Digital Dissent

If you haven't figured it out yet...

2005-07-01T22:42:00.000-04:00

The blog moved here a looooong time ago!

Woes

2004-08-11T12:00:00.000-04:00

The new site is coming, don't fret, but it appears as it may be delayed until next week. The reason for this is due to me breaking my right hand, which makes using the computer effectively little more than a pipe dream. However, the cast should be off within a few days as long as a re-break and re-set is not required by the orthapedic physcian (and I don't think they will be.)

Regardless, the new site's looking good, so there is definitely something to look forward to come next week or sooner, dependent on my ability to tweak code and make graphics with one hand.

The Big One

2004-08-10T19:13:00.000-04:00

700 WLW airs a number of talk radio programs every day, and while there is an obvious trend in sports programs, the morning-afternoon shows have a great degree of variety. While I'm usually not up and listening early enough to catch Mike McConnell or Jim Scott, Willie Cunningham's 12:30-3PM show almost always fits into my schedule. I must say that I absolutely love this program, and that more people should listen to AM talk radio. Ideas are intelligently discussed, and the sound byte plague that infests vile television stations like Fox News or CNN is generally absent. I suggest everyone tune in, either by dialing up 700 amplitude modulation on your radios (Flash Gordon decoder ring not required) or hooking up with the simutaneous webcast, which can be found on the main 700 WLW page linked above. You will find Willie to be a hardcore right-winger, and he's not afraid to say it. He's guaranteed to offend, and that's what makes him so interesting to listen to. I'm not a right-wing man. I'm not a leftist, either. I don't think such artificial distinctions matter. Instead, I think you should just listen and enjoy, and to hell with what you really believe.

Moreover, I wish to discuss briefly a topic Bill has showcased repeatedly for the past week or so: illegal immigration and the resistance of Latino immigrants (legal or illegal) to adopting our culture. I will restate what Bill has essentially been saying, obviously paraphrased. America is for Americans. If you are not an American citizen or legal tourist, get the hell out, because you do not belong here. If you are a legal immigrant, good. America is currently a land of unprecedented opportunity, and as long as you're willing to work and carry your portion of the load, you're welcome. If you're going to come here, please don't insist on making America a new place to practice your old culture. It's fine if you want to still speak your foreign language among family, or among fellow native speakers. But learn English, written and spoken, because that's how Americans operate. We use English, so if you belong here, you must know it. I should not have to learn to espeeka espanish to do business in my own country. Become Americans, not Mexicans living in America. I agree with Bill 100% on his immigration ideas. For the reasoning behind a lot of this, listen to his show. Hopefully this topic is covered repeatedly, because it is one we need to hear, one that needs addressed.

A Right to Speak

2004-08-10T19:02:00.000-04:00

On Fox's "Special Report with Brit Hume," a panel of three guests was quizzed by the host about whether the head of the Swiftboat anti-Kerry group had the right to write a book criticizing the potential candidate. Of course he does! I have the distinct right to sit down and write a book detailing what really happened to John Kerry during Vietnam, and I can claim all my lies are true. (I just can't cross the libel line, but that's a given.) Hell, I can claim he died over there, that we've got a Mecha-Kerry campaigning for the White House. It doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't mean I'm right. It doesn't mean you should believe me. But you also don't have the authority to shut me up. I have, as part of that whole Bill of Rights business, the ability to make an utter jackass out of myself. The framers never said free speech had to be rational. Quit complaining and learn to evaluate statements yourselves. It isn't hard.

Important People to Bruce Springsteen: Shut the Hell Up

2004-08-09T22:27:00.000-04:00

Today I picked up, as I usually do, a copy of the USA Today, perhaps my favorite newspaper. While reading through the editorial section, I came across a couple of letters bashing musicians who have come out to talk politics and play politically-charged shows. "Bruce Springsteen's Born in the USA just doesn't feel as good as it used to; it doesn't have the same ring, because it is really directed at only half of America." "Music should cross cultures. It should be everyone's music." "I will not purchase another recording of any of the musicians whose purpose is to use the stage to spew their political venom at us." "People who look to rock stars for political guidance might as well be asking a street sweeper for investment advice."

Please tell me when participation in the democratic proces required a degree? Certification? Licensure? A drug screening? Pain tolerance tests? Allow me to sum up what underscores the concept of "democratic politics." There are no qualifications necessary for participation in democratic politics. (Outside of the obvious requirement of being a citizen of said democracy...) If I want to write a political message, I can do it. I'm doing it right now. Anybody can. Why should I be denounced simply because I'm not "certified" or "qualified" to discuss such things? True, you should always consider your source, and you should weigh information carefully, but you should rarely discount it outright.

Moreover, musicians and actors are getting blasted for speaking out about issues and candidates. Why? In the history of one "liberal art," writing, we find people like Dante and Chekov and Orwell and More all discussing "hifalutin" ideas. Why can't they? Should they abstain because they are "mere writers?" So, if a medium as versatile as the written word can be used to convey intelligent discourse on politics, and its practicers not looked down upon for their attempts, then why should we malign people whose works are, while not as important or influential (I'm making a judgement call here) as the standard written word, still within the realm of the "liberal arts?" If writers can use their medium to talk politics, musicians can use music to talk politics, and actors can, well, do whatever they do. I don't know acting. But I do know that attempting to stifle these people based on their occupations is absurd. Sure, they're rich. So is Bill O'Reilly, but he's intelligent, and most people are probably willing to listen to what he says in full before agreeing or disagreeing with him. In fact, I'm willing to stretch and say that most people who are willing to take the time to open their mouths and say something reasonably well thought out about a political or governmental issue/concept/etc. is probably smart enough that they should be listened to and considered before being judged. I apologize for how convoluted this rant has become. It began as one thing and ended up being a true, all-out diatribe. But I will end this with a question, a thinker for all of you. Why shouldn't actors and musicians who are American citizens use their talents and stations to discuss things that are on their minds, whether those things be political in nature or personal? Why mark a distinction between the personal and the political in this case?

Addendum:
Isn't it funny that (mainly) the rightists are the ones attacking Hollywood's "intrusion" into the political ring, when they heralded former two-bit actor Ronald Reagan as their Messiah for 8 years? I love irony.

Maybe They're Just Short on Peak Minutes...

2004-08-07T13:25:00.000-04:00

According to a CNN article, counterterrorism experts are alarmed by the recent decline in terrorist "chatter." Before you begin asking why a decline would be bad, they do cite a reason for their concern: a similar trend in such communications was noticed before the second World Trade Center bombing. What concerns me is that no matter what the report is, it's bad. I've seen a hundred news stories about an "increase in terrorist 'chatter'" spooking people in Washington. Now, I'm hearing that the exact opposite is spooking them. While I do fully understand what's going on, the irony in this situation is simply amusing, so I figured I should share it with the world.

Back in Action?

2004-08-04T04:00:00.000-04:00

I'm preparing to move this week, which is what has kept me out of action recently. However, next week should see my return in full force along with several major changes to the blog. New design, forums, and possibly a new system running the site's internals, including the commenting system. Stay tuned, and until next week, here's something to whet the appetite:

The new logo.

The Sky Isn't Falling

2004-07-31T14:34:00.000-04:00

While surfing the indispensable TomPaine.com, I came across Rory O'Conner's blog and a post complaining about the Democrats' convention marketing technique, that which focussed on the nominee's ability to make war and not peace that I don't totally agree with.

And what I expect to hear from Democrats is a plan to wage peace, not war without end. At least, that’s what I expect to hear from the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,” as Howard Dean once admirably phrased it. Now even Dean seems to wish he had enlisted and fought in Vietnam, instead of dodging the battles to go skiing… Now it’s all upside down and standing in its head, and the Baby Boomers want to play boom-boom and transmogrify themselves into the “Greatest Generation, Part Deux.”

Dude, Where’s My Party?

How did it come to pass that thirty years on we’re still on Vietnam– only this time “our guy” is the one who volunteered to go over and kill Cong, and ‘their guy” is the one who did his best to duck out?

Marketing. Money. Mad Ave.

But the Democrats are trying to sell us a pig in a poke by trying to come off as something they’re not, something even they don’t believe in – and it will inevitably show. People aren’t stupid, the camera doesn’t lie (even when the politicians do) and sooner rather than later enough undecided ’swing voters in the battleground (here we go again!) states’ will figure out that the message is phony and the detergent isn’t new or improved in any way. So why switch brands? By focusing on war, the Democrats (Republicrats?) will play right into the hands of their opponents, because when Americans think war, they think Republican.

I will concede this to Mr O'Conner: traditional left-Democratic war policies were most definitely absent from the convention. However, that was for a reason, primarily being campaign strategy. The convention was a marketing event scripted by the Democratic party, one that focussed on what was perceived to be Kerry's biggest weakness: his supposed laxness on security issues. After being brow-beaten by Clark, Cleland, and the Swarmy Swiftboat Squadron, middle-of-the-road Americans may not write Kerry's stance on national defense issues off so quickly. Was this done at the expense of traditional Democratic (brace for the buzz word) "values"? Most definitely, but that's what comes with a presidential election. Mr O'Conner seems to be in line with Nader's misbegoten vision, that being that Kerry is in a fight for the voters on the left, when it's the voters in the middle that he must truly win over. Simply because the convention decided to squash a perceived weakness does not mean it changes Kerry's Democratic heritage. Middle-ground voters have lived under Bush's "War on Terror," they have seen the damage it has caused, and they are ready for a change. So, Roy, calm down. It's a new era, Kerry is not preaching for constant war, and he is not pulling the wool over undecided eyes -- he's simply ready to deal with real crises with real strategies and real alliances, something that Bush has been unable to do since he took office.

DNC: Day 1 Impressions

2004-07-27T00:38:00.000-04:00

The Democratic National Convention is off and running, and it's been as entertaining as a tightly scripted nationally televised political event can be. McAuliffe and company's crackdown on negative spiels against Bush and the current administration surely didn't help the party's spineless image, but it did little to dampen the enthusiasm of the delegates and guests present at the Fleet Center. In fact, the sedation of Gore did little to block the party's message concerning the election and Bush himself, that every vote counts and that the current president is truly a divider. Hillary and Bill were able to focus in on those messages and pound them home with skillful clarity and just the right forcefullness. Clinton expertly weaved word after word together, convincingly communicating that Bush is bad for the country and that Kerry offers new hope. He even pointed out the current administration's devilish development of two new nuclear weapons, which is an issue that the press has nearly ignored. Overall, an impressive case was made against Bush, despite the party leadership's fear over being cited for negative tactics.

What is truly troublesome is that the party is so fearful over going negative this week. Has Bush's campaign not been negative this entire time? Of course the Kerry campaign and the national party leadership are focussed on running the positive campaign in contrast to Bush/Cheney's, but that should not hold Kerry and Edwards back from calling Bush out on his many mistakes. There is a difference between being selectively critical and negative, and Kerry and the DNC should not be afraid of being rightfully critical of a wayward administration, nor should they be afraid of entering attack mode when it is required.

Fixing the Intelligence Community

2004-07-25T22:28:00.000-04:00

Perhaps I am the only one who sees the irony in a conservative president appointing a new cabinet-level official to preside over the intelligence community as a whole, in turn creating a new layer of bureaucracy to fix the problems within the current, malfunctioning bureaucratic strata. While Bush has rarely showed his conservative side in how he runs government, asides from attempting to discriminate gays directly into the ground, he still, supposedly, considers himself staunchly conservative -- but, would a true conservative simply expand government to handle pre-existing problems within that government? In this case, yes, because going against the wishes of a bi-partisan commission that has, indirectly, found the president's war policies in contrast to the safety of the nation would be another dire mistake that would be reflected within the electorate. Although, a Secretary of Intelligence will not solve the problems currently inherent within the intelligence community. What is required is wide-reaching reform within the CIA, FBI and Defense intelligence agencies that can cure the "lack of imagination" cited by the 9/11 commission as the primary reason for the failures of 9/11. Richard Clarke in a NY Times op/ed (registration required) today echoes this sentiment, pointing out how the culture within the intelligence community must change in order to repair the overall apparatus charged with keeping the United States secure:

First, we need not only a more powerful person at the top of the intelligence community, but also more capable people throughout the agencies - especially the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency. In other branches of the government, employees can and do join on as mid- and senior-level managers after beginning their careers and gaining experience elsewhere. But at the F.B.I. and C.I.A., the key posts are held almost exclusively by those who joined young and worked their way up. This has created uniformity, insularity, risk-aversion, torpidity and often mediocrity.

The only way to infuse these key agencies with creative new blood is to overhaul their hiring and promotion practices to attract workers who don't suffer the "failures of imagination" that the 9/11 commissioners repeatedly blame for past failures.

Second, in addition to separating the job of C.I.A. director from the overall head of American intelligence, we must also place the C.I.A.'s analysts in an agency that is independent from the one that collects the intelligence. This is the only way to avoid the "groupthink" that hampered the agency's ability to report accurately on Iraq. It is no accident that the only intelligence agency that got it right on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State Department - a small, elite group of analysts encouraged to be independent thinkers rather than spies or policy makers.

Bush has promised to act on many of the 9/11 commission's recommendations within the coming days, but if he and the public, especially, believe the appointment of a new cabinet official will fix the problems inherent within the system, we are well on our way to another disaster.

A Matter of Curiosity

2004-07-25T12:54:00.000-04:00

While perusing the Sacramento Bee, I was interested to find an article about cockfighting. Despite coming from the Ohio River Valley, I haven't had much exposure to the idea of spur-laden roosters gouging each other's flesh. So, when I read through the article, I began to wonder: Why is cock fighting illegal? At first the question seems dumb, but I think it comes down to an element of our society that is slowly being redefined. Animals, unfortunately, are gaining legal rights. Indeed, the presence of "Humane Societies" is disturbing; the word "humane" refers to a desire to remove suffering or pain, but the root word is "human," not "animal." To treat animals in a humane way when we can barely interact with other humans on such a level on a regular basis (how often have you wanted to cause suffering to a fellow man on the road simply because he is driving too slowly, or to a fellow man behind a fast food counter because he accidentally put tomato on your sandwich? Remember cussing out and beating up people?) seems to me absurd. Even I, the disagreeable one, cannot find ethical or logical fault in simply not mistreating animals. Personally, I don't believe we should treat animals with cruelty. But, I also don't believe we should have legal institutions and precendents that grant animals rights. Men are above animals, and we have every right to do with them what we will. We should use reason, we should use restraint, and we should use compassion, because the facility to use these mental checks is what makes us superior. But, if we choose not to, that is our option. The law should not prevent people from arming their chickens and sending them into deadly melee. The idea is simply too stupid for the law to touch. But Law once more sullies itself with statutes designed to curb such activity. I ask you, why make a practice like that illegal? I seriously doubt cock fights would spread and ruin our society if unrestrained by law; not everyone wants to raise chickens, and fewer people probably want to see said chickens mangling each other in mortal combat. So why arrest those that do? I don't have any answers, and I know this post has been disjointed, but that's because it's an extended question, an exploration of a matter which has jostled my sense of curiosity.

Redefining Peace

2004-07-22T00:37:00.000-04:00

The flip-flopper mantle has been bestowed upon Kerry early on in this election cycle, but as I and many others have pointed out in the past: Bush is the true flip-flopper. Now there is even more evidence of this (my apologies to those who have already seen this strung across numerous blogs -- I do have a new point connected to this, so please bear with me):

"I'm a war president."
- George W. Bush, Meet the Press, Feb. 13, 2004

"Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."
- George W. Bush, Campaign Speech, July 20, 2004

First off, I won't take the easy way out and point to these two quotes as clear evidence of uber flip-floppage, primarily because saying one is a war president does not necessarily mean the person wished to be one to begin with (which may be debatable in this case, but I digress.) I will, however, point to this article at the Sunday Herald that reports on one of those nifty "anonomyous government officials" claiming that plans are well on the way for major intervention in Iran if Bush is re-elected:

PRESIDENT George Bush has promised that if re-elected in November he will make regime change in Iran his new target.

Bush named Iran as part of the Axis of Evil along with North Korea and Iraq almost three years ago. A US government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that military action would not be overt in changing Iran, but rather that the US would work to stir revolts in the country and hope to topple the current conservative religious leadership.

The official said: "If George Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran."

