Left Bank Blog

School's Out Blogging

2006-05-10T21:44:00.000-05:00

JUST A RANDOM THOUGHT: I'm not a professional political analyst or anything, but I honestly cannot figure this one out. Why is it that both the Democratic and Republican frontrunners for the 2008 presidential primaries are heaping love onto Bush, even though his approval ratings should make him radioactive? And why are they both huge war hawks, even as the war reaches Vietnam levels of support?

Hillary just offered some warm praise for Bush. And if there was a way to distinguish her stance on Iraq from Bush's, I'd like to know about it.

McCain has been eagerly casting himself as a Bush cultist, even making a pathetic little speech at the Southern Republican Conference a few months ago extolling the wonders of W. He's also arguably the most hawkish man in Congress when it comes to the war, pushing for even more troops and staking out the extreme-right position.

Now I understand that a lot of political positioning goes into running to running for President, and that Hillary wants to appeal to moderates while McCain just wants Jerry Falwell to give him an affectionate pat on the head. But I can't understand for the life of me why the two of them choose to demonstrate their conservative cred by backing Bush and his war. It's like someone wanting to run for president in 1976 spending 1974 defending Nixon and Vietnam. Isn't there a better way for Hillary to pander to moderates and for McCain to pander to right-wing crazies?

UNBELIEVABLE: Conservatives are throwing a fit over the possibility that Yale will hire University of Michigan professor Juan Cole, a brilliant and esteemed Middle East analyst (and expert blogger). I've been throwing a fit, too, but that's just because I have a better chance to get into grad school at Michigan than I do at Yale, so the odds of my taking classes with Prof. Cole would significantly decrease if Yale hired him.

Neo-cons mostly hate him because he (gasp) opposes the Iraq war and because he (deeper gasp) occasionally suggests that Palestinians are not animals and are, in fact, human beings. Their new criticism of him? He's not qualified to write about Iraq because he's never been there.

Cole has spent numerous years in the Middle East, conducting research and learning Arabic and Persian. Why hasn't he been to Iraq? Well, gee, I suspect it has something to do with the fact that it wasn't exactly easy for Western researchers to enter Ba'athist Iraq, and it's impossible for them to get any research done in US-occupied anarchic Iraq.

I'VE BEEN TRYING to write this op-ed for about three weeks now. HuffPo's Philip Slater took advantage of my procrastination and wrote it for me:

Have you ever noticed how frantically eager some people are to tell you how hopeless the state of the world is? Point to any tiny progressive victory or corporate concession and they'll rush in to smother your tiny ray of light in dreary counter-examples, as if it were an outbreak of crabgrass threatening their carefully manicured lawn of misery.
Perhaps they think being a wet-blanket demonstrates superior radical understanding--a better analysis. But depression is not intelligence, and hopelessness leads to paralysis. It's the small immediate victories that motivate people to get started and keep going--not distant grandiose fantasies.
...
This addiction to tragedy sabotages people working to create positive changes in the world.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, specifically in the context of people going off the deep end about Iran. In a larger sense, it amazes how addicted liberals are to doom and gloom. I read numerous liberal blogs every day, and hardly a day passes without a few of them declaring the world is collapsing around us. Don't get me wrong; things are bad under Bush. But the state of the world is quite good now when you compare it to just about any other era, and people generally get more secular and more tolerant all the time and have more opportunities than they ever had before.

So chill. And while you're at it, read the whole op-ed.

ENCOURAGING DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST: "(Palestinian) Patients die as doctors run out of drugs to treat them."

Israel's recent actions (and US support for them) sends quite a message to Arabs. If you vote for who you like, we will take your money, close the walls around you, and prevent you from having medicine or gasoline. When are people going to realize that the only way to stop terrorism is by drawing Islamists into the political process, so that they don't revert to arms?

Unbefrickinlievable

2006-05-02T20:04:00.000-05:00

What is it that Atrios calls them? The 101st fighting keyboardists?

A right-winger blogger (linked to by Instapundit) claims that not only is al-Qaeda "retreating from Iraq," but also that the terrorists are losing because they have been defeated in the "media war." Needless to say, he goes on to credit right-wing blogs (what else?) for bringing about the defeat of al-Qaeda.

