micah holmquist's irregular thoughts and links |
|
|
Welcome to the musings and notes of a Cadillac, Michigan based writer named Micah Holmquist, who is bothered by his own sarcasm. Please send him email at micahth@chartermi.net. Holmquist's full archives are listed here.
Archives
Sites Holmquist trys, and often fails, to go no more than a couple of days without visiting (some of which Holmquist regularly swipes links from without attribution) Aljazeera.Net English Blogs that for one reason or another Holmquist would like to read on at least something of a regular basis (always in development) Thivai Abhor |
Monday, January 31, 2005
Bush yesterday: Some Iraqis were killed while exercising their rights as citizens. We also mourn the American and British military personnel who lost their lives today. Their sacrifices were made in a vital cause of freedom, peace in a troubled region, and a more secure future for us all.Now if Uncle Sam killed you, you are just a dead and not worth talking about. UPDATE: Above is my reaction to this comment today. Yesterday evening, when I first read it, I thought it was interesting that Bush didn't come out and just say that he and whoever else exactly he speaks for "mourn" the Iraqis who died. He did pretty clearly imply it, but Bush did not directly say it. 11:23 PM. 1/31/05 Sunday, January 30, 2005
Is this really a high turnout? RE today's Iraqi elections, Dexter Filkins and John F. Burns of The New York Times write: The chairman of the Independent Election Commission of Iraq, Fareed Ayar, said as many as 8 million people turned out to vote, or between 55 percent and 60 percent of those registered to cast ballots. If 8 million turns out to be the final figure, that would represent 57 percent of voters.The CIA's World Factbook says that Iraq's populations was estimated last July to be 25,374,691. My prediction is that a constitution will be drafted and then in October Iraqis will be told they have to vote for this or face a terrible future. Saturday, January 29, 2005
Edmund Sanders writes in a January 28 Los Angeles Times story: Amid excitement and fear over Sunday's election, Iraqis are in a mad rush to prepare for an unprecedented three-day national lockdown. With insurgents vowing to disrupt the balloting and kill voters, U.S. and Iraqi security forces have imposed a lengthy set of emergency security measures.This isn't the most fertile ground for democracy. Friday, January 28, 2005
A lot is being said in the U.S. about Iraq's vote on Sunday, but far too little of it even concerns itself with the choices facing Iraqi voters. It is as if the point of the election in the eyes of people of the U.S. is merely that there is one. Given how small the issues are that get seriously debated in the U.S. during its elections, however, perhaps this is only a minor degradation. Thursday, January 27, 2005
I've been listening to a lot of right wing talk radio -Hannity, O'Reilly and Reagan specifically- for some research. They keep going on and on about the evils of the attacks on Condoleeza Rice. The attacks boil down to 1) These attacks will hurts the Dems, especially with African Americans and 2) They shouldn't do this because Bush won. The whole thing is laughable. The first attack may happen, but the same thing was said after the Clarence Thomas hearings. RE the second, it bothers me greatly that their is no backlash to this, "Bush should be a dictator" line of thinking. All the senators who voted against Rice also were elected, but I guess that doesn't count. Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Right after finishing yesterday's post, "Proof that God loves America more than other countries," I checked my fine local paper and found a wonderful story by Matt Whetstone entitled "Local Army specialist meets, shakes hands with Bush." This is like shaking hands with God Himself. If you doubt that, just look at how nobody, as far I can see, is ridiculing the fact that Dems have labeled "obstructionist" for wanting a debate in the Senate about Condoleeza Rice's nomination to be Secretary of State. I mean, how the fuck dare they not rubber stamp what Bush is going to get. Monday, January 24, 2005
Proof that God loves America more than other countries We get snow that results in the death of one Girl Scout, they get a tsunami that kills roughly 234,000 people. Thank God for the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces, because without them God wouldn't be able to love us more. Sunday, January 23, 2005
Sometimes I think I don't love America as much as I should, but then I see a picture of a Marine without his legs enjoying Bush's big event and I know that I do. Friday, January 21, 2005
Bush gave a great speech yesterday. I love America. It's a great country. May God Bless America more than other countries. Thursday, January 20, 2005