Well, unless Bush considers widespread regime change through covert action (which, considering it's been announced it's actually a little more overt than anything) "peaceful," then in his feeble mind he may well be a peace president. Regardless, it seems to be amateur hour over at Bush HQ considering the administration has unleashed two completely contradictory messages on the public at the exact same time, further rendering null any claims made about Kerry's past contradictions.

Back in the States

2004-07-17T14:57:00.000-04:00

Well, I'm back from Brazil. Actually, I've been back since Sunday morning, but my girlfriend had a slight medical emergency requiring a minor surgery the same day which has kept us tied up since. I'm still not going to have regular internet access for a day or two, so you all will have to deal with Jon a little longer. Obviously Jon's views aren't as left as mine, so I apologize for certain issues that have not been covered or covered in a way typically expected of the blog. Jon does bring a different perspective to the issues, and hopefully the difference in how we approach certain things can spark some decent debate.

Unfortunately I have to take my leave, but I promise to drop back in in a day or so and make a post about my Brazilian experience.

To Students, Blacks: Get Over Yourselves

2004-07-15T13:08:00.000-04:00

In this CNN article, a black student at a Virginia high school was named valedictorian of his class. Just before graduation, though, two more valedictorians were added. They were white. Obviously, this is a case of racism, and the principal and all the people involved with this vile cracker conspiracy should be hung and flayed.

Hopefully you picked up on my sarcasm. This situation is not at all uncommon. The article even notes that some schools have ended the tradition of graduation honors because people have begun (*sigh*) suing over it. Parents have increasingly interfered with the operation of schools, and the valedictorian selection process is not exempt. Parents whine and moan until their "little star" is added to the roaster, as though anybody cares in 6 years. Graduation honors mean very, very little in the real world. It's simply a publicity competition between parents, an attempt to justify those innate feelings that "my child is the best." If the process of selecting the two new kids looked shady, that's because it was. The parents griped until the principal and other authority figures were forced to bend rules to accomodate them. That situation often occurs. Punishments are dropped, honors are bestowed, all outside the bounds of the rules, and all because parents can't keep their mouths shut.

So, to link up with my title, I have two messages to two groups of people.

Students: Please get over yourselves. You're in high school. Congratulations, you're around the end of your compulsory education. Making it to the latter part of an education ENFORCED BY LAW isn't exactly an accomplishment; what the hell other choice did you have? Now, if you've done well, sure, pat yourselves on the back, but don't go squabbling over honors. It's just high school. Nobody in reality, that place you go after you graduate, really cares. Tell your parents, too. They need a wake-up call, I bet.
Blacks: For the love of God, not every slight against a black man is automatically a racist act. Can't some incidents just be what they are, without the need to throw in this now-weary "Mah skeen is the deefrent collar!" defense? Once more, nobody in reality cares. See the "stupid" way I wrote the quoted defense line? That's how stupid you make yourselves look when you inappropriately blame things on race. I'm not saying you can NEVER use the race card, because often it applies. But, it doesn't always apply, so stop trying to make everything some sort of victicrat (thanks Larry) nightmare by claiming you're victimized because of your race. When it happens, ok, go ahead and operate off the race defense. But quit injecting it where it doesn't apply.

Bush Somehow Supports Iraqi Conflict

2004-07-10T17:37:00.000-04:00

In another show of end-justfies-means rhetoric, President Bush spoke in support of Persian Gulf II during his recent campaign rallies. His comments came in response to the scathing Senate committee report on prewar intelligence that was released yesterday. Bush is quoted in this article as saying, "'We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass destruction, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them.'" That's all good and well, George, but isn't that one of the premises that the report just disproved, that not only was Saddam probably not possessed of WMDs, but he had a much more limited ability to manufacture them than the exaggerated intel claimed?

Next, "When Saddam Hussein refused to heed U.N. resolutions, the United States had no choice but to make good on its promise of action, Bush said." That sounds fine until I think back to the U.N. inspectors being inside the country and Saddam cooperating with them. Sure, he had a few rockets that had inappropriate ranges, but hell, his violations were relatively minor compared to what we were asserting. Then, of course, the inspectors were mysteriously pulled and the war began; US troops had been prepping outside Iraq since the previous October, but nobody really reported that...

Moving on, I'd like to point out this ad hominem by G.W.B. "'We had a choice to make: Either take the word of a madman, or take action to defend America.'" Yeah, reduce the opposition to "a madman" and you can justify almost anything. Saddam, however ruthless, is far from a madman. By controlling his country for 20+ years and waging a war against Iran in the 80s and 1.5 wars against us in the past decade or so, Saddam has proved that he has the power to reason properly, meaning he's not insane. I'm not defending his character, but shit, don't go around calling people madmen to justify your actions. It's childish. I could oppose G.W.B. by saying, "This madman wants to take our soldiers and throw them around the four corners of the Earth. I could either listen to a madman or start this guerilla group hellbent on killing him and his whole administration. I have no choice but to do the latter!" But if I did that, I'd be a fool, so I don't. Hopefully other people learn to avoid ad hominem, too.

This will be my final "picking on Bush" paragraph, but only because I'm out of quotes after this one. "'Because we acted, [Iraq's] dictator is now in a prison cell, and will receive the justice he denied so many for so long,'" Again, it sounds good, but that's simply end-justifies-the-means logic. If I slam-dunked the planet into a black hole, I'd end all murder, rape, pillaging, torture, adultery, corruption, lying, and homosexuality, but I'd also kill everyone alive and utterly destroy our planet. That means of reaching purification is not acceptable because it has incalculable negative consequences. We went about the Iraqi issue all wrong, and it doesn't matter how many times we jail Saddam or hang Saddam or launch Saddam as a human probe to Pluto, because our path was not, as perhaps a Confuscian might say, in keeping with the laws of propriety.

I said the last paragraph was the last Bushwacker, and it is, but it isn't the final paragraph. I have one more comment based upon the text of the article. It's a little off-topic, but I think it's tangentially related. "Conservatives on the panel successfully blocked Democratic efforts to finish the second part of the report -- how the administration used the information from the intelligence community -- until after the November elections." At first, that sounds like a very simple "protect our party's candidate" screen, and it's easy to simply dismiss it as an election tactic. But upon review, I think this tactic shows something very sinister. Yes, this information, if it comes out a certain way, could hurt the President. But, don't I have the right to know how my government is acting and discipline it accordingly? Remember folks, these guys represent us. They're a government on probation. They have to answer to us. So why are we letting our representatives bind our hands thusly? Beyond that, it shows that the Republicans (on that panel, at least) have more interest in winning elections than preserving the ethics of our government. If anyone in the administration acted unethically, we have a right to know and to let them feel our displeasure at the polls. This trick, though, is like some sort of immunity charm from that God-awful "Survivor" show. No matter how wrong Bush or his cabinet members might be, he's sheltered from all fallout until after it matters. All this comes, somehow, from the party that has always been the Siamese twin of Ethics. Unfortunately for Republicans across the nation, it appears their party and Ethics have had a successful separation.

What Bush Can Learn from Blair

2004-07-10T16:16:00.000-04:00

I have always respected Tony Blair as a public figure; he tends to exude a sort of integrity and honesty that is lacking in a vast number of American politicians, both Republican and Democrat. The fact that Blair nearly resigned his position last month only confirms that he is a unique breed among leaders, one who is able to put aside ego and take responsibilty for mistakes. This is in stark contrast to an American president who has the gull to claim he has never made a mistake while in office, acting as a symbolic slap-in-the-face to the now 1000+ coalition soldiers who have lost their lives in the Iraqi theater. Perhaps if Bush were to follow Blair's lead, not to the point of resignation but to the point of concession, he could regain some respect before he is rightfully booted from office by a public who is no longer fooled by tough talk and distraction.

While We're At It...

2004-07-09T22:03:00.000-04:00

While we're busy blowing holes in the CIA, we might want to remember the Pentagon's role in prewar intelligence. When the CIA wasn't initially coming up with the proper numbers or the proper "facts" about Iraq, the Pentagon put together its own intel review team. Much of the false information that laid the foundation for our invasion came from that source, too, and it'd be good not to forget it. The White House and the news will both, however, make it out to be the CIA at fault 100% of the time, and nevermind the correct information they gathered that the Pentagon simply ignored. Iraq was, is, and will always be a debacle, and we really have no way of denying it. Hell, even Tony Blair has admitted that the main purpose for invading, the destruction of Saddam's weapons of incredible devastation, is probably false, and that we'll probably never find the weapons or their production facilities, ever. I don't know about the current administration, but I've always been of a mind that your premises are as important as your conclusion, that any flaw in your reasoning is fatal. This end-justfies-the-means bullshit must end, and promptly.

Allawi Makes a Giant Mistake

2004-07-08T14:08:00.000-04:00

Yesterday Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi signed into a law a new, emergency security doctrine institutionalizing martial law in order to deal with the continuing problems with insurgent forces in Baghdad. In response, some have praised Allawi for recognizing the seriousness of the insurgency (the terrorists are trying to kill him, after all) and acting in turn. Although, the emergency powers law actually takes Iraq a step back -- When does the new regime become like the old? Idealists believe that a crack down will discourage future insurgent forces through forceful intimidation when in fact it will only disillusion more and more Iraqis, creating an even larger problem. It is rather depressing that Allawi has resorted to considering martial law at such an early point in his tenure, for not only do the citizens of Baghdad have to worry about insurgents, they now also have to fear their brand new, supposedly sovereign government. Many dictatorships under the shroud of democracy have been born under such dire circumstances, and there must be fear that martial law power may be extended in time out of sheer paranoia.

Perhaps the most frightening part about this entire issue is how the interim Iraqi Human Rights Minister described the emergency powers law as comparable to the USA Patriot Act.

Doubts Over Edwards? Psshaw

2004-07-07T22:53:00.000-04:00

With Edwards as Kerry's VP pick, many have begun to question whether or not Edwards has the experience required to trump Cheney's. In short, no, obviously Edwards does not. As a one-term senator he holds nothing on Cheney's record, as the current VP is a man who has spent extensive time within the Beltway and holds foreign policy experience that Edwards could never hope to match. However, does the public truly care about that? History basicaly says no -- image can be nearly everything in a presidential race and can even alter long-term, issue-based forces. While Cheney may have the experience, he does not have the warm, caring veneer that Edwards has. Cheney is old, tired and cold, all facts that can be proved by looking at any extensive poll on the VP and his performance. Edwards, on the other hand, has the sort of down-home approach to campaigning and politics that will strike a chord with many Americans. Although, there is still the possibility that fears over terrorism and foreign policy issues may be enough to submerge image this election around, but Cheney's expertise has been soiled by the administration's handling of the war on terror. Kerry and Edwards must be there to capitalize on this at the right moment for, truly, Bush and Cheney have been their own worst enemies.

The enemy of my enemy is my enemy?

2004-07-07T17:25:00.000-04:00

In reports heard on both "Live from ..." on CNN and some God-awful show on Fox News featuring a mildly retarded blonde in her 30s, a militant group (hell, let's just call it a group of terrorists) has issued a statement calling for the immediate departure of known terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from Iraq, on pains of death. The administration's reaction to this group (and others like it, should they crop up) will be important; so far, I haven't heard even the beginning of a reaction. When I do, however, I hope to hear a denunciation of the group, or at least their tactics; if I do not, I will be forced to remember Nicaragua in the 1980s, something about "freedom fighters." We need to be fair in our evaluation of this half-good, half-bad situation. We cannot use terrorism to fight terrorism; I'm not even sure you can fight a system of belief and action, anyway, but fighting it with itself would be even more implausible. We have to at least present an outward appearance of living up to our own standards, otherwise we're going to lose a hell of a lot of bargaining power and a good deal of credibility. As Earl Pitts always says, "Wake up, America!"

The NYPost, Bastion of Steaming Piles

2004-07-06T13:40:00.000-04:00

I am not a fan of cliches, but I will venture to use one for this simply because it's deserved: the New York Post was played like a fiddle, and if it was by the Kerry communications team through some roundabout way I'm estatic. For those unaware, last night the Post''s online edition featured an elaborate top story about how Kerry had chosen Dick Gephardt as his VP. Of course, as anyone who has turned a TV on today knows, Edwards is the actual pick. The Post even went as far as preparing a front page spread on Kerry/Gephardt 2004:

How's the Post handling this Dewey-esque mess-up? Well, as one would expect from a respectable journalistic outlet: they're ignoring it. Ignoring it like Reagan ignored AIDS. The original story is gone, of course, without any sort of correction offered anywhere. And I would not be expecting such a correction ever. While the editors of the Post most likely just want this to go away, there's little doubt the blogosphere will keep it around for a long while. Not only is the Post one of Rupert Murdoch's conervative hovels, which is bad enough, it's also a shoddy piece of journalism. At least the Times offered an official apology when Jason Blair lied; the Post will probably offer no such concession after creating an entire alternative universe in which Gephardt is actually acceptable as a VP. If Kerry's communications team was behind this little coup, it's genius. The candidate playing the consevative wing of the press for once and not the other way around.

With Friends Like These...

2004-07-06T07:09:00.000-04:00

It seems that the current administration has an uncanny ability to turn a blind eye to what it does not want to see when geopolitical strategy and oil come into play. Azerbaijan, a state bordering Iran and the future proprietor of a major oil pipeline, is led by a supposedly democratic president who takes no issue with torturing opposition party activists through beatings and electrocution:

President Aliyev junior launched a brutal crackdown on the political opposition immediately after his election, arresting hundreds and torturing many, according to human rights activists. Yet this month, with pictures from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq undermining Washington's ability to criticise similar practices elsewhere, the Pentagon forged ahead with plans to increase its presence in the Caspian state.

US officials cite the important strategic and logistical role that the key state in the Caucasus, on the border with Iran, can play in the "war on terror". They are also open about the need to protect the £2bn oil pipeline set to carry a million barrels of Caspian oil daily to Turkey and the American market by late next year.

...

Opposition officials around the country were rounded up and many were tortured. Natiq Jabiyev, Musavat's elections secretary said the organised crime unit stripped him naked and plunged nails beneath three fingers of his left hand. The US state department said reports of his torture were "credible". Yet sanctions - lifted for reasons of national security - have not been reintroduced, and military aid has been increased.

Local politicians and activists said they were exasperated by the White House's support for the Aliyev regime, and the US actions at Abu Ghraib.

Isa Gambar, Musavat's leader, said: "The impact of Abu Ghraib has been very negative. Five out of seven of my party leaders who are in jail have been tortured. The Azerbaijani government, trying to justify itself, now says that torture happens everywhere. The US's main objective here is stability, and their other goals [of fighting terrorism, extracting oil, and developing democracy] tend to be a victim of this."

Supporting oppressive regimes in the name of fighting a larger enemy is nothing new for US policymakers; one only has to look back at the Cold War to find other striking examples, most notably in Latin America. However, is it too idealistic to think such activities would one day wither away? And it is not only that, it is the utter hypocrisy. Supposedly the US invaded Iraq in order to dethrone an evil tyrant (forget that WMD thing, right?), yet it has little trouble supporting a nearby dictator in a show democracy where citizens are electrocuted and run-through by nails for no other reason than to suppress their right of free speech.

The Intelligence Community is Broken

2004-07-06T06:50:00.000-04:00

Or, at least, that's what the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has concluded after looking at pre-war WMD allegations put forth by the CIA:

The CIA was told by relatives of Iraqi scientists before the war that Baghdad's programs to develop unconventional weapons had been abandoned, but the CIA failed to give that information to President Bush, even as he publicly warned of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's illicit weapons, according to government officials.

...

The Senate report, intelligence officials say, concludes that the agency and the intelligence community did a poor job of collecting information about the status of Iraq's weapons programs, and that analysts at the CIA and other intelligence agencies did an even worse job of writing reports that accurately reflected the information they had.

...

The Senate found, for example, that an Iraqi defector who supposedly provided evidence of the existence of a biological weapons program had actually said that he did not know of any such program.

...
The possibility that Tenet personally overstated the evidence has been investigated by the Senate panel, officials said. He was interviewed privately by the panel, and was asked whether he told Bush that the case for the existence of Iraq's unconventional weapons was a "slam dunk."

In a very real sense this is a win for the Bush administration, which is actually rather pathetic. By helping to focus the spotlight of blame on Tenet and the CIA, the committee has only reinforced Bush and Co.'s illusion of restructuring brought about by Tenet's resignation. The broader context of the situation is submerged in shadow by the report. To the committee's credit, it is only supposed to focus on the CIA and similar organizations, although do not be surprised when the administration spins the report to their advantage, sacrificing the intelligence community in order to save a few approval points. If anything, the committee should have made mention of a crusader White House only willing to hear what it wished to hear in a run up to a misguided military conquest.

