous glorification of pre-martial sex between Inman Balis (Jude Law) and Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman) was beyond the pale. Even after the scenes that reminded me of a more expense version of those stag films my uncle used to take me to see at the VFW hall, I thought the film might have some redeeming value. God cleared punished Balis by having him shot dead and making sure that Monroe was burdened with a bastard, but these wicked heathens learned nothing from their punishment. Instead they are shown celebrating that bastard child who will no doubt grow up to be a whore just like her mother."

***

By the way, Renée Zellweger was great as the hickish Ruby Thewes. Now when is she going to play a character with some depth?

***

Margaret Cho responds to what she says is "this is the best fan letter i ever got."

***

The Negrodamus sketch in this past week's Chappelle's Show used Bill Hicks' joke about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the receipt.

***

David Rees has posted some new get your war on strips lately. All are worth reading.

***

Yesterday's Doonesberry was great, although upon a second reading I did think that there are some people for whom "9-11" did change things to such an extent that what previously was acceptable no longer was. Perhaps that it is the real joke.

***

I very much enjoyed Arizona Bay and Paint Your Wagon Sunday.

At least some others apparently were offended by this.


Sunday, February 01, 2004
 
Biggest Win of Season So Far

Michigan State 84
Indiana 72

With this win, MSU is now 5-2 in conference play and 10-8 on the season.

It seems to once again be clear that doubting Izzo is a mistake.

***

Amnesty International on China's policy toward the internet (January 28 report).

No doubt, due to a link from Drudge, the biggest news out of this report is that Microsoft has sold some "[t]echnology," in the words of Nick Mathiason of The Observer, "to the Chinese government has been used by Beijing to censor the internet, and resulted in the jailing of its political opponents."

Reminds me of a certain other set of business dealings.

There is a tendency to see "technology" as leading to dystopia and another tendency that sees it leading to utopia. Both are incorrect as the impact of "technology" ultimately results from how the economic and political systems of the world use it. Moreover it is important to keep in mind that some of the worst atrocities in human history resulted from modern and post-modern conditions and ideologies.

We can be the monster just as surely as not.

***

In a January 29 story that is quite related, Agence France Presse writes:

"Up until now, space has been militarized in the sense that military operations have made a lot of use of satellites ... either for communications, for navigation, for eavesdropping or for surveillance," Therese Delpech, the director for strategic affairs at the Atomic Energy Commission in Paris, told AFP in Stockholm.

"What is completely new," she added, "is what I call the weaponization of space, which is much more serious, and concerns the possibility in the (near) future of having weapons in space, or developing weapons that can destroy satellites in space. This would add another dimension to warfare."

This could be just a decade away, according to Delpech, in Stockholm for the first meeting of a new Swedish-funded international commission on weapons of mass destruction, which is headed by former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix...

While several commissioners emphasized the importance of addressing the continuing threat of nuclear proliferation, Delpech urged that greater attention be paid to a whole new generation of threats.

"I truly believe that the 20th century was the age of physics, while the 21st century will be the age of information technology and life sciences. And that holds the potential for horrifying military applications," she said, adding that developments in biological weapons gave of particular concern.

"There are much greater possibilities of dissimulating biological activities than nuclear activities. That's a real problem. ... The military applications are absolutely devastating," she said.

It is almost, if not completely, pointless to try to stop the "weaponization" of space as such because so long as war and military struggles exist, it is foolish to think that the conflict can be kept out of this arena.

If it can be used to kill, somebody will use it for that purpose is the undeclared motto of humanity.

***

"The Israeli army is under growing pressure to explain a series of deaths of Palestinians in a three-week operation in the West Bank city of Nablus. According to witnesses and medical evidence, at least two of the 19 deaths during the operation have the hallmarks of executions," Conal Urquhart writes in today's Observer

***

In Friday's Guardian, Marie Phillips writes,
"the British public is slowly coming to terms with the true horror of it: Blair didn't lie about WMD in order to con us into going to war. No, he actually believed - and possibly still believes - that they were really there. To have had a dishonest and manipulative leader would have been bad enough, but at least we could have admired the thinking behind the lies. Now it's as if we've found out Tony Blair still believes in Easter Bunnies."

***

"Who is the ANTICHRIST?"

***

And you thought humanism was bad!

***

Stupid fucking Iraqis making it difficult for us.