Saddam was good for so much "The Clinton and Bush administrations not only knew but told the US Congress that Iraq was smuggling oil to Turkey and Jordan, and in both cases recommended continuing military and financial aid to countries seen as important allies," Mark Turner writes in yesterday's Financial Times. "...two letters sent by the State Department to Congress in 1998 and 2002 clearly show that successive US administrations knew of sanctions-busting and turned a blind eye to it." Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Condi's hearing in Micah's world I caught a bit of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Secretary of State confirmation hearing for Condoloeeza Rice today. To what was not my shock, it was an exercise that would be funny if this was the first time this sort of thing had happened. If I were in charge, the proceeding would begin with Rice being asked: On October 10 of last year, in an interview with Fox News Sunday, you said that immediately before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 that Saddam's regime "was a gathering and growing threat, and it was time to take care of it." Do you believe this was true?If Rice responded in the negative, I would inform Rice that the only semi-honorable path for her is to give an honest and near complete account of what has happened in her tenure as a "public servant," round up all of her accomplices, force them to give similar accounts, turn these accounts over to everybody who wants them -they can use the web for all I care- and then proceed to take this entire gang to some place where they will never be seen or heard from again. If Rice said that she agreed with what she said last October, it would be time for Rice to be laughed at. Monday, January 17, 2005
Sunday, January 16, 2005
"Democracy simply does not work," Kent Brockman was right to say: Bush says he hates America Bush says he doesn't have to be accountable and the public had judged him to be right on Iraq because he beat a guy who agreed with him on all of the major issues involving Iraq, Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher report in today's Washington Post. tex of antiwar.com has a take on this that's worth reading. I'm going line by line with the story: President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.This is badly written and I'd have doubts about what the second part means if this weren't Team Bush in question. "We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."Since there were more than two candidates and I voted for one of these "third" candidates, I want to thank Bush for informing me that I don't count. By the way, I'm opposed to the death penalty, but I don't think Bush should count under this opposition. With the Iraq elections two weeks away and no signs of the deadly insurgency abating, Bush set no timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops and twice declined to endorse Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's recent statement that the number of Americans serving in Iraq could be reduced by year's end. Bush said he will not ask Congress to expand the size of the National Guard or regular Army, as some lawmakers and military experts have proposed.Shocking. a wide-ranging, 35-minute interview aboard Air Force One on Friday, Bush laid out new details of his second-term plans for both foreign and domestic policy. For the first time, Bush said he will not press senators to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the top priority for many social conservative groups. And he said he has no plans to cut benefits for the approximately 40 percent of Social Security recipients who collect monthly disability and survivor payments as he prepares his plan for partial privatization.Re Social Security, one thing Gore was right about was the idea of a "lock box." If you are going to have the system, Congress shouldn't use it as a piggy bank. I'm going to assume that Bush just doesn't care about marriage. Funny how he once said, "the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring -- honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all." Bush must hate America. Bush was relaxed, often direct and occasionally expansive when discussing his second-term agenda, Iraq and lessons he has learned as president. Sitting at the head of a long conference table in a cabin at the front of the presidential plane, Bush wore a blue Air Force One flight jacket with a red tie and crisp white shirt. Three aides, including his new communications adviser, Nicolle Devenish, accompanied him.I really needed to know what Bush was wearing. With his inauguration days away, Bush defended the administration's decision to force the District of Columbia to spend $12 million of its homeland security budget to provide tighter security for this week's festivities. He also warned that the ceremony could make the city "an attractive target for terrorists."I have a hard time understanding how anybody can about Bush's little party. The president's inaugural speech Thursday will focus on his vision for spreading democracy around the world, one of his top foreign policy goals for the new term. But it will be Iraq that dominates White House deliberations off stage. Over the next two weeks, Bush will be monitoring closely Iraq's plan to hold elections for a 275-member national assembly. He must also deliver his State of the Union address with a message of resolve on Iraq, and he will need to seek congressional approval for about $100 billion in emergency spending, much of it for the war.What we would we do without this report? In the interview, the president urged Americans to show patience as Iraq moves slowly toward creating a democratic nation where a dictatorship once stood. But the relentless optimism that dominated Bush's speeches before the U.S. election was sometimes replaced by pragmatism and caution.This isn't new. Last week, Powell said U.S. troop levels could be reduced this year, but Bush said it is premature to judge how many U.S. men and women will be needed to defeat the insurgency and plant a new and sustainable government. He also declined to pledge to significantly reduce U.S. troop levels before the end of his second term in January 2009.That may happen. If Uncle Sam leaves Iraq in my lifetime, I have little doubt it will be because they were forced out. "The sooner the Iraqis are . . . better prepared, better equipped to fight, the