Pardon the Dust

2004-07-06T02:09:00.000-04:00

We're busy moving the blog over to the new domain, so don't be surprised if some weird things happen over the next few hours.

And, to those visiting from the Blogspot address, go here to view the site at the updated address.

The Political Spectrum Is Deceiving or; A Diatribe Against Democratic Politics

2004-07-05T12:20:00.000-04:00

In collegiate political science courses (or high school ones, if you're attending an over-privelaged school), the professor almost always begins with a discussion of the political spectrum, a handy way to classify political theories in a relative way. So, Marxism-Lenninism goes over there on the left, and then Classical Liberalism, and then somewhere near the center we find the two major American parties. Supposedly, there in the middle, even though there isn't a great deal of separation physically between the two parties, being on either side of that ideological fulcrum is supposed to indicate some difference. Unfortunately, the difference is only in approach, not result, the result being American citizens losing more and more authority to the government.

Democrats characteristically tout themselves as the enemies of a repressive Republican party, and they back up their words by pointing to pet issues like abortion rights, minority civil rights, women's rights, the environment, and soforth. Unfortunately, these are mostly areas that have already been ironed out; there is no need to battle over black men's rights, or women's rights, or abortion rights, because those battles have been won, many of them decades ago. But on current issues, Democrats often find themselves offering a "nicer" path to a very restrictive result.

In this CNN article, various Democrats take a stand against violent video games, wanting to regulate or prohibit them through force of law. The law, then, would be weighing in on games. That idea is almost as ridiculous as saying that the anti-gambling legislation in the state of Ohio, which puts the brakes on casinos by making house games illegal, can be used to break up 6 college friends playing Blackjack for quarters (which it can). They're not ruling on something that is a social ill, something that, if left unregulated by law, could propagate and invade and destroy. With something like child pornography, it is easy to tell that there is no redeeming value, social or artistic in such material, and even someone with "loose" ethics would undoubtedly stand up against such unspeakable acts. Video games, though, are completely different. Games can have an artistic value, with entire graphics engines built by people, then directed to draw and build remarkable structures and textures. They can have social or literary value, too, depending upon the story, plot, execution, etc. The only difference between literature and games is medium; one uses words on a page, the other uses symbols and sounds on a television monitor. And if some games, like some literature (or movies, or music), have content that an eight-year-old should not see, then perhaps his parents should perform their duties and keep them away from him. Uneducated, uncaring, or otherwise derelict parents are not an excuse to bring in the law to regulate a medium. Instead, it should be a wake-up call for Americans to start taking responsibility for their lives and actions once more. If you have a child, raise him, and raise him right. Otherwise, we're going to have "Protect You From Yourself" Democrats trying to raise him by proxy, and nobody wants the state bringing up children, I promise you.

Indeed, while I find myself angry with both American parties, and while I don't think any one pre-formed party will ever satisfy my needs and wants both ethically and politically, I have been finding more and more fault with the left lately. Since it's an election year, all focus is on the President and what he has or hasn't done, and damnit, I'm tired of it. If I hear "Iraq" or "Abu Ghraib" or "jobs" one more time, I will probably die. So, this is an attempt to think about and discuss problems concerning the side that hasn't been taking all the heat, and it's an attempt to get away from these two or three major issues that unfairly dominate all others. (Don't think I'm saying the issues aren't important; they're just overdone, as all major issues are during election years.) Don't think I'm "picking on" anybody; I'm an equal-opportunity hater. I detest Democrats as much as I do Republicans, because (please pardon the vernacular) they're both full of shit.

Calls for NATO's Death -- A Bit Premature

2004-06-30T13:05:00.000-04:00

After the problems met by the Bush administration at the NATO summit in Istanbul this past week, many, including neocons and even leftist foreign policy commentator Bob Dreyfuss, have pointed out that NATO's existence is simply not needed in today's world. I, however, disagree -- NATO is needed, now more than ever. Dreyfuss focuses primarily on the military aspect of the alliance in his short spiel, which does make sense -- the North Atlantic alliance was created as a military institution to fight off the oncoming horde of Communist aggression during the Cold War. However, as Dreyfuss completely misses, the importance of NATO currently lies primarily in its institutions which, thankfully, force members to at least attempt to iron out differences. NATO binds the US and Europe together. Simply put, Europe cannot completely shun the US and the US cannot completely shun Europe as long as the institutions of NATO continue to exist. In the war on terror such an organization has a purpose in times of disagreement -- to keep all relevant sides talking -- and in times of all-out cooperation -- the US alone cannot provide all the troops needed in wide-ranging operations and Europe does not have the logistical ability to move their own to trouble spots without US support. While NATO has not been an impressive organization recently, one has to wonder if a change in US foreign policy direction and leadership will change this. Shunning NATO due to its reaction to the Bush administration's foreign policy blunders is indeed premature.

I will agree that NATO is a relic of the Cold War currently, but it does have the ability to morph into a new, stronger organization staunchly opposed to terrorism. Only when an American administration in favor of multilateral foreign policy initiatives enters office will such a NATO be possible. So, Mr Dreyfuss, do not fall into the neocon trap. Even the present NATO is highly important as it, through its opposition to misguided US actions, serves to inject common sense into the foreign policy debate and continues to point out the fatal errors in the neoconservative agenda.

The Decline of America: The Overabundance of Law

2004-06-30T11:35:00.000-04:00

I believe that America is so "circumscrib'd with laws" that we are quickly approaching the point where individual freedom and democracy cannot be used mutually exclusively. As evidence of this, I have this CNN article from a few weeks back. According to this article, a man who owned a parrot (note the word "owned;" it is his) was charged with attacking and injuring the bird. He was convicted, his punishments are as follows:

120 days of jail commuted to community service
$3,577 in fines to pay for the "surgery and care of the bird"
No pets or alcohol for three years

I'm sorry, but the fact that someone actually went to court and was given such hefty punishment for beating up his own pet tells me that America is on the decline. I'm not debating ethics or definitions of cruelty; I see how beating up on a creature smaller than you is unfair and, after a point, requires a sick mind. I, myself, would be upset if someone slew my cat. But, it's also mine. I would not be upset if my neighbour killed her cat, because it's hers. Why should the law concern itself with assault and battery against non-humans? If the man wanted to beat his parrot to death, that's his waste of money. Poor judgement in and of itself should not always be illegal. Mayhaps the man felt bad about it after he was done; isn't his own regret punishment enough for such an action? But even so, he should not be required to feel bad. If I damage my property, it is nobody else's business, most especially not the law's. People should not be able to attack the pets of others except in extreme circumstances (dog repeatedly tears up your yard, and repeated calls to the owner yield no results; dog attacks you), because that causes emotional damage and loss of property to a human being. Attacking your own, however, should be left out of the courts and up to your own personal discretion.

Checking In from Sao Paulo, Brazil

2004-06-25T13:30:00.000-04:00

Hello! It's been awhile since I dropped in, which is rather sad considering this is my own blog. I am in Sao Paulo, Brazil currently, where I'll be residing until July 10th. It's definitely a different experience here; Orlando holds nothing on it. Not only am I having to deal with being in the third largest city in the world, I am having to also adapt to the culture itself. Nothing is more exhilarating than being shuffled through hundreds of bodies in a crowded downtown square, fearing for wallet and safety, while also not understanding anything that's going on since you are almost one hundred percent ignorant of the local language. That's the joy of travel, and I am happy to be experiencing it.

I see Jon posted on the travesties that took place in Iraq yesterday, which is something I was planning on mentioning. However, I would have probably negated the part concerning Fox News, which is probably not unexpected.

Jon, obviously, attempts to look at the world from a more 'realistic' lens. No, this is not the realism as described recently concerning the war, as represented by such people as the Secretary of State. No, this is the realism that paints all events as either good or bad for the US, as all states and people as either in the black or white without regard for shades of gray -- the realism that puts the needs of the state first above all else in some sort of short-sighted, egocentric crusade. The US is the hegemon, its will sets the world on end for better or for worse. It just seems that, recently, the US' actions under its current administration has only enacted change for the worse, and finally the American public is realizing this. We're not safer; the hegemon is crumbling, and I think it is this that Jon has been attempting to highlight. Even though his views as us versus them sometimes do seem short-sighted, I cannot help but sometimes agree -- it is Us versus Them, our Survival or Death. We have just been fighting the wrong fight for the past year and we may end up paying a terrible price once again because of it.

Iraq explodes predictably

2004-06-24T21:24:00.000-04:00

Today, Iraq was smashed by combined attacks on Baghdad, Fallujah, Mosul, and two other cities. Nearly a hundred people died according to the last estimate I heard on the Fox News Network. With less than a week until the restoration of Iraq's sovereignty as a nation-state, things are beginning to look messy, as though they did not already. The lightning in the sky over Columbus right now reminds me of the flashes of bombs over a year ago, bombs falling in the still desert night of Iraq's capital city, and of all the trouble that has ensued since our military mouth opened and rained fire on the Middle East. This is not a condemnation, merely a contemplation. What if the world were different? What if the Ottomans had won? What if Rome had survived a few hundred more years? Nevermind... All "if"s must be muted, and reality must be studied. What is the best option? We are the hegemon; we hold the cards. Hopefully we've got enough trump saved up to beat the world...

The Middle Eastern Powder Keg

2004-06-17T01:00:00.000-04:00

Bob Dreyfuss expertly analyzes the dangers of another four years of a neoconservative-controlled administration in a recent post at TomPaine.com. It's an insightful and quick read, which only goes to once again raise alarm bells about the neocon complex that is still alive and kicking within the Beltway despite the hits the movement has taken over the past year, which is highlighted by this passage:

The neocons are maintaining their steady drumbeat of war talk over Iran, and at a recent American Enterprise Institute session one speaker suggested that Israel might strike first, blowing away Iran’s reactors or research centers. The Iranians are said to be aware that if Bush is re-elected, they are a likely target for getting the Saddam Treatment, and they’re planning accordingly.

Dreyfuss points out that both Saudi Arabia and Iran are on the neocons' radar, and with the destabalization of the Kingdom of Saud the pieces are falling into place for a future American invasion and occupation of that country. The Middle East is becoming more unstable by the second, and it's exactly what the hawks within the administration want. Not only do we have to worry about a Saudi kingdom under the control of the Wahabis now due to the policies that have been enacted in the region, we also have to worry about a nuclear-armed Iran and, lest anyone forget, an unstable Pakistan which could experience a bloody and extremely anti-American coup at any time. If the neocons are wishing to level the entire region one state at a time and then remake each in America's image, they may get the first portion of that wish with quite an unintended side effect: total nuclear war that will draw the entire world into perpetual warfare.

A change of direction is needed. Now.

The Grand Strategy No One's Heard Of

2004-06-16T22:50:00.000-04:00

Democratic Representative Jim Turner unveiled a new wide-arching, comprehensive strategy for fighting the war on terror on April 27th and no single media outlet took notice -- except for the American Prospect:

On April 27, beneath the fluorescent lights of the Center for Strategic and International Studies' basement conference room, Representative Jim Turner unveiled "Winning The War on Terror," a large report prepared by the Democratic staff of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security.

...

The group of outside experts the staff consulted in preparing the report are the Democrats' key thinkers on national-security issues, among them Rand Beers, Ashton Carter, Ivo H. Daalder, Leon Fuerth, Gary Hart, Ron Klain, Anthony Lake, John Podesta, Michael O'Hanlon, and Susan Rice .

...

In the first instance, this means improving education by directing $10 billion over 10 years "directly for operation of primary and secondary secular schools in Arab states that commit to doubling their investment in public education over the course of ten years." The goal here is to wean students away from the radical indoctrination of the madrasas, traditional schools where Islam is taught. But unless we want to be running Arab school systems forever, sustainable secular education is going to require local economic development, so Turner's second proposal is a Marshall Plan-like effort to provide $100 billion in aid over 10 years (to be matched by allies) that would be conditioned on recipient countries adopting a broad range of internal economic reforms.

The article itself has a lot more on the topic of direct American financial support for the creation of secular schools aimed at reducing the power of the madrasas, which includes a claim that the Arabian populous at large is nearly in a frenzy for quality secular education. Certainly, if new, state-of-the-art schools suddenly started to pop up in places such as Tehran and Beirut there would be few who would not jump at the opportunities created by them, but when those schools are deemed secular and directly funded by Americans, I fear how they would fair. I have not seen a research poll on the desirability of secular educational institutions in traditionally theocratic Muslim communities, but if Turner and his high profile advisors are correct in thinking such institutions are viable, then I am certainly behind the initiative. However, the majority of the American public would not be.

As the article mentions, Americans simply could not get behind an aid package for the Middle East rivaling that of the Marshall Plan simply because there is a need here for higher quality educational institutions. Certainly, the task of injecting quality secular education into the Middle East is a vital stepping stone to stopping terror, but working it into a current budget where over $100 billion has already been spent on an ill-conceived war is nearly impossible. What is needed is a complete overhaul of American thinking in regards to the war on terror, away from the short-sighted knee-jerk kinetic action of warfare to the acceptance of more subtle means aimed at cutting terror off at its source by way of aid packages and outreach. This sort of mindset thrived during the Cold War over Communism; the same must be true in the current era with terrorism, only to a greater extent.

Good Stuff Coming, Maybe

2004-06-15T04:11:00.000-04:00

I promise I'll post more after I get established once more. Moving has eaten up a full week, now. I typed a post out at work and the IBM NetVista decided to eat it. So, someday I will retype it. Until then, suffer.

Tenet Falls on His Sword

2004-06-03T13:08:00.000-04:00

And it is a surprise. Many expected Tenet to go well before now, which is why his resignation today was a little more than unexpected. After the false Niger/Iraq nuclear connection outlined in the State of the Union in 2003 and the WMD failure, it became clear that a shake-up was needed in the intelligence community starting at the top, but that never came since it would have become evidence that the administration had indeed made mistakes (and, as we know, Dubya simply is incapable of making mistakes -- er, admitting them.) Now that Chalabi has raised more doubts about the US intellegience mechanism, it simply became too much for the administration to bear and damage control via Tenet's forced resignation was required. Certainly Tenet had no problem leaving. After all, he was dealing with an administration hellbent on a war where the intelligence that was wanted was not available, and where the president's closest advisors, including Cheney and Rumsfeld, were keen on only letting information that bettered the case for war through. It's a sad state of affairs when an administration can only score points by axing one of their own before an election in order to portray a false visage of "reform."

Flip-Flopper-in-Chief

2004-06-03T13:01:00.000-04:00

The Bush-Cheney team has been ruthless in their attempts to label Kerry as the almighty flip-fopper, but as the Center for American Progress makes clear in this meticulous documentation of the commander-in-chiefs flip-flops, we know who's really the flip-flopper.

Kerry's New Foreign Policy Push

2004-06-01T13:06:00.000-04:00

John Kerry has rolled out his new foreign policy platform, first in an interview with the Washington Post on Sunday, and now out on the campaign trail. The major risk to US security according to Kerry is the proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially from the former Soviet republics. The probability of a terrorist cell getting ahold of such a weapon is unacceptably high, and is a risk that deserves much more attention. Unfortunately the topic has been lost in the shuffle since the Bush administration began its foray into Iraq. From the article:

The enemy is different and we must think and act anew," Kerry said in excerpts of remarks prepared for delivery in West Palm Beach, Florida. "We have to do everything we can to stop a nuclear weapon from ever reaching our shore and that mission begins far away."

In the second of three speeches on national security, Kerry is expected to propose a new high-level White House job to oversee efforts to prevent a terrorist attack using nuclear weapons and recommend speeding up a current program to secure nuclear material in the former Soviet Union.

"The greatest threat we face today (is) the possibility of al Qaeda or other terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear weapon," Kerry said. "Osama bin Laden has called obtaining a weapon of mass destruction a 'sacred duty."'

...

"Have we done everything we could to secure these dangerous weapons and materials? Have we taken every step we should to stop North Korea and Iran's nuclear programs? Have we reached out to our allies and forged an urgent global effort to ensure that nuclear weapons and materials are secured?"

If anything Kerry is reminding the Amercian people that other threats exist outside the ones the administration has created within the borders of Iraq. Kerry's campaign and foreign polciy cannot reside on the topic of Iraq alone, for there is very little that can be done to bring troops home any sooner as the situation there will remain hostile for years to come. What Kerry can do, since he offers a diplomatic clean slate at odds with Bush's cowboy bravado, is refocus and retool the American foreign policy apparatus to deal with all threats, including the developing ones in Iraq, with as much fervor as Bush has centered on destabalizing the Middle East. Correcting such a mess-up as Iraq is a primary priority, but it is, by far, not the only one. Another four years of a neoconservative foreign policy focussed on total hegemony will only create more mistakes, alienate more allies, and create more enemies, something that is at odds with what is truly important: the security of the American people.

Ignorance; or, Maybe I'm Full of It

2004-06-01T01:36:00.000-04:00

I found myself reading some news posts at IRCSpy, and the replies to one in particular caught my eye. I found myself shocked by the sheer amount of ignorance in many of the replies to the news post. Now, I'm no professional, and I'm certainly no genius, but some of the attempted arguments in these comments simply made me nauseated. Allow me to provide some samples, and to pick them apart a little bit. I just think this is interesting, personally. I'll also close with a comment of my own on the main news post.

From Nameless00:

"i'm just against WARS period"

That's good for you, Nameless. For your sake, I'm glad you post in anonymity, because utopian statements like that show a decided lack of understanding. You can oppose all war, all the time, but you are simply fooling yourself, trying very hard to pile enough dirt under your feet to take that vaunted moral high ground. Unfortunately, claiming that war is never justified is foolish, and your moral foundation is of your own invention. If men lived apart, never congregating in societies, there would be no war, only murder. I guess that would solve your problem with political conflict on a grand scale. Cool idea, huh? Go play with Rousseau.

From synapse79:

"and how can the US ban something in another country?? that makes no sense to me"

Hm. The issue of military occupation wouldn't have anything to do with the situation, would it? When one sovereign nation enters another by force, conquers it, deposes its leadership, and establishes a new government (which is all completely normal; someday I'll finish my post about the Japanese occupation vs. the Iraqi occupation), they run things. It's the de facto right of occupation. When you own the country, you set the rules. Now, you'll make the international community mighty angry if you occupy the country forever, so it's not like you're going to set up some sort of military dictatorship. The Iraqi government will be its own thing one day, but for now, sorry, we're in the big chair.

From DeathOmen:

"The answer is simple, US thinks all the foreign countries are their bitches. Just because the US army is there doesn't mean they have the rights to make new laws."

Yes, America is in an unprecedented hegemonic state currently. It's not eternal. Give it another couple of lifetimes and it's dead for sure. Even so, we still have to kowtow to the international community in some ways. Sure, we bullied our way into Iraq, but not without scandal on the home front. There IS restraint, it's just limited and hard to organize. But, we had Germany and France turn against us in regard to our Iraqi policy, and Spain backed out after elections, and Russia's about as lukewarm as ever. So, don't expect us to go raping your women and stealing your children anytime soon. And also remember, George only has another four years max if he gets reelected. Not that it matters, since the Republicans are the Democrats and vice versa...

From Keebs:

"Bush...sends troops to die for his own war"

When you command the military, and when you have been elected to the highest seat of the executive branch, that kinda part of the job description. That's shiny rhetoric, but it's more irritating than alluring. (And guess what? I didn't back the idea of going to Iraq in the first place, but I could have articulated DECENT arguments explaining why that foreign policy move would have been bad. You don't need Abu Ghraib or 800 dead soldiers' boots on a lawn in Ohio).

"Honestly, with the money we're spending on the war, we could feed and clothe the poor of the world. Instead, our govenment decides to wage war against them."

Did you know we dump excess agri-crops in the ocean because it's simply infeasible to keep them fresh and transport them to all the needy people on Earth? I thought that was interesting. Feeding and clothing everybody on Earth would incur more debt than this silly little foray into Frank Herbert's worst nightmare. It's not a one-time deal; you have to continue to feed and clothe the whole world as they need it. People complain about a welfare state; just imagine a welfare planet. Impossible.

Finally, about the phone banning: too little, too late. The administration is just trying to deal with things (see, deal with them internally, not let them go forever) without them being blown into huge public scandals. I don't wholeheartedly approve, but I can see where they're coming from.

IT Company Interrogated Abu Ghraib Prisoners

2004-05-31T14:40:00.000-04:00

Simply put, this is perplexing:

CACI International Inc. could be barred from future federal contracts, following revelations that Army officials hired prison interrogators for Iraq from CACI using a computer services contract that the Interior Department administered.

...

CACI acquired the contract when it acquired the assets of Premier Technology Group Inc. in May 2003, according to CACI's statement.

So, this is an IT company that interrogated prisoners, whose interrogators had absolutely no formal training in interrogation, least of all from the Ameircan government. I've posted about the problems of contracting interrogation before, but this particular case merrits seperate observation. How does an IT company go from laying fiber-optic wire and bug-testing network mainframes to interrogating prisoners under an IT contract? How can this happen under the watch of the world's most professional army? Answers must be had.

Back from Miami

2004-05-31T14:29:00.000-04:00

After a nice visit to the Brazilian Consulate and a couple days rest, I am back in Orlando ready to get back to posting. Seems Jon's been MIA, as well, so we both have some catching up to do. I'll go first.

The Ashcroft Show-and-Dance

2004-05-27T13:09:00.000-04:00

The Center for American Progress has unloaded on Ashcroft's press conference yesterday, pointing to the fact that all the information released was already known. Considering Tom Ridge refused to raise the threat level since there is no "consensus" among government officials over a real threat, it's little wonder why the Center claims the press conference was little more than a dramatic sham put on to bolster Bush's falling numbers:

Because the administration's announcement offered no new information and came just days after polls showed that President Bush faces his lowest job approval rating ever, questions are being raised about the announcement's timing. Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, said "I find it at a minimum very suspicious that we are now going to be listening to a new, heightened awareness of terrorists, conveniently timed to when we see the president's approval ratings plummet." Similarly, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), a member of the Homeland Security Committee, said "It is not a news conference event to say that al Qaeda is planning to attack us. We've known that for years."

In effect, the administration is attempting to prove that it is hard at work protecting the homeland, and possibly attempting to cover its rear just in case something bad happens between now and the election. Although, the more disgusting explanation centers on the administration's desire to feed off fear. By staging an elaborate news conference touting the increased danger of terrorist activity within the US, Bush and Co. have attempted to set in motion a mini-rally-around-the-flag effect. They expect Americans to crawl back to them for protection, and in turn boost Bush's numbers across the board. However, when the public realizes that Bush, if re-elected, will cut the local and state law enforcement budget by $959 million and the Department of Homeland Security budget by $1 billion the sham will become ineffectual. That is, if the media jumps on Bush's contrasting policies for once.

Bush's Speech, Iraq, and the Media

2004-05-26T23:45:00.000-04:00

First up, my sincerest apologies for being absent the last week. The middle of the term has hit, and so have exams and the frustrations that accompany them. My posting will continue to be sporadic until next week sometime, but hopefully I can convince Jon to drop a line or two whenever he's not being even busier than I.

Now, onto the fun stuff.

Bush's speech on Iraq the other night, the first in a series of six, did little else but restate vague policies. The problem with this is not simply connected to the fact that nothing new in terms of planning was revealed, but that the plans the administration currently have seem to be devoid of true depth. How exactly are we going to bring in international support? The UN administrative leadership is vested in the form of Brahimi, but no one can force troops to take bullets for American soldiers, and Bush made it clear that we're not leaving the country soon. The UN draft resolution put forth by the US and UK this week seems to be little more than a global PR stunt. The Chinese have countered with a revised edition that would give the Iraqi interim government full control of its army and police, as well as complete political and economic administrative ability, but it seems the US may not be overly keen on major revision:

US Ambassador John Negroponte called the US-British draft “a good resolution” that could be “fine-tuned” but not rewritten. But many other council members have called it a good starting point, and the Chinese proposal and comments by the French, German and Russian ambassadors clearly indicate they want substantive changes.

The chance to show the world the US is open to cooperation is once again on the table, but the lonely cowboy bravado will most likely win out once again. Bush made it a point in his speech to refer to Iraq as the "central front in the war on terror," and there is little doubt the US will reject any revisions not giving them full freedom to act within Iraq however the administration sees fit. China also proposes in their revision to make all prisons within Iraq operate under the administration of the Iraqi interim government, with none under the jurisdiction of a multinational force. Interesting, indeed, and probably a proposal that will not sit well with Tenet, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the gang.

Oh, but everyone should rest easy despite the chaos that has developed through Iraq's devolution -- according to Bush's speech, the June 30th handover deadline is still on target! Well, gee, that's great, especially since it means nothing will change besides some paper shuffling along with the creation of new governmental figureheads who will act as little more than puppets, garnering the hatred of the Iraqi populous. The media continues to play up the deadline as if it actually means something, as if on June 30th we break the invisible tape at the end of the long, hard race and we can finally walk away. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

The deadline is being treated by the mainstream media as little more than an opportunity for new hourly segments with shiny graphical bumpers meant to keep ratings high and not as the ridiculous ploy that it is, put forth by the administration in order to abate Bush's hemorrhaging in the polls. It is that sort of journalism, the journalism that turns a blind eye to reason and the truth while looking directly at it, that helped lead to the military and civilian losses in Iraq over the last year. Although a bit too late, the NY Times' editors have realized the errors of thier ways (registration required):

But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.

The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. (The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles, until his payments were cut off last week.) Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations — in particular, this one.

The rest of the media should acknowledge the mistakes they have made just as the Times has and work toward holding the administration accountable for its mistakes when it deserves it now and in the future. Of course, I'm being idealistic, but the public has to realize the US has made a wrong step in Iraq and that they were expertly fooled by an opportunistic administration and a lazy, compliant media. If the polls are any true indication, this realization may be dawning currently and there is very little a series of speeches spouting propaganda can change. The breaking point is nearing.

Chalabi, cont.

2004-05-26T21:54:00.000-04:00

More interesting than the fact that Chalabi was found to be passing classified secrets to Iran is the fact that he had to get them from somewhere or someone. That is to say, classified US information doesn't usually pop up on Kazaa regularly for download. Vastly more important than this Baboon Grave (or however Bush tries to pronounce the prison's name) scandal is the kind of perilous threat posed by sensitive information falling into the hands of one of our greatest political enemies. Who's responsible for getting this stuff into the hands of our Ayatollah-lovin' courier here? You want a mess? This could be just what you're after...

The Welcomed Fall of Ahmed Chalabi

2004-05-20T23:20:00.000-04:00

The tide of opinion within the government has turned against Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, and it's about time. After yesterday's raid led by Iraqi National Police and backed by US soldiers, Chalabi has been given a much needed, and long overdo, wake-up call. State has never been overly warm and fuzzy with Chalabi, but the Pentagon held him up as their darling; the one man who was able to provide enough evidence (falsified as it may be) to push the US to war in Iraq. Chalabi's deceptive means have been enough to shrink his support within the government, and is perhaps one reason why the US allowed the raid to take place.

"The [INC's] intelligence isn't reliable at all," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former senior CIA official and counterterrorism expert. "Much of it is propaganda. Much of it is telling the Defense Department what they want to hear. And much of it is used to support Chalabi's own presidential ambitions. They make no distinction between intelligence and propaganda, using alleged informants and defectors who say what Chalabi wants them to say, [creating] cooked information that goes right into presidential and vice-presidential speeches."

However, the coup de grâce for Chalabi was revealed to be the direct reason for the raid itself: Someone within his INC has been funneling top secret US intelligence directly to Iran, and CBS News goes as far as saying Chalabi himself was involved directly:

Senior U.S. officials told us today that they have evidence Chalabi has been passing highly classified U.S. intelligence to Iran," the report said on Thursday.

"The evidence shows that Chalabi personally gave Iranian intelligence officers information so sensitive that if revealed it could ... 'get Americans killed.' The evidence is said to be 'rock solid."'

Thinking Chalabi is in the back-pocket of the Iranian government is not far-fetched. Iran would stand to gain greatly from a Chalabi-led Iraq, and Chalabi would stand to benefit from Iranian backing. Ever since the US began to sour on the INC, it became obvious that Chalabi had very few friends in the region -- US, Iraqi or otherwise. Iran, a majority Shi'ite nation, would want nothing less than an Iraq ruled by a Shi'ite regime (with some nice US intelligence on the side), and through Chalabi they saw an opening and through Iran Chalabi saw a new friend to replace his old benefactors.

Hopefully yesterday's raid marks the end of Chalabi's meddling. It certainly ends his budget of $350,000 a month of US tax payer dollars. He's been more trouble than anything, and there are many, myself included, who would be overjoyed to see him shipped off to Jordan to spend time in a maximum security prison for the bank fraud he committed there in 1989.

Idiotic Quote of the Week...

2004-05-20T12:32:00.000-04:00

...goes to US Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt. Kimmitt in an interview with an al-Jazeera anchor on an American attack on a supposed Iraqi wedding celebration near the Syrian border said, "I cannot prove it was a wedding and neither can you." (Quote pulled from CNN transcript.)

There are two things simply baffling about this statement. One, that Kimmit is unable to prove that it was a wedding suggests the possiblity that it was, which once again refocusses on the problem of military intelligence. Two, how incredibly insensitive. Women and children have been killed in what may be a misguided American strike, and all Kimmitt can do is challenge an al-Jazeera anchor to prove the US made a terribly horrific mistake instead of, at least, offering condolences.

I would think the US military, who has the ability to take the lives of anyone at will in Iraq, would be damned sure it was attacking a non-civilain target. Neoncons and hawks will rail at the statement, of course, claiming that in this kind of war quick, decisive action is required. And, I would agree with that to a point when it comes to the war on terror, but not in this war. The two wars are definitely seperate. The Iraqi incursion is a battle for hearts and minds, and the last thing the US needs is major military mix-ups after Abu Ghraib. When a hot-shot military spokesman goes on al-Jazeera and offers only arrogance without remorse, it does not help the war effort.

Civilain casualities, while never fully acceptable, are a part of war, but they cannot be in this one. And, when there is a mix-up, the US must be ready to say something it has a hard time saying: Sorry.

Federal Grants in an Election Year -- With a New, Sickening Twist

2004-05-19T12:55:00.000-04:00

Alloting extra money to certain groups for projects during an election year by a president is nothing new, but what is new is that in this election, the president is granting extra federal money to strategically important states for programs he has targeted for cuts or complete elimination:

For example, Justice Department officials recently announced that they were awarding $47 million to scores of local law enforcement agencies for the hiring of police officers. Mr. Bush had just proposed cutting the budget for the program, known as Community Oriented Policing Services, by 87 percent, to $97 million next year, from $756 million.

The administration has been particularly energetic in publicizing health programs, even ones that had been scheduled for cuts or elimination.

Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, announced recently that the administration was awarding $11.7 million in grants to help 30 states plan and provide coverage for people without health insurance. Mr. Bush had proposed ending the program in each of the last three years.

The administration also announced recently that it was providing $11.6 million to the states so they could buy defibrillators to save the lives of heart attack victims. But Mr. Bush had proposed cutting the budget for such devices by 82 percent, to $2 million from $10.9 million.

Little doubt that those receiving these grants are aware of Bush's domestic program elimination agenda, although it still stands to question whether or not these federal bribes will be enough to turn battleground states red come November.

No Surprise: Ohio Losing More Manufacturing Jobs

2004-05-19T03:45:00.000-04:00

Ohio, a state desperate for any kind of employment, is losing vital manufacturing jobs from its already-decaying northeast section. Canton, south of the Mistake by the Lake, is home to a Timken steel factory. For now, that is. The company has announced plans to lay off a large portion of its staff, with job loss predictions running in excess of 1,000. The brutal irony, however, lies with President Bush, Jr., and a certain speech he made a year ago. Check out News Channel 5's article for the whole story. Take it from a man who lives in the state, Ohio is not booming, and these kinds of losses are and have been happening all across the state for a decade. It is a God-awful shame that all the wealth in this country lies on the coasts...

The Sarin Issue

2004-05-18T13:15:00.000-04:00

Todd goes over the reasons why the supposed sarin explosion in Iraq yesterday does not justify the war itself. However, I'll continue to go further.