sooner our troops can start coming home," he said. Bush did rule out asking Congress to increase the size of the National Guard and regular army, as many lawmakers, including the president's 2004 opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), are urging. "What we're going to do is make sure that the missions of the National Guard and the reserves closely dovetail with active army units, so that the pressure . . . is eased."Which means what? A new report released last week by U.S. intelligence agencies warned that the war in Iraq has created a training ground for terrorists. Bush called the report "somewhat speculative" but acknowledged "this could happen. And I agree. If we are not diligent and firm, there will be parts of the world that become pockets for terrorists to find safe haven and to train. And we have a duty to disrupt that."The disturbing thing about Bush is that he is as much of an asshole when he is honest as when he isn't. As for perhaps the most notorious terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the administration has so far been unsuccessful in its attempt to locate the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Asked why, Bush said, "Because he's hiding." While some terrorism experts complain U.S. allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, could do more to help capture the al Qaeda leader, Bush said he could not name a single U.S. ally that is not doing everything possible to assist U.S. efforts.What the fuck? Even those that aren't helping Team Bush "liberate" Iraq? If there was a decent media, this guy would have to get his story straight. "I am pleased about the hunt, and I am pleased he's isolated," Bush said. "I will be more pleased when he's brought to justice, and I think he will be."LOL Bush acknowledged that the United States' standing has diminished in some parts of the world and said he has asked Condoleezza Rice, his nominee to replace Powell at the State Department, to embark on a public diplomacy campaign that "explains our motives and explains our intentions."If this gang were trustworthy, this might have a shot at working. Oh who the hell am I kidding? My realistic nightmare is that it does work. Team Bush is good at dishonesty. Bush acknowledged that "some of the decisions I've made up to now have affected our standing in parts of the world," but predicted that most Muslims will eventually see America as a beacon of freedom and democracy.What is it "all about"? On the domestic front, Bush said he would not lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.Translation: I can say whatever I want. Your job is to believe it. Bush's position is likely to infuriate some of his socially conservative supporters, but congressional officials say it will be impossible to secure the 67 votes needed to pass the amendment in the Senate.I blame Bush for destroying marriage and thus America. Either that or just being a lying asshole. On the subject of revamping Social Security, Bush said he has no intention of making changes that would affect the approximately 40 percent of Social Security recipients who receive disability or survivor benefits. The Bush administration has privately told Republicans that the White House plan to restructure Social Security will include a reduction in benefits for future retirees. The interview marked the first time Bush strongly suggested disability and survivor benefits would be shielded.I have trouble caring. Bush has put an overhaul of Social Security at the top of his domestic priorities. He has revealed few details of his reform proposal, except to say he wants to enable young workers to voluntarily divert a portion of their taxes to private accounts. Program participants could then pass the accounts to their heirs.Yawn. On the election Bush said he was puzzled that he received only about 11 percent of the black vote, according to exit polls, about a 2 percentage point increase over his 2000 total.Can Bush go more than a minute without contradicting himself. I didn't even consider voting for him or his partner in the "war on terror." So I'm not one of "[t]he American people," but then I am. Oh I get it. The real message is that no matter what, Bush rules over me, with the help of reporters like Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher. Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Sunday, January 09, 2005
"THE world may be better off if Osama Bin Laden remains at large, according to the Central Intelligence Agency’s recently departed executive director," Tony Allen-Mills writes in today's edition of The Sunday Times. "If the world’s most wanted terrorist is captured or killed, a power struggle among his Al-Qaeda subordinates may trigger a wave of terror attacks, said AB 'Buzzy' Krongard, who stepped down six weeks ago as the CIA’s third most senior executive." This reminds me of a late eighties or early nineties storyline that appeared in Marvel Comics' The Punisher where the titular character decided not to kill The Kingpin because he, Frank Castle, figured it was safer to have Kingpin in charge than any new supervillains that might arise. Saturday, January 08, 2005
Friday, January 07, 2005