For one, it appears that the insurgents who used this sarin binary-structured munitions shell had no idea what they had. In all probability, if the munition was found in Iraq, it was by accident and not in a stockpile. This makes the most sense to me, primarily because, well, Saddam did not use sarin, or any other chemical munitions during the war. If an official stockpile existed, it would have been drawn from during the war and since. More than likely, one shell out of a number lost during Iraq's weapons purge was accidentally uncovered and detonated.

Also, Iraq is not the only country to have ever produced sarin. Asides from the US itself, Russia produced at least 2 million shells of sarin, VX, and other nerve agents during the Cold War. It's not far-fetched to believe a sarin munitions shell could have origins in Russia where security over existing stockpiles of WMDs seems to be a periphery concern. Also, one should not forget that Syria, Egypt, Iran, India, South Korea, North Korea and Libya are all suspected of having sarin munitions. With an insurgency and pourous borders, it takes little skepticism to believe such munitions could have been smuggled in and used without much trouble.

Certainly the administration will use this in an attempt to justify the war, just as they have with Ayman Al-Zawahiri's rather weak al Qaeda connection. If the sarin is being drawn from an actual Iraqi stockpile, a case could be made, but that's less than likely looking at events over the past year. Just as with Al-Zawahiri and any al Qaeda in the country, the sarin explosion was a by-product of an insurgency that was ill-planned for, especially if that sarin was brought in, purposefully, from an outside source. If it wasn't, the insurgents simply got lucky and we should hope they never get that lucky again.

Powell Aide Attempts Censorship, Russert Fires Back

2004-05-18T00:24:00.000-04:00

On Meet the Press on Sunday, Tim Russert was interviewing Colin Powell, who was still in Jordan at the World Economic Forum, when one of the secretary's press aides purposely knocked the camera away from Powell and attempted to end the interview. Hard to believe? The Gadflyer has the link to the video.

Hopefully all who see that, regardless of political affiliation, is just as appalled as I am. What an incredibly unprofessional act! Russert was asking an extremely pertinent question about how Powell was misled concerning mobile weapons labs when the attempt at censorship occured. What sort of thought processes must one go through before hitting a camera away from a Secretary of State during an interview, even if it is known the interview will not be aired live? Thankfully Russert kept the entire interview uncut in order to showcase this aide's incompetence and utter disregard for the truth.

To Powell's credit, he was not exactly happy with the attempt at censorship. I can only hope that particular aide was severely reprimanded, if not rightfully fired.

New York Denies Anti-War Protestors

2004-05-17T23:44:00.000-04:00

This is something worthy of following as we head into convention season:

The New York City Parks Department on Monday denied an appeal from an anti-war group that wants to stage a massive demonstration in Central Park on the eve of the Republican National Convention.

The Parks Department previously denied United for Peace and Justice's application for an Aug. 29 rally for 250,000 people, saying such a crowd was too large and would damage the Great Lawn.

In denying the appeal, the agency said the group had not sufficiently answered those concerns.

...

A lawyer for the group accused the city of an "apparent unwillingness to allow protests to go forward."

"In the context of this particular event the city seems to be saying that Central Park is now off limits to political rallies," said Chris Dunn, associate legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union.

Sure, 250,000 people is a lot, but, as this NY times op/ed points out, there was a 700,000-person anti-nuclear rally in Central Park in 1982.

You Outsource to India, You May Be Sorry

2004-05-17T21:50:00.000-04:00

I mentioned the security concerns raised by Sonia Ghandi and her Congress party's victory in last week's Indian election in an earlier post, but something that is, perhaps, even more interesting in the here and now is the economic situation being shaped by the election's results. India's stocks plummeted today more than 11 percent on fears about the new governmental structure and how the Communist parties will be worked into the new parlimentary system, suggesting the possiblity of political upheaval and possible bad news for foreign investors:

The general feeling was that the Communist parties would slow, if not reverse, the country's 13-year-old liberalization process, which had gained momentum under the Vajpayee government and had drawn the interest of foreign investors.

"In a market mostly driven by sentiment rather than fundamentals, we relate to the economic policies of the Congress, but not to that of the Communists," Mr. Prakash of HSBC Asset Management, said. The possibility of political instability loomed as the Communist parties, dominated by the Communist Party of India and Communist Party of India (Marxist), said on Monday that they would not be part of the government.

Instead, they said, they would support the Congress government from the outside. This would allow the parties significant influence in government, with very little accountability. They could also withdraw their support at any moment, creating a political crisis.

Communist parties won 62 seats in the recent federal elections and have become indispensable to the Congress Party. Congress and its allies, which together won 217 seats, need the support of the Communist parties to reach a majority in the 545-member Parliament.

The lack of cohesion even among the Communist parties bewildered market players. Some spoke of nationalization, increases in subsidies, a halt in the sale of profitable state-owned oil companies, and greater job security for government workers.

When trading was halted a second time, angry brokers and investors held an impromptu protest on Dalal Street, the local equivalent of Wall Street, in Mumbai, shouting "Down with Sonia Gandhi."

Undoubtedly, all those companies who've outsourced jobs to India are sweating quite a bit right now.

Bush Calls for Gay Marriage Ban. Again.

2004-05-17T17:44:00.000-04:00

It died down for awhile, but now with Massachusettes legalizing gay marriages today it's back: Predictably, Bush is once again calling for an amendment to ban gay marriage:

On the same day that Massachusetts began issuing licenses to gay couples, Bush said in a statement, "The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges."

In the statement, read aboard Air Force One by White House press secretary Scott McClellan while traveling to Topeka, Kan., Bush said that "all Americans have a right to be heard in this debate."

Noting that he had called on Congress some time ago to pass a constitutional amendment banning such marriages, Bush said "the need for that amendment is still urgent, and I renew that call today."

Quickly, we must deal with this cancer eating away at the core of American life! No, not the deficit, the worsening economic situation, or terrorism, but the legally binding union of two people regardless of sex! Board up your children and don't go outside until this horrific situation is resolved.

Altria Wants to Help

2004-05-17T13:06:00.000-04:00

When the third "most generous" Republican donor of the 2001-02 donation cycle plans to print a "non-partisan" voter's guide in BusinessWeek, I tend to get a little antsy.

CIA, Powell Purposely Mis-Led on Mobile Weapons Labs?

2004-05-17T01:46:00.000-04:00

Remember that presentation Colin Powell made at the UN before the Iraqi War, the one showcasing dramatic (well, as dramatic as satellite photos can be) photos of supposed mobile biological weapons labs? Seems the information on the labs was all a fabrication by an engineer belonging to the Iraqi National Congress (registration required):

But on Sunday, Mr. Powell argued that the C.I.A. itself was misled, and that in turn he was, too. "Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out not to be accurate," Mr. Powell said, going farther than he did on April 2 when he conceded that the intelligence was not "that solid."

On Sunday, Mr. Powell hinted at widespread reports of fabrications by an engineer who provided much of the most critical information about the labs. Intelligence officials have since found that the engineer was linked to the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group that was pressing President Bush to unseat Mr. Hussein.

This brings me back to the forged Niger documents concerning Iraq's nuclear aspirations uncovered by Ambassador Joe Wilson. Some specific people outside of the administration were most definitely interested in setting up this war by any means necessary, and luckily for them Bush, Cheney, Tenet, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were willing to turn a blind eye.

North Korea's the "Number One Int'l Security Concern"; So, Uh, Let's Divert Troops Out of the Region

2004-05-17T01:17:00.000-04:00

A day after the head of the IAEA declared North Korea the number one international security concern, South Korea has revealed that the US is planning on relocating 4,000 troops stationed in the country to Iraq in order to deal with the continuing insurgency problem there:

Tapping into the U.S. military force on the Korean Peninsula would result in the first significant change of troop levels here since the early 1990s. It underscores how much the U.S. military is stretched to provide enough forces for Iraq while also meeting its other commitments.

"The U.S. government has told us that it needs to select some U.S. troops in South Korea and send them to Iraq to cope with the worsening situation in Iraq," said Kim Sook, head of the South Korean Foreign Ministry's North American Bureau.

Kim said the two allies were working out details, including the size and timing of the redeployment of U.S. troops from South Korea. Deployed near the border with North Korea , they U.S. forces have traditionally served, in part, as a deterrent against the communist Korea's 1.1-million-member military, the world's fifth largest.

...

In Washington, a senior defense official confirmed that the Pentagon (news - web sites) is in discussions with South Korea about using some Korea-based U.S. forces in Iraq. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the shift was not imminent but would be part of the next rotation of American troops in Iraq, scheduled to begin late this summer.

According to the article, it seems there's quite a few in and around Seoul who believe this decision is directly connected to the South Korean government's inability to deploy troops to northern Iraq as previously promised due to domestic pressure. If this is indeed the case, it's highly unsettling, and if it is not it's still highly disturbing where the administration's foreign policy has left us. Certainly the more conspiratorial amongst the American population will claim that the troop movement is, in a form, US punishment for Seoul's slow movement toward deploying troops in Iraq. Even if that seems far-fetched, it's no better if it is directly connected to how spread out American forces have become by way of fighting a losing war in a country the US shouldn't have engaged militarily in the first place. North Korea has not been swayed by shock and awe, and the insurgency has only gone to embolden them. Taking troops out of South Korea is not a good idea for any reason, but if it is, in fact, a neccessity, then we're much worse off than anyone could have expected.

After all, this is what we're dealing with currently when it comes to North Korea:

If the US persistently seeks to waste time, pressurizing the DPRK to change its political system and disarm itself under the signboard of ‘peaceful talks’, the DPRK will...use it as a means for building stronger nuclear deterrent force," the official KCNA news agency quoted a foreign ministry spokesman as saying.

The brilliance of the neocons' foreign policy is somehow escaping me.

Finally, DD has acquired true talent.

2004-05-16T22:33:00.000-04:00

I'm Jon Brescia, and I'm going to be posting on this website from time to time, though I can already say "from time to time" translates loosely into "a good deal less than Delabar." The question of identity remains undispelled by the presence of name alone, so I will now endeavor to give you a quick rundown of why the hell I'm here. Delabar is a long-time friend of mine; indeed, our geeky escapades date back to a time before the cooling of the Earth, or roughly sixth grade. Despite his departure for Florida at the beginning of our high school careers, we remain in contact (and losers) to this very day. "Departure from where?" The questions arises, and rightly so. The answer, in accordance with custom, follows: Ohio. Wheelersburg, Ohio, no less. So, give it up for the guy who's Italian enough to get minority scholarships: me! Hopefully I'll be less arrogant and more coherent simultaneously in future posts, though either improvement would be vast even standing alone. That, though, must wait for another day, a day when I don't have college anymore. Counting the days...

Rumsfeld's Nightmare Just Beginning

2004-05-15T22:46:00.000-04:00

Seymour Hersh is back at it, unveiling more and more horific revelations concerning the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. This time he writes about how Rumsfeld was behind a secret Pentagon program that led to the abuse at Abu Ghraib. The New Yorker with the story hits stands on Monday, but it's available online currently, and is a definite must-read. Here are a few interesting bits:

The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror.

According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.

...

The operation had across-the-board approval from Rumsfeld and from Condoleezza Rice, the national-security adviser. President Bush was informed of the existence of the program, the former intelligence official said.

...

[Major General Geoffrey] Miller’s concept, as it emerged in recent Senate hearings, was to “Gitmoize” the prison system in Iraq—to make it more focussed on interrogation. He also briefed military commanders in Iraq on the interrogation methods used in Cuba—methods that could, with special approval, include sleep deprivation, exposure to extremes of cold and heat, and placing prisoners in “stress positions” for agonizing lengths of time.

The media's already begun to jump on this. CNN is currently running with it. It'll be fun to see the other outlets catch up tomorrow and this coming week after the story hits in wide circulation. As the anonymous intellgence officer in the Hersh article claims about Rumsfeld and Undersecretary Cambone, "they think they can bullshit anyone." Well, it seems those times may be over.

Seperation of Church and...Wha?

2004-05-15T20:13:00.000-04:00

President Bush has stated in the past that he was personally placed by God in the Oval Office to deal with the post-9/11 world (and subsequently ruin Iraq, it seems.) So, it comes as no surprise that this compassionate Conservative has forced direct federal funding for religous groups through the governmental system by way of executive order:

Under an executive order Bush signed earlier in his presidency, religious organizations can compete for billions of dollars in social service funding.

Bush's push to expand the role of churches and religious charities in government programs is a cornerstone of his "compassionate conservative" agenda, but it has caused controversy in Congress from the start. Opponents worry that government would wind up paying for religion.

...

When Bush's religious initiative stalled in Congress, he began sidestepping lawmakers with executive orders and regulations to give religious organizations equal footing in competing for federal contracts. The president has called for legislation that would give religious groups access to federal funds as long as their services are available to anyone.

US tax payers' dollars are being used to further entwine religion and the state. Mister Bush seems to forget a rather important document, known as the Constitution, banning such governmental involvement in religon, although that means little to someone who wished to soil that sacred document with an amendment legalizing discrimination against gays. And overuling these executive orders is not easy, requiring a 2/3rds majority of votes in Congress. It becomes more and more obvious that it's past time for a change.

Kerry Surges, Bush Falls

2004-05-15T00:46:00.000-04:00

A new CNN/Time poll released yesterday shows Kerry at 51% and Bush at 46%. Adjusted for Nader, the margin remains the same, Kerry 49%, Bush 44%. The president's approval rating is down to 46%. But those are not the truly interesting numbers. Finally, after many horrific months of deadly floundering in Iraq, the administration is starting to feel to heat from the electorate: Only 48% of the public feels that going to Iraq was the "right thing to do", down from 53% a month ago, and only 41% feel that the US is winning the war in Iraq. Kerry, however, still trails Bush when it comes to the public's opinion on who would run the war on terror better, 49% to 42%, although the two are statistically even when it comes to who would run the Iraqi war more effectively.

The poll also takes a look at domestic issues, where it seems Kerry's winning out:

On the question of who would do a better job, Kerry had big leads on health care, protecting the environment, reducing the deficit and reducing unemployment. He even did better than Bush on the question of taxes.

Certainly the news is good for Kerry as he's finally seeing a sizable upsurge, although it's still not good enough for the mainstream media -- Candy Crowley just wasn't happy with Kerry's head-to-head numbers with Bush on CNN's Inside Politics today. "Why isn't Kerry creaming him?" For someone who has not spent tens of millions on negative attack ads, I'd say Kerry is creaming Bush.

Say "no" to the Gore-ifying of Kerry 2004.

Good Riddance, Piers Morgan

2004-05-15T00:42:00.000-04:00

Piers Morgan, the editor of the Daily Mirror, a British newspaper, has been fired for running and defending what has been revealed to be fake photographs of British soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners. Forget the partisianship arguments over whether or not Abu Ghraib is being used for political purposes -- Morgan is the true bastard for further inciting fury among the Arabian populous simply to make a few pounds.

Debating accountability in an open manner in a political forum does not kill people. Running fake photographs and a fictional story in order to capitalize on a scandal does.

Media Matters' Limbaugh Ad

2004-05-15T00:20:00.000-04:00

David Brock's Media Matters has launched an ad in the DC area indicting Rush Limbaugh for his remarks regarding the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal. The ad can be viewed in either Windows Media or MPEG-4 formats at the Media Matters site, or one can simply follow the below transcript (although the ad does have a bit more impact, simply because Limbaugh's drug-addled voice can be heard):

VOICEOVER: 'SECRETARY RUMSFELD CALLED THE TORTURE OF IRAQIS SADISTIC...CRUEL...'

RUMSFELD: 'FUNDAMENTALLY UN-AMERICAN.'

VOICEOVER: 'BUT HERE'S WHAT RUSH LIMBAUGH SAID:'

LIMBAUGH: 'THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAPPENS AT THE SKULL & BONES INITIATION...I'M TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE HAVING A GOOD TIME. THESE PEOPLE -- YOU EVER HEARD OF EMOTIONAL RELEASE? YOU EVER HEARD OF NEEDING TO BLOW SOME STEAM OFF?'

VOICEOVER: 'THIS IS THE MOST LISTENED-TO POLITICAL COMMENTATOR IN AMERICA?'

Media Matters has definitely gotten into the game quick. Brock means business, and I surely couldn't be happier.

Republicans Like Money, As Long As Dems Don't Have It

2004-05-14T11:30:00.000-04:00

The FEC has decided to not restrict groups raising soft money for campaigns and candidates for at least the next 90 days, which is extremely good news for nonprofit PACs like MoveOn. Of course, the Republicans pushing for the ban on so-called "527" group donations are not all pleased, proven by this amusing tidbit from the original Times story:

Several Republicans said they would begin immediately raising millions in unlimited donations known as "soft money" from companies, labor unions and wealthy donors in order to compete.

Ah, the noble election-reformers known as the Republicans. Never would they take soft money donations because that would simply be wrong in a moral sense -- er, wait. The Republicans raised over $212 million in soft money in 2000, millions more than Democrats. Hmm, interesting.

Contracting Interrogation

2004-05-13T18:56:00.000-04:00

Few probably know that the US hires contractors for interrogations, but it's now beginning to get some mainstream media play post-Abu Ghraib:

The CIA did not have a trained corps of interrogators until the war on terror began and turned in part to contractors to handle the surge of detainees, including in Iraq. Some of those sent in are now under investigation in prisoner deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Officials are considering one case as a homicide and have referred it to the Justice Department.

It's well-known that the CIA has seperate rules for dealing with interrogations, but whether or not contractors have the right or will to go even further in torturing detainees is unclear:

The CIA has used coercion in interrogating prisoners who were high-level members of al-Qaida, The New York Times reported Wednesday on its Web site, quoting unidentified current and former counterterrorism officials. At least one CIA worker has been disciplined for using a gun to threaten a detainee, the Times said.

...

One former intelligence officer, who still works in government and was approached about becoming a contractor, said it's very possible that some contractors wouldn't have gone through the full CIA training program. The former officer spoke on the condition of anonymity.

There may be tremendous financial incentives for becoming a contractor. Known as "green badgers" for the color of their IDs, CIA contractors take various short-term assignments, sometimes for triple their government salaries. What was once a $40,000 a year government job could transition to an 18-month assignment, paying $150,000 or more.

Strickland, whose assignments included the CIA general counsel's office, said the CIA, like many government agencies and private companies, has turned to contractors as a financially effective way to bring personnel with special skills, such as interrogation, to the job.

"It is an expertise," he said.

A culture of torture seems to be well embedded within the governmental and intelligence apparatus, and one must wonder how accepted such coercion has become, especailly among impressionable young servicemen and women.

Wooo boy

2004-05-13T12:50:00.000-04:00

This (registration required) was unexpected:

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee resigned this evening after his ruling coalition suffered a resounding defeat in parliamentary elections, party officials said today.

The Indian National Congress, led by Sonia Gandhi, the Italian-born widow of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, emerged as the single largest party in the poll results announced today. It appeared poised to form the country's next government with the likely support of its electoral allies and the country's Communist parties.

And thus the Indian poor speak, ending the BJP's Hindu-nationalist agenda despite the economic improvements it put in place.

Now the boys and girls at State are probably frantically looking at what exactly this means for Pakistan/India relations. Earlier this year Vajpayee had built a relationship with Pakistan's president Musharraf, which is one reason the BJP believed they would be buoyed in the elections. Now all that is void and interesting times are afoot.

The Complexities of the War on Terror

2004-05-13T01:53:00.000-04:00

I fear that people who don't normally follow the complexities of events in the Middle East simply have no idea of what the US is up against. Certainly, the administration can be blamed for attempting to over-simplify the current struggle as "good versus evil" in order to draw a parallel to the Cold War and Reagan's "evil empire," but this situation and the enemy are both much different than anything that has come before. The reason I bring this up is because Hezbollah, or Hizbollah depending on preference, has condemned the beheading of American Nick Berg, calling the action "non-Islamic". To Joe American, one who buys into the black-and-white world of us-versus-them, this would seem simply baffling -- the bad guys, an Islamic terrorist group, condemning, uh, the bad guys? It's all the same to the mass public, and that is frightening. It's the reason why Bush and the neocons were able to get the Iraqi war past the public with 80% approval -- The vast majority of the 80% did not see a difference between al Qaeda, Iraq, Islam, and the numerous Islamic terrorist groups. The fact is, as evidenced by Hezbollah's al Qaeda condemnation, there are differences and intricacies that must be understood by average Americans so it is widely known that the situation is not at all clear-cut and that groups hate us for different reasons, including our current adverse policies in the region which may not be directly connected to Islamic fundamentalism.

Of course Hezbollah is not a nice group of people; definitely not people fit to bring to the local bowling alley. They kill people just the same, and they are supported directly by Syria, which raises the question: why, despite sanctions imposed this week, is the US on such good terms with a state sponsor of terror? Because Syria is against Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, although they have absolutely no problem with groups fighting for liberation or who operate under a banner of nationalism, such as Hezbollah. Syria's leadership consists of Muslims who practice a somewhat unpopular form of Islam and, as Ba'ath party members, fear the militant Islamic movement as a possible force for Syrian destabilization. So, while Syria is in no way our friend, they cannot simply be lumped in with the "other side" as many probably would. Indeed they need to be dealt with, but in a particular way devoid of an anti-Muslim mob mentality that is boiling under the surface of American daily life.

I simply dread the day where we become no better than those few soldiers who abused the Iraqi detainees at Abu Gharib, who most likely thought they were "softening up" those who were directly connected to 9/11. It's not that simple.

Berg's Family Angry at Rumsfeld

2004-05-12T16:44:00.000-04:00

Reuters has an interesting story up covering how the parents of Nick Berg, the American who was beheaded on video by al Qaeda members, believed their son was in US custody from March 24th to April 6th.

"I have to believe that the American government had him in their custody. The Bergs knew that Nick was in their custody and the Bergs wanted the government to release him so he could come home," Hauser said

The Bergs are angry at the US government, specifically citing Rumsfeld, since Berg could have left Iraq over that period before he was abducted on April 9th.

"I still hold him (Rumsfeld) responsible because if they had let him go after a reasonable time or given access to a lawyer we could have gotten him out of there before the hostilities escalated," Michael Berg told WBUR public radio station on Tuesday.

Certainly the Bergs' anger at the government and Rumsfeld is the knee-jerk result of the pain they feel after losing their son, especially in such a horriffic manner, so it's doubtful anyone high up will take their outrage seriously. Although, the main issue with this returns to human rights. If Nick Berg was denied the basic necessities of due process, there is something fundamentally wrong with the command-and-control structure in the Iraqi theater, which is becoming more and more evident following the Abu Gharib abuse scandal.

US officials claim they did not have Berg in their custody, of course, since Berg was detained by Iraqi police. However, the Iraqi police answer directly to the US military. So, the questions are: Did the US know that Berg was being detained, and if they did why did they not give him even the semblance of due process? And, if the US did not know the Iraqi police had an American detainee, why not? This is a question of leadership and accountability, and the Bergs deserve a true response, not damage control.

Those Pesky WMDs

2004-05-12T13:07:00.000-04:00

Something that has become blatantly obvious during the reign of this administration is how toothless the media has become, and that is no more evident than it is when it comes to the infamous weapons of mass destruction issue. Just as Afghanistan and Valerie Plame have disappeared from the headlines, the WMDs that served as the basis for the catastrophe in Iraq have simply been forgotten. Most are content with the fact that the WMDs were not found, although no one, the media especially, should settle for that. What happened to those WMDs? As the administration has been fond of pointing out, Saddam did have WMDs at one point, yet the leadership has not accounted for them, which is what should be at issue today and in the future.

If the WMDs were destroyed, when and how? If they were not, where are they currently? If they indeed did exist before the war and now they are missing, should the US not be working to recover them before terrorists get their hands on them? It seems as if Bush and Co. have simply forgotten about this issue and have done little, overtly, to come up with a definitive answer. There is no official line on the status of the WMDs that pushed Bush's hand to war. The media should demand one. If the WMDs no longer exist, as it appears from the outside, the administration should publish a report saying exactly that, otherwise they have failed to stop WMD proliferation which is what this war was supposedly about to begin with.

Since such a report as the one I've mentioned does not exist, nor does it seem to publically be in the works, it would seem the administration is simply ignoring the issue as if it was not at the core of the invasion itself in order to focus on, perhaps, the true neoconservative reasons for the war: the flypaper idea for terrorists and the transformation of the Middle East. If this was not the true reason for the war the WMD issue must be resolved and the media must demand it, otherwise we have all truly been fooled by the likes of Wolfowitz and Perle.

2004-05-12T12:51:00.000-04:00

Test, 1,2,3
I'm working on changing the blog around a bit since Blogger's been upgraded. Don't mind the dust, please.

2004-05-04T01:33:00.001-04:00

Conservative Talking Heads to Cower
David Brock, former conservative media insider and author of Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, has launched Media Matters for America in order to monitor such conservative talking heads as Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reiley, and Rush Limbaugh for the proliferation of misinformation.

About time.

2004-05-04T01:33:00.000-04:00

We Have Lost the Moral High Ground
I'm assuming everyone here is well aware of the barbarism our soldiers have rained down upon a number of Iraqi prisoners, but just in case here's an excerpt from an ABC News article on the matter.

As the scandal surrounding alleged U.S. abuse of Iraqi prisoners grows, former detainees are coming forward with stories of being beaten, forced to pose naked and otherwise humiliated by captors who became "more and more like Saddam."

...

Pictures of Iraqi soldiers, naked except for hoods over their heads, being tormented by Americans were first broadcast in the United States last week. An internal U.S. Army report found that Iraqi prisoners were subjected to "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses," according to The New Yorker magazine.

Now the story of alleged abuse at the hands of the Americans is everywhere, especially on television. It has unleashed a tidal wave of resentment and anger.

...

The American-run prison is now considered by many to be as notorious as it was when it was known as "Saddam's Torture Central."

"They have treated us worse than the pictures shown on TV," said former prisoner Ala al-Duleimi. "They beat us, humiliated us. I can't repeat what they did to us."

The accounts of humiliation and degradation are turning more Iraqis against the United States.

"When the U.S. liberated us, we were happy and welcomed them," said Muhsen. "Now they are getting more and more like Saddam."

The U.S. military's own investigation reveals more than 60 percent of civilians detained at Abu Ghraib were found to pose no threat to Iraqi security."

Seymour Hersh, the author of the New Yorker article mentioned in the ABC piece, was on The O'Reily Factor earlier and claimed that the army is in possession of videos showing the abuse of prisoners. It's only a matter of time before these videos become public. The horrid pictures that have been released have been enough to ruin the administration's stance on the supposed moral high ground, so it's only common sense to assume videos will do even further damage.

I'm absolutely outraged. This has only soured our image further in the Arab world and it will be nigh impossible to repair the damage. With over half of the Iraqis thinking we should leave the country currently, I'm becoming more convinced that we won't be able to win this struggle. We're already well on the way to losing the war for the hearts and minds, and in this conflict when that war is lost there is very little else we can do.

2004-04-29T15:45:00.000-04:00

Reading of War Dead Pulled
Tommorrow night Ted Koppel will devote an entire episode of Nightline to the reading of 523 names, all of which belong to servicemen and women who have met their deaths in Iraq. In preperation, Sinclair Broadcast Group has ordered eight of its ABC-affiliated stations to preempt Nightline tomorrow night, because it seems reading the names is "against the public interest" since the honorable display is actually "motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq."

Ludicrous, no doubt. Next, the "patriotism" card will be brought out and all those who support honoring our war dead will be asked any number of the typical, cookie-cutter questions such as why we hate freedom and why we support terror. Reading the names of those who died, indeed devoting an entire show to such a cause, is highly noble since it humanizes a war that's being fought so far away and places focus on the faces and not simply the statistics. Indeed, if this war is truly worth it then the number of dead wil be acceptable to the American people; maybe the possiblity that it will not be is what truly frightens those at Sinclair and those within the current establishment.

2004-04-29T03:19:00.000-04:00

The Media Battlefield
Howard Kurtz and Dan Balz analyze the Kerry Vietnam medal-throwing debacle by discussing how sources have become a secondary concern in political reporting. The story focuses some time on how competitive news outlets can be used as tools by political operatives, carefully pointing to how the RNC orchestrated Kerry's crisis in preperation for a bad week for Bush/Cheney:

Stephanie Cutter, Kerry's communications director, said she believes the Bush campaign orchestrated the story, noting that former presidential counselor Karen Hughes raised the issue of Kerry and his medals Sunday on CNN and that within an hour two news organizations called her about the subject. "Things like this don't happen by coincidence," Cutter said. Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt responded that the Kerry controversy "is of his own making."
...
Cutter said Bush strategists often launch attacks against Kerry at the beginning of a week in which they are expecting bad news. This week's schedule includes a Supreme Court hearing on Vice President Cheney's secret energy task force, today's joint appearance by Bush and Cheney before the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks, and the first anniversary of Bush's landing on an aircraft carrier with a "Mission Accomplished" banner.

2004-04-29T02:52:00.000-04:00

The Iraqis Were Prepared for the Post-War; Why Weren't We?
The New York times has an interesting story up revealing that much of the Iraqi insurgency has actually been planned by Saddam's secret service, otherwise know within the country as "M-14." The most interesting portion of the article, however, is this paragraph that opens it:

A Pentagon intelligence report has concluded that many bombings against Americans and their allies in Iraq, and the more sophisticated of the guerrilla attacks in Falluja, are organized and often carried out by members of Saddam Hussein's secret service, who planned for the insurgency even before the fall of Baghdad.

Obviously, the Iraqis were well aware of the fate that would befall them after an American invasion, so much so that plans seem to have been put in place well before the fall of Baghdad to deal with the occupation. The true question is, why weren't we prepared to deal with the planned insurgency? Most likely it has something to do with the out-moded conventional war mindset the military and the civilain leadership is still mired in. We're back in the muck we didn't forsee when we went into Vietnam. The Gulf War, Kosovo, and Afghanistan have lured our leaders, military and civilian, into a false sense of ease when it comes to these encounters. Smaller, limited wars are no longer possible since our enemies are different and our new goals wide-ranging. We're not attempting to simply change governments here or defend terriroty from invasion, we're trying to change societies themselves. 9/11 gave a heads-up that the wars of today and the future would be different from those in the past, yet it seems that fact has not yet cemented in the heads of our current leaders.

There has to be a better way, and as soon as I find it I'll let you know.

2004-04-24T02:42:00.000-04:00

Some Housekeeping; Open Thread
I'm heading out to Ocala later in the morning for the remainder of the weekend. I won't have easy access to the internet, so don't fret if the blog goes silent for awhile. I'll be back to normal posting patterns come Monday.

In the mean time, leave a comment. Let me know that you're reading and what you think. This is all about different viewpoints, debate, and discussion. So, have at it!

2004-04-24T02:27:00.000-04:00

More on the North Korean Trainwreck
Seems it wasn't two trains colliding after all; it was, supposedly, two freight cars carrying explosives for canal construction that contacted a live electrical wire. Such an extreme mix up as two trains colliding did seem improbable, no matter the level of incompetence involved -- How could two train cars run into each other, anyway, unless foul play were indeed at hand (as several news agencies, including CNN, hinted at in their initial articles by taking a sentence to draw attention to Kim Jong Il's passing through the same train station a mere nine hours before)? Or, maybe, this was an assassination attempt on Kim that was simply ill-planned. The North Koreans have claimed that the tragedy was nothing but a horrific accident, which could definitely be true and represents my gut feeling on the matter. However, with the secrecy surrounding Pyongyang, putting together a clear picture of this tragedy and its intricacies will be difficult if not impossible to pull off.

2004-04-24T02:09:00.000-04:00

The Washington Consensus; Even the US, EU, and Japan Can't Follow It
What everyone here should know is that I am primarily interested in international relations, including the trend known, infamously enough, as "globalization." So, do not be surprised if I, once in a great while, rail on certain developmental policy. The Washington Consensus has been one of my favorite punching bags, and this new article from The Globalist, a must read, only makes me dislike the set of neo-liberal economic policy prescriptions even more. The Consensus is extremely inflexible, and highly problematic in certain cases where situational issues are not accounted for in somewhat problematic developing countries. In fact, the Consensus is so strict that the countries responsible for its creation are having difficulty following it themselves:

Consider this: One country has put in place a fiscal policy that promises a budget deficit of about 5% of GDP in 2004 and deficits greater than 3.5% of GDP as far as the eye can see.

The biggest cause of this fiscal meltdown was a set of highly regressive tax cuts. Across the Atlantic too, countries have abandoned their fiscal strictures.