Micah on politics in these here United States "You don't look like a terrorist," a banker helping me set up a checking account said to me today, before asking a few questions like whether the amount of cash I will be depositing in the account will be between one and one thousand. I figure my excuse will be that I didn't know she was talking about U.S. dollars or that I figured the dollar would go up in value more than it has. On a somewhat related note, The New Standard published a story today by Brian Dominick and Ariella Cohen with more on the comments by Roy Blunt that I touched upon yesterday. Dominick and Cohen write: House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) said questions about Ohio’s electoral process should be dealt with in Ohio, not in the United States Congress. "Every time we attack the process, we cast that doubt on that fabric of democracy that is so important."Yeah, nobody who hasn't seen could believe what happens. Whatthefuckever... Let's think about Blunt's logic that people "don’t need to believe that [the democratic system] is absolutely perfect because after all it’s the greatest democracy in the history of the world." I'm sure he thinks America is the greatest country in the history of the world -a fact that will be proven at the country contest in July- so I don't want to hear this fine elected representative criticizing his fellow congressional Republicans every time they do something with the aim of improving this great land. Also from The New Standard story: Florida Republican Ric Keller distilled his message down to three simple words: "Get over it," he told Democratic detractors. Rep. David Hobson, an Ohio Republican, called the proceedings "outrageous."Let's resort to name calling instead of debate. Calling the proceeding "an assault against the institutions of our representative democracy" and "a threat to the very ideals it ostensibly defends," Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) denied that any voter disenfranchisement took place anywhere in 2004 or 2000. He accused Democrats of crying wolf, and wondered "what will happen" when a future election is actually stolen.In all likelihood, they will get away with it. FWIW, Barbara Boxer, the senator for California, deserves no praise for joining members of the House in challenging Ohio's electoral votes. She belongs to a political party that helps the Bush Administration along by pretending to make up the opposition, even as they agree with Team Bush on the most important matters of the day such as the idea that "terror" can be defeated. It would be honest but not honorable of the Democrats to just join the GOP. The honorable thing for them to do is apologize while at the same time telling their supporters how fucking stupid they are for supporting them. The Dems could ask for forgiveness and pledge to never again be seen in public. I can laugh at the political culture of the United States, but the truth is that I am very tired of the idiotic game. Better should be demanded. Does that make me an optimist about the potential of the people of the United States? No, not really. I don't expect them to demand anything different or stop falling prey to the manipulation of people like Boxer and Bush, and I certainly don't think the system would tolerate it if they did, but I think it is in their ability to try and, without hesitation, they should do so. Thursday, January 06, 2005
Don't criticize the process, because people might agree with you, says congressman Blunt In a foxnews.com story about the brief delay in the coronation of American Lord and Savior George W. Bush, there's this interesting bit: Added House Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri: "Every time we doubt the process, we cast doubt on that fabric of democracy that's so important ... people do need to have confidence that the process works."Let's think this over... It is true that "Every time we doubt the process, we cast doubt on that fabric of democracy" if and only if "democracy" is defined as merely being about elections. More importantly, what is so wrong about casting "doubt on the process"? If it is a flawed process, and democracy in the U.S. of A is flawed, people should "doubt" it. If you don’t believe that -Blunt apparently doesn’t- you are saying the system should not be criticized and people need to believe in the system even if it should be doubted. That neither the general public nor the media, mainstream or otherwise, is outraged by Blunt's comment is indicative of the sad intellectual state of the United States. This is a lot like the idiotic calls to "support the troops" unconditionally, the suggestion that Bush, as a president, inherently deserves respect and… well pretty much every aspect of the "war on terror." The idea that things could be different is implicitly discredited by an equally implicit statement that things aren't going to be different. I guess this is just the norm under Bush. UPDATE: The title of this entry when first posted was "Aren't politicians supposed to avoid actually saying this sort of thing." I changed it, and some other details of the post, to better express my point of view. 5:36 p.m. 01/07/05 Wednesday, January 05, 2005
It worked for Japan The United States of America was justified in invading Iraq and is justified in continuing the occupation, said a caller on Monday's edition of Bill O'Reilly's radio show. The caller acknowledged that weapons of mass destruction have not been found, but nonetheless argued that the U.S. actions were correct. "If history has taught us anything," she said, "it's that the best defense is a strong offense." O'Reilly expressed general agreement with the comments of the caller. Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Monday, January 03, 2005
Saturday, January 01, 2005
Some U.S. military personal have been delivering food and other supplies to people in areas struck by the tsunami. I'm cool with that, but since I'm not good at understanding this sort of thing, I'll just ask, are they defending me from a tsunami who wants to steal my freedom? |