If we go further around the world, we find another rich country that has for years combined truly huge fiscal deficits with a reluctance to permit exit of large, favored firms.

And virtually all these countries are increasing their already massive subsidies to uncompetitive industries (notably agriculture). We are referring, of course, to the United States, the European Union and Japan.

...

While the emerging countries gag as the Washington Consensus is shoved down their throats, the world’s richest countries neglect to apply it to themselves.

They seem to regard the Consensus as medicine only for poor countries. Compare it to a metaphor of the fat boss forcing his employees to diet — and exercise.

2004-04-23T19:48:00.000-04:00

Brazil, LDC Leader?
Well, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva seems to be following a policy to make such a possibility reality. Recently, the Lula administration refused to open up a nuclear facility near Rio de Janeiro for IAEA inspection, causing widespread suspicion among Brazil's neighbors, the UN, and the United States. Although, it seems Brazil's Latin American neighbors aren't getting the true message, that being that the lesser developing countries are a large portion of the international community and they too have the ability to throw power around and affect policy. Lula, more than likely, has no far-reaching nuclear intentions, and this escapade has been nothing more than an attempt to catch the international community's attention. In effect, Brazil has said, "Wake up, the south is alive and active, don't ignore us." At least, this is what I believe, and my girlfriend, who happens to be Brazilian, agrees whole-heartedly.

This article also suggests that Brazil is attempting to make itself into a true global player by commanding the UN peacekeeping force headed to Haiti:

Brazil has agreed to command the U.N. force in Haiti, but only if there is an "effective commitment" from the international community for the reconstruction of the island nation, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said yesterday.

Last month, Brazil offered to command the force and said it would contribute 1,100 troops.

Lula said yesterday that the "tragedy that the Middle East and Iraq are undergoing today" strengthened his conviction of "the importance of an international order based on law, multilateralism and the United Nations."

Brazil is obviously still sore about the US's Iraqi incursion, as is the majority of the human population. Through its actions -- the nuclear secrecy in order to grab attention and its leadership in Haiti -- the state has confirmed a new agenda centered on creating a new power pole situated in the lesser developing world.

What does this mean for U.S. policy, though? That is the true question, and it is yet to be seen.

2004-04-23T12:37:00.000-04:00

North Korean Train Tragedy Casualties, the First Numbers
So, the numbers are in. 100 confirmed dead, 1,200 injured, 2,000 homes destroyed, and 6,300 homes damaged. Pyongyang has asked the UN for aid, and they'll be getting it. Will we see a thaw in North Korean-US/UN relations due to this? No, and that's not the point. People have died, others have been injured, and lives have been turned upside down. Kim Jong Il won't become any more sane or act in the visage of logic due to this, and his nuclear program will not be disappearing of its own will any time soon. However, the hearts and minds of the North Koreans will see that cooperation is not a bad thing, that it can bring about positive events and be better than conflict. Certainly, the relations between North Korea and the world-at-large are too complex to fix in a day, but with our continued willingness to help the people under Kim Jong Il's oppresive regime, the prospect of a better future may finally blossom. At the end of the day, it's always about the people, not the leaders or, really, the policy. And one can only hope that the people will work in a way to create leaders and policy befitting their noble souls.

2004-04-23T12:21:00.000-04:00

Bush, the Hypocritical Enviornmentalist
In an Earth Day speech made in Wells, Maine yesterday, President Bush had this little tidbit to say:

The importance about Earth Day is that it reminds us that we can't take the natural wonders for granted. That's what Earth Day says to me, and I hope it says to you, as well, that we have responsibilities to the natural world to conserve that which we have and to make it even better. That's the call for Earth Day.

Well, imagine that. While our president has been working to tear down protections for our natural resources in the name of big business, particularly big energy, he's secretly been harboring these lovey-dovey feelings for good ol' Mother Earth. And it's not only me finding this change in tone a bit confusing, as a number of enviornmental groups, including the Republicans for Enviornmental Protection, seem to be a little miffed about Bush's horrid enivornmental record:

Leaders of 13 national environmental groups-- from Friends of the Earth to Republicans for Environmental Protection--marked the eve of America's 35th Earth Day by calling on President Bush to halt his administration's unprecedented rollbacks of the entire panoply of laws and regulations that protect the nation's air, water, natural resources and public health.

...

"The Republican Party has an obligation to do better," said Martha Marks, president of Republicans for Environmental Protection. Recalling that "Republicans helped create the environmental movement," Marks said "That made us proud. But we are not proud of our leaders today." Instead of extending a record of responsible stewardship, "They have chosen an ideological path."

Decrying the Bush Administration's "shameful and abysmal record on clean water," Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, said "Bush has given the OK to allow mining companies to dump waste directly into waterways; destroy over 20 million acres of wetlands; pump untreated sewage directly into our nation's rivers, lakes and other waters; and pollute with impunity because they don't enforce the law--with the result that 60 percent of industrial facilities nationwide are now in violation of Clean Water Act discharge limits." Moreover, added Blackwelder, the administration has proposed cutting half a billion dollars from sewage plant construction.

And it seems a number of people in Maine weren't too keen on Bush's visit in the name of the enviornment, and for good reason:

"This administration has undertaken a concerted, systematic, very vigorous effort to undermine or repeal every important environmental law protecting the people and the environment of the United States," said Brownie Carson, executive director of the Natural Resources Council of Maine.

Clean air has perhaps received the most attention in Maine. More than 13 percent of Maine children have asthma and the state has the second-highest rate of adult asthma in the country.

...

Environmentalists have protested what they say is a weakening of a key provision of the Clean Air Act by the Bush administration that requires aging coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and other industrial facilities to install upgrades in pollution controls when those plants are modernized or expanded.

The state of Maine has filed two lawsuits to fight a proposed change in the Clean Air Act that would give industry more leeway on when it needs to add pollution controls. Maine also has filed a suit over regulation of carbon dioxide emissions.

A happy Earth Day it was, indeed.

2004-04-23T12:11:00.000-04:00

Back in Action, Really
After a long hiatus brought about by Real Life (TM) workloads and other personal projects outside of this blog, regular updates (or, semi-regular, at least) will now be commencing anew. I've missed out on posting brilliant one-liners and anecdotes pertaining to a plethora of interesting developments over the last two and a half months, ranging from Condi Rice's testimony and the infamously titled August 6th PDB to Bush's hilarious, but extremely saddening prime-time press conference. And I've also missed out on the oppurtunity to publicly continue to decry the administration's horrific handling of the Iraqi situation, which has resulted in pictures like this, taken by a brave and honorable woman, Tami Silicio, who has since lost her job for engaging the shutter:

But, rest assured, I'm back and ready to get at `em again. It's time to get back in the groove.

2004-02-25T16:36:00.000-05:00

Pro-Discrimination as a Platform Issue
The Bush administration seems to be its own worst enemy these days. The waffling over National Guard service, backsteps from overly-optimisitic job projections, Rod Paige's claim that teachers are akin to Osama bin Laden, Condy Rice's refusal to testify before the 9/11 commission, and, the kicker, the gay marriage ban amendment have done nothing but give the Dems more and more ammunition. It's enough to make one wonder if Bush and Rove have simply lost control of their people and their already ailing campaign.

The gay marriage amendment is a perfect example of how Bush is attempting to narrow the upcoming campaign to an over-riding issue in order to divert attention from his failings, which is not only sad, but in this case sickening. He's attempting to secure votes through a threat of pushing discrimination through Congress and the state system. While the majority of Americans are against gay marriage, as unenlightened as that stand may be, Bush's raising of the issue to the constitutional level will only serve to alienate a number of them, especially the millions of Republican gays that voted in the 2000 election. Also, since an amendment would never pass Congress nor the number of state legislatures required, many of Bush's fellow Republicans are slinking away from the administration's radical stand:

After Bush's announcement Tuesday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said it would take time to gauge the level of support in Congress for a constitutional amendment. He suggested the difficulty of passing one may cause lawmakers to take a different approach to preserving marriage as a solely man-woman union.

"We don't want to do this in haste," DeLay said.

...

Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., a co-chairman of Bush's campaign in California in 2000, said he doesn't support a constitutional amendment. "I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary," he said.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the matter should be left to the states, and Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., said changing the Constitution should be a last resort on almost any issue.

With some conservatives wanting a broader approach than Bush supports, and others opposing federalizing the issue, DeLay said it's "going to take some time" to unify those groups and examine other options.

"Constitutional amendment - I believe that is the ultimate remedy left for the Congress," he said. "We are looking at other ways of doing it."

The New Democrats have an article up today that very accurately portrays Bush's current conundrum, pointing out how the President himself doesn't seem to know exactly what he's proposing to begin with:

The panicky thoughtlessness -- or perhaps cynicism -- of Bush's intervention on this issue is rather breathtaking. He is proposing to amend the Constitution of the United States, but cannot articulate the language of such an amendment, and will not endorse one of the existing formulations making the rounds among social conservatives in Washington. In his statement yesterday, he suggested he did not want to override the power of the states to authorize same-sex unions or equal rights provisions that do not utilize the word "marriage" -- embracing a position more common among Democrats than among conservative Republicans. Yet he offered no thoughts on how to accomplish this crucial distinction, or how to prevent a constitutionally sanctioned national rollback of basic citizenship rights for gays and lesbians.

Bush even claimed as early as 2000 that gay marriage was a state issue.

Not even Rove will be able to fix this one.

2004-02-24T04:18:00.000-05:00

The Kerry Anti-Vietnam Non-Issue
While driving earlier today I tuned-in to ultra conservative talk show host Neal Boortz's show for no other reason than self-loathing, it seems. His subject for the particular segment I was inflicting upon myself centered around John Kerry's protests against the Vietnam War after him having served there. Boortz, with all the flair and style of a traditional right-wing talking head, frothed forth a ridiculous decree: Kerry believes he should be exempt from criticism over his Vietnam protests because he served there. Oh, and Boortz isn't the only one who's bringing this up as an issue.

But why is this an issue? Certain veterans may be overly sensitive to criticism of the war, but it's not exactly a guarded secret that we lost that war and really had no reason to be in Indochina to begin with. Kerry's experiences there are what fueled his dissent as he saw corruption and brutality firsthand. If Kerry had stayed quiet and ignored those events, he would have been doing a disservice not only to himself, but to democracy. The Right seems to have a difficult time digesting the fact that dissent is just as patriotic as, well, blind patriotism. In actuality, dissent is more patriotic than being led haphazardly by inept leaders. Had those leaders listened to the protests earlier during the Vietnam debacle, years of struggle and death could have been avoided. No matter what anyone on the Right may say, Kerry did the right thing by protesting with his heart at the time, and he should not back down from that. In fact, he should use that to prop up what I've outlined here -- The fact that dissent is at the core of democracy, at the base of being American.

I'm very much against looking to Vietnam as a key to this upcoming election, and I fear those within the Democratic party selecting Kerry due to his service may be making a mistake. However, when it comes to this key issue of public dissent and discourse, it tends to strike a nerve. It's quite easy to tell it's an election year.

...

Which reminds me, Boortz weasled his way out of Vietnam. Ah-hah, I can play dirty, as well, so let's see how far it gets me.

2004-02-23T23:15:00.000-05:00

Did Wes Clark Betray the Draft Movement?
Wes Clark's exit from the race for the Democratic nomination and his nearly immediate endorsement of John Kerry have been waffling in my mind for the last several weeks, which would explain why I have yet to put down anything truly concrete on the matter until this point. The main problem I was having as I went over events was whether or not General Wesley K. Clark, the man I initially supported to be president, betrayed those who initially drafted him into the race by his endorsement of Kerry.

First off, it's somewhat important to know the background of why I was so drawn to Clark and his platform, because it may give an insight into what those within the Draft Clark movement saw and may continue to see in the General. Wes Clark, to me, represented a change of direction for the Democratic party, and on paper he seemed to be the most direct foil to George W. Bush -- Rhodes Scholar, NATO Supreme Allied Commander, economist, and, on top of all that, he was anti-war while also being a General. No wonder he seemed to be the ideal candidate to those within the Draft movement. With the rising backlash within the party against Bush's Iraqi escapade, Wes Clark became a figurehead of the anti-war movement. He was the peaceable general who only fought when necessary and lost nary an American life in the subversion of all-out genocide during the Kosovar war and promised similar results through exhaustive documents and plans for the implementation of a stable Iraqi democracy. Howard Dean, the first to mine the underlying and long-building anger of the Democratic party toward Bush for his war policies, could not present the same sort of credentials that Clark did. No one could when the race was planted firmly around the issue of war, but the focus eventually changed and both Clark and Dean paid for it.

Despite Clark's credentials, I was also drawn to how the Draft movement itself was organized and operated. It was my first exposure to the "netroots", and instilled a sort of hope that political efficacy could be spread by way of organized internet usage. It opened up what seemed to be an entirely new dimension to the political process, one where the citizenry had direct access to the process itself and could affect where it was headed in a way never before seen. I became an avid follower of the Clark Community Network and posted sporadically while lurking constantly, always keeping up with whatever the General was working on while making and seconding suggestions whenever I saw fit. And, the funny thing, many suggestions brought about through the CCN caught the campaign staff's attention and were worked into the campaign itself. It renewed my hope in the system's ability to change and be progressive. Not only had the People brought a man into the race, they were actually making a difference through him.

But the credentials and the support of the netroots did not mean that Clark knew how to be a politician. Despite the General's freakish ability to learn quickly, several missteps in his campaign were enough to offset the credentials and platform the Draft movement, and myself, were so set on promoting to other voters. The media was no help, nor was Clark's lacking skill in handling them. When the campaign seemed to lose steam after Iowa, where Clark mistakenly did not participate, it became more and more obvious that the General would not be able to attain the nomination. The most dedicated Clark supporters had difficulty believing this, although some were able to see the reality and prepare for Clark's inevitable exit, such as myself. However, it's the abruptness of that exit and the endorsement of Kerry that confused and angered many among the Draft and CCN movements.

Initially I did feel betrayed by Clark when he left the race after his third place finishes in Tennessee and Virginia. I had convinced myself that he would at least stay in through Super Tuesday, bolstered by the monetary support of his CCN followers. However, the exit was not as bad as the Kerry endorsement and its relative immediacy to end of the campaign itself. At first, I was confused -- How could a supposedly anti-war candidate endorse a Senator who backed the Iraqi war? How could a man whose campaign staffers dug into Kerry's personal life for political gain suddenly support Kerry himself? (As a sidenote, it's doubtful that Clark, a political novice, actually had any say into his staffers attempts to uncover a fictionalized Kerry intern scandal, although it still seemed odd at the time -- Was the endorsement partly an apology?) Theories have been formulated into why Clark acted in the fashion that he did, ranging from the excessively negative to the overly positive. Some saw Clark's endorsement of Kerry as an ill-thought out career move, only done in order to secure some high level position within a Kerry cabinet. Others, specifically those within the Clark campaign itself, spun the endorsement as exemplifying the General's vision concerning the unification of the Democratic party against Bush. I, however, tend to fall in between the polarized views.

Clark was no politician to begin with, but he was in no way stupid. I recognize that he must have saw possibilities within the endorsement, and there is little doubt that he took that into mind in some fashion. However, it is highly doubtful that alone is what drove him to push so quickly toward Kerry's direction. I believe that the idealized Clark I saw through the lens of the Draft movement was actually real to some extent, and that he truly did believe his endorsement would prove the need for a unified anti-Bush front. The General's continued support of the party after his exit, including his elicitation of support for Ben Chandler, made me feel even more that this was the case to some extent. He's made a commitment to the party, and he's going to be around for a long while as now was simply not his time and it was this he realized. Can I fault the man for arriving at the truth, a truth even we were blind to? And, can I fault him for wanting to prove his loyalty through an endorsement to a party that has doubted that very loyalty in the recent past? Yes, actually, because I didn't necessarily find the timing tactful, but I do understand his reasoning and I do not believe it to be out of pure, note pure, political opportunism. He is not a traitor.

I'm proud to have been a supporter of Wes Clark. He made me and numerous others excited about the domestic political scene once again, and that is something the General himself should find comfort in as he looks back on the roller-coaster experience that was his and a bevy of others' first presidential campaign.

2004-02-23T20:37:00.000-05:00

Teachers = Terrorists, It Seems
While most everyone probably knows about this by now, it definitely deserves some space here for posterity: Education Secretary Rod Paige called the National Education Association a terrorist organization today:

Paige's comments, made to the nation's governors at a private White House meeting, were denounced by union president Reg Weaver as well as prominent Democrats. Paige said he was sorry, and the White House said he was right to say so.

...

Paige said later in an Associated Press interview that his comment was "a bad joke; it was an inappropriate choice of words." President Bush was not present at the time he made the remark.

...

Asked if he was apologizing, Paige said: "Well, I'm saying that I'm sorry I said it, yeah." In a statement released to the media, Paige said he chose the wrong words to describe "the obstructionist scare tactics" of NEA lobbyists.

Said White House spokesman Scott McClellan: "The comment was inappropriate and the secretary recognized it was inappropriate and quickly apologized."

Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, put it in stronger terms, accusing Paige of resorting "to the most vile and disgusting form of hate speech, comparing those who teach America's children to terrorists."

It just keeps getting better for Bush, eh? Foot-in-mouth syndrome seems to be running rampant, although it has generally not been as blatant, let alone as revolting, as this. Documented lies on National Guard Duty service from administration officials seem to pale in comparison to something such as this from a cabinet secretary.

2004-02-23T20:17:00.000-05:00

MoveOn Supporting Rep. Doggett, a Victim of Republican-imposed Gerrymandering
MoveOn has sent out their first PAC emailing of the election cycle, asking for support for Texas Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a progressive Democrat who has been a target of gerrymandering by way of a re-districting map initially proposed by Tom DeLay and passed this past December through a Republican-packed judiciary.

One of DeLay's prime targets is U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett. Lloyd has been one of the most progressive leaders in the House. He was a leader against the rush to war in Iraq and has consistently stood his ground against the extremist policies of the Republican leadership. Here’s what Republican staffer Joby Fortson had to say in an internal memo, upon seeing what they were able to do to Doggett’s district: "ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha"

...

Congressman Doggett helped lead the effort to oppose the invasion of Iraq and aggressively lobbied his colleagues in an effort that resulted in a majority of Democratic members of Congress voting "no" on the Iraq war resolution. At a February 2003 anti-war rally in Austin, Doggett told a cheering crowd:

"Mr. President, the policies that you are pursuing in the name of our security are wrongheaded. They will make our families less secure. You jeopardize the security of our families when you insist on a land invasion and umpteen years of occupation of Iraq..."

...

DeLay's re-districting map was approved in December by a court stacked with Republican appointees. It's designed to knock off Democratic incumbents who stand in the way of the far-right's agenda, giving Republicans an edge at the expense of large numbers of Texas voters who will be disenfranchised. In the words of Republican staffer Joby Fortson, "This [map] has a real national impact that should assure that Republicans keep the House no matter the national mood." This is not democracy. It's gerrymandering at it's worst, and yet another attempt by the Republican national leadership to game the system.

...

You can help keep a strong, progressive leader in office and at the same time send a clear message to DeLay and the Republican leadership by supporting Doggett's primary bid. You can contribute online at the following web page:

https://www.moveon.org/pac/doggett/

For those who have not yet checked out MoveOn, it's a must. The organization represents what may be the only counterbalance to the big-corporate-funded Republican machinery, and has served to mobilize over two-million Americans alone in the quest to bring about Bush's ouster.

2004-02-23T08:05:00.000-05:00

Aristide Accepts Peace Plan, Violence Continues
So, Aristide has indeed accepted the peace plan proposed by international envoys where he would allow a prime minister and bi-partisan Cabinet to be elected, although it seems the rebel opposition doesn't care. Aristide's political opponents have not warmed to the peace proposal, and it doesn't seem as if they will by today's 5PM deadline (whatever happens after that isn't exactly clear -- perhaps the world explodes, or Pat Buchanan votes socialist.) Even if the political opposition did accept the plan, there'd never be a gurantee the rebels fighting in the streets would follow suit. This is a mass uprising that's growing in strength, and it doesn't seem as if it'll be easy to quell. U.S. officials are still being rather quiet, although some such as Representative Chris Cox are basically claiming that Aristide is getting what he deserves, while placing blame on the Clinton administration for returing the president to power in 1994 (political maneuvering doesn't take into account the lives of innocent men, women, and children currently at risk today, it seems.) It'll be interesting to see where this goes from here, although it certainly doesn't look any more promising.

Update: CNN currently has a breaking news blurb that combat-ready US marines are enroute to the US embassy in Port-au-Prince.

2004-02-20T21:05:00.000-05:00

Nader's In?
It would seem so, and he'll most likely announce his presidential bid as an independent on Sunday's Meet the Press.

Of course, the DNC is scared out of their minds that a repeat of 2000 is now in the works, but it seems doubtful this'll be the case. Nader is without party backing this time around, and many of those who voted for him in 2000 may be suffering from voter's remorse due to their supposed handing of the nation to Bush. So, while I'm all for the expression of ideas outside the two-party norm, getting rid of Bush is slightly more important come November, and hopefully the traditional Naderites realize this.

2004-02-20T20:11:00.000-05:00

Haiti on the Brink
The intensification of civil strife within Haiti has impeded aid from reaching the north now, making the situation even more dire than it was before. Diplomats from a wide range of organizations are currently attempting to forge a peace, but it's doubtful the terms -- Aristide as a head of state along with a newly appointed, more powerful prime minister -- will be acceptable to either side. The US response currently seems to be rather subdued, which isn't exactly unexpected. Support for Aristide has never been widespread within the American government, asides from his military-led reinstatement as Haitian president in 1994 (which was only done due to mounting public pressure.) Despite the growing aid crisis, Colin Powell and Scott McClellan have assured that there will be no US-policing force in order to subdue the violence and growing upheavel, and that it is up to the Haitian people whether or not the democratically-elected Aristide stays in power.

2004-02-20T15:12:00.000-05:00

Kerry's AFL-CIO Endorsement, the "Rally-Around-the-Donkey Effect"
The AFL-CIO has hopped aboard the electability bandwagon and endorsed John Kerry, proving exactly how much they hate Dubya Bush. Considering Kerry has been "wishy-washy" at best on NAFTA and trade/job protection, AFL-CIO's idelogical choice should have been Edwards. Although, since Edwards doesn't appear as "electable" (despite what this new poll suggests), he's going to be hurting in the organized labor states come Super Tuesday. All of this proves that people will throw away their ideals if it means the ousting of Bush, and I've become more and more convinced that a mossy stump or a rusted-out Ford pickup would meet approval if people were assured those things could win in November.

2004-02-19T02:05:00.000-05:00

UN to Recommend Against Direct Iraqi Elections
It seems Kofi Annan will make the UN's final recommendation to the US on Thursday concerning the best way to transfer power to an Iraqi sovereign government. What exactly that recommendation will be is not exactly clear, but it will not be for direct elections before June. However, it's also doubtful it will be for the initial US caucus-based election proposal. Support for the caucus system has been crumbling within Iraq ever since leading Shi'a cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani spoke out against it and in favor of direct elections a few weeks ago. Backing among the US-appointed Governing Council for caucuses has even begun to break down as popular Iraqi opinion (read: Shi'a opinion) has called for a more direct alternative. The UN proposal, in an attempt to please both the Shi'a and those within Iraq fearful of majority mob rule, should attempt to create a combination of al-Sistani's plan for direct elections and the US caucus system. If they do not, it might as well be the match that sets off the powder keg. Although, considering the vast differences among the peoples of Iraq, it's difficult to envision an acceptable outcome for the West or the Iraqis themselves at this point. It took a dictator to keep the Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurds under one flag, and it'll take another to do the same, which doesn't exactly bode well for anyone involved. Cheers to Bush and his obviously well-thought-out foreign policy.

2004-02-18T16:30:00.000-05:00

The Changing Face of the Democratic Race
With Dean out of the picture now a new variable has entered: the Deaniac vote. Many of Dean's initial supporters jumped to Kerry in Iowa and ever since, yet the good doctor's true supporters stayed on right until the end. So, with a few alternatives left, what are the Deaniacs to do? They're obviously not being fooled by the media and Kerry campaign's electability blather, so while a potion may jump to Kerry, there's probably a good number flirting with Edwards or pledging to vote for Dean regardless. Those who turn toward Edwards may play a role in Super Tuesday, especially in manufacturing states such as Ohio where the races will be the closest. For instance, if Dean had not been in the Wisconsin race, a portion of his 18 percentage points would have, more than likely, gone to Edwards and would have made yesterday's contest that much closer.

Of course, this all was said about the Clark vote, as well, and it indeed may have been a small portion of Edwards' success last night. However, it's doubtful that the Clark vote movement is as homogenous as the Dean vote movement will be, mainly because of Clark's decision to endorse Kerry a day after he closed shop. Clark's decision to stand behind Kerry was confusing to many of his supporters, yet it sent a majority of them the frontrunner's way. Dean will probably hold off on making an endorsement since he dislikes Kerry (an understatement to be sure), yet does not want to be on the losing side come convention-time. This leaves the Deaniacs to make their own decisions, unbiased by their former nominee, and it's quite possible they may side with Edwards, making the remaining primaries much more interesting.

2004-02-18T15:14:00.000-05:00

Dean's Out
And here's the story to prove it. Despite his earlier claims that he'd stay in, it seems the reality of the situation has finally sunk in. The dynamics of the race up to Super Tuesday have changed because of this, but I'll have to wax poetic on that later as I'm running short on free time currently.

2004-02-17T23:51:00.000-05:00

Hope in India & Pakistan?
Pakistani and Indian leaders are to meet in Islamabad tomorrow in order to iron out a schedule for peace talks, which will serve as the first true attempt at peaceful resolution the two nation-states have seen since before the 2001 Indian parliament bombing. It's easy to let optimisim run high, but there's just something about this situation that seems too good to be true. There's simply too much happening for this to go off on a steady note. Of course, I hope it does, but when one takes into account the powder keg-like nature of this conflict and the region it's taking place in, it simply looks shaky. The terrorist element still exists alongside these talks -- attacks have even occurred over the last 24 hours, where Muslim militants have killed two officials in India-controlled Kashmir. The true power lies with these militants and those within Pakistan who support them. Another incident such as the Delhi bombing will be enough to dash these hopes, and it's up to Musharraf to cease Islamic extremists from passing into India and their portion of Kashmir, which is not exactly easy. The Pakistani army, in a sense, is pulling double duty as they patrol the Afghanistan border in an attempt to track down Al Qaeda members at the behest of the United States while also making sure extemists from within Pakistan do not billow into Kashmir. Of course, if American troops had not been misdirected toward Iraq Musharraf and his army's job would be a great deal easier.

So, I'm waiting for the shoe to drop, or, more specifically, a bomb to go off. Hopefully I'm wrong about this, but the track record when it comes to this conflict does not instill much hope.

2004-02-17T23:10:00.000-05:00

Yay for Chandler, Democrats
Congratulations to Ben Chandler! He defeated Republican Alice Kerr by a sound margin (55% to 42%) and has won the right to represent Kentucky's 6th district, making him the 205th Democratic Representative out of the 435-member House. The netroots movement through this win has proved it has legs. Now it's time to build off this momentum and run with it.

2004-02-17T22:08:00.000-05:00

Edwards "Stronger Than Expected"
It seems Edwards is showing "stronger than expected" in Wisconsin currently, so much so that CNN has stepped away from making an early projection of the poll results. All things considered, a strong showing by Edwards is a good thing for Democrats, no matter what the Kerry-backers, DNC, and Republicans may want one to believe. As the Democrats forge ahead to Super Tuesday and beyond, a tight race will keep the media spotlight planted firmly on them and away from Bush. Also, with more than a couple Dems left in the field, the Rove operatives will not know which one to focus on. Sure, they have recently attacked Kerry, but that has only gone to make some Democratic voters take a closer look at Kerry's record and give Edwards a second glance.

The Wisconsin debate was an example of solidarity among the Democratic candidates, which not only benefits the party and cause as a whole, but may in fact make the remaining Democratic primaries a more issue-based race. It's very possible that the differences between Edwards and Kerry on trade policy may indeed have been a factor in Edwards' showing tonight. Perceived electability, not issue-based banter, has been at the core of Kerry's campaign since Iowa, and that momentum has been what's pushed him and pulled other voters along. Now that time has passed and more scrutiny has been placed upon Kerry's campaign by outside sources, his momentum may subside slightly. Whether or not it will be enough to make Edwards a viable alternative is an unknown at this point, but here's to hoping that the differences in campaign platforms will be what guides voters and not the misguided "electability" factor as it has until now.

2004-02-17T02:56:00.000-05:00

Haitian Civil Strife Intensifies; A View Into a Future Democratic Iraq?
The Haitian rebels are gaining a foothold in the north, putting President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in a tough position. If any lesson can be gained from this, it's how democracy is not something that is easily implemented and sustained, even when the great United States initially supports it. Perhaps a parrallel between Haiti's issues during the `90s and Aristide's current troubles can be applied to Iraq today.

There are some deep-cedeing differenes between the two situations, of course, but it's those differences that exemplify exactly how difficult sustainable democracy will be to achieve in Iraq. The CSM has a comprehensive article on the background of the current Haitan conflict, so I won't go in depth on that. I will say that at the macro-level perspective, the problems facing democracy in Haiti are nothing like that which face the impending democracy in Iraq. The internal strife, the terrorist insurgance, the possibility of "Balkanization" does not exist in Haiti to the extent that it does in Iraq. If Haiti is used as any sort of case study, the Bush administration should be weary.

2004-02-17T01:43:00.000-05:00

Sadistic Irony
Seems the Blogspot ad system has saddled me with a banner touting a stereotypical liberal-bashing book, which is highly ironic. Obviously I'd never support such a thing. Perhaps this is Blogger's attempt to get me to upgrade to a paid account simply so I can get rid of the advertisement eyesore altogether. Or maybe it's all a right-wing conspiracy.

2004-02-17T01:19:00.000-05:00

Chandler and the Ascent of the Netroots
I thought I'd take some space and publicly wish Ben Chandler luck on tomorrow's special election in Kentucky's 6th. The most recent "Bluegrass Poll" from the Louisville Courier-Journal shows Chandler with a 9 percentage point lead over Republican Alice Forgy Kerr, so optimism's the tune at this point. Hopefully a win for Chandler will be the start of a new Democratic trend.

Netroots organization has been extremely important in Chandler's current lead, and the blogosphere should be applauded. While the two presidential candidates pushed forward by internet-based actions and funds, Dean and Clark, no longer have a shot at the Dem nomination, those claiming doom have to realize that it's quite the feat that both lasted as long as they did. Dean, for instance, is still plugging along due to the continuation of funding by way of the internet. Baby steps, my friends, baby steps. We're starting with the House and the Senate (FromTheRoots.org), and will eventually reach the White House through the use of netroots. Finally, a counterbalance to special interest money and influence may be developing, and thankfully it has been born from the populous' desire to not only be heard, but also to be a key component in the polticial process as the framers intended.

2004-02-16T23:13:00.000-05:00

The Revenge of Perot: "The Great Sucking Sound"
So, riddle me this, Mr Bush: If the outsourcing of American jobs is a good thing, then why are the 9 million+ unemployed Americans so unhappy? Oh, that's right -- That fact simply does not matter. While those unemployed Americans, your true constituites, are fighting to forge a living and a satisfactory way of life, they are not the majority donors pumping the RNC and Bush coffers full of capital. It's those outsource-friendly companies that own the logos doing all of that, and it's their funds and interests that will push Bush's policies throughout the presidential race. Neoliberal free trade policy is going to be a key issue in this year's push toward the White House, and it's something the DNC and Kerry need to get straight.

Edwards is on the right track. As he stated at the Wisconsin debate last night, NAFTA needs to be repealed and not simply reworked. Attempting to put conditions on it now will not be successful, and the downward spiral of unemployment will simply continue onward without far-reaching change in response. Kerry, who voted for NAFTA, seems to be on the fence with the issue, which is not only ideologically dangerous but could potentially squander numerous key swing votes. Bush is extremely weak on the economy currently, and with his top economic advisor's claim about outsourcing this past week, he can be brought down due to it as long as a strong stand is taken. Simply insinuating changed language within the agreement will not make Americans feel their jobs and futures are any safer -- Taking a strong stand against it will.

2004-02-16T22:01:00.000-05:00

This is a test post, inagurating the creation of my latest weblog. More to come soon!