Also on the media front, the Internet was already becoming a major player. In 1998, Matt Drudge was showing that one person with a web site could break a major story. In 2004, a few bloggers were able to start the chain of events that led to Dan Rather's retirement from CBS. In 2006, bloggers are now an acknowledged player on the media battlefield. These efforts were dismissed by al Qaeda, and as a result, while al Qaeda hit its target, the effect was grossly minimized due to the fact that the "silent majority" now had tools by which they could be heard. The media created a false picture after the 1968 Tet Offensive, but was unable to do the same in Iraq.

Silly al-Qaeda. They underestimated the power of America's right-wing bloggers. Thanks to Glenn Reynolds, Jonah Goldberg, and John Hinderaker, our civilization is safe from the scourge of the dreaded Islamofascism.

Old 97's Blogging

2006-05-02T16:01:00.000-05:00

(Title inserted at roommate's suggestion, who noted that listening to "Alive and Wired" makes all the problems in the world seem more manageable)

MORE BRILLIANT ANALYSIS from the National Review Online:

THE TERRORISTS ARE WINNING [by Cliff May] In Iraq? Maybe. In Europe?Almost certainly.

Now I know being a math expert isn't required for a political blogging gig ('cause Allah knows I'd be disqualified if it were), but let's review the numbers quickly:

1- Number of terrorist attacks in Europe in 2005 (the bombings in London.)

34,131- Number of insurgent attacks in Iraq in 2005. About 8,000 more than the 26,496 attacks the year before.

But clearly, we can see that Europe is on the verge of falling into the hands of radical Islamists while Iraq makes its historic shift to a peaceful, secular and democratic country. I've really got to stop reading right-wing blogs...

DESPITE ALL THE APOCALYPTIC chatter in the pundit and blogger class, both on the left and the right, we are not headed to war with Iran. I'm getting pretty fed up with it. It's not gonna happen, and you all know it. Everyone just chill out.

Problem is, I think people on both sides just like chattering about it a lot. For liberals, "proving" that Bush is about to attack Iran backs up their worldview that Bush is crazy (as if we needed more evidence). For conservatives, arguing that we should gear up for war with Iran backs up their, well, crazy worldview. For both sides, just discussing the topic generates welcome attention. But it seems pretty clear that Bush has neither the capability nor the will to pull off an attack, which is good because the situation surely does not warrant one.

As liberal pundits and bloggers struggle to outdo one another to find the smoking gun that Bush is about to attack Iran (remember, for chrissakes, that Seymour Hersh is not God and has been wrong before), the arguments get increasingly sillier. Consider this argument today from Hooman Majd on the Huffington Post: he writes that since Bush "has formulated his foreign policy (and he hopes his legacy) largely in terms of bringing American-style democracy to the Middle East, it is difficult to imagine President Bush willing to leave office with a far more powerful and stable Islamic Republic."

Puh-leeze. To support such an argument, you have to believe in two of the most ridiculous myths about why Bush invaded Iraq. First, no matter what Bush says, he didn't do it for democracy, so don't give him the courtesy of repeating his lie as fact. You're working for the Huffington Post, not CNN, ABC, Fox, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. Second, no matter what Maureen Dowd says, he didn't do it as an egotistical thing, some sort of macho showdown with Saddam. So needless to say, he won't invade Iran for democracy or to safegaurd his ego, either.

ON MONDAY, I apparently missed a event in Philadelphia honoring right-wing Middle East historian Bernard Lewis, with speeches delivered by Dick Cheney and Joe Biden. In other news, I did not rip out my right eye with a spoon yesterday.

WHEN YOU KEEP rattlesnakes in your room, sometimes they keep your enemies out. Sometimes, if you're not careful, they bite you.

"Romney’s candidacy may face an unfair religious test."

A Seriously Flawed Commencement Choice

2006-04-30T16:41:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the lack of posting lately. Finals seasons is upon us, so papers and exams are currently demanding most of my time. The following is an op-ed I wrote slated to be published in The Justice student newspaper on Tuesday:

Last year, the Class of 2005 had the opportunity to listen to Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Margaret Marshall deliver the keynote address at its commencement. A South Africa native, Marshall was an outspoken opponent of apartheid while growing up. In 2003, Marshall wrote the majority opinion in the court case that mandated equal marriage rights for same-sex couples in Massachusetts.

This year, however, the Brandeis administration has apparently decided to reverse course. After choosing a woman who has devoted her life to furthering civil rights, the University has now chosen a man who has spent his life denying people’s rights. Addressing the Class of 2006 will be Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan, a major power in that country’s monarchy. Prince El Hassan has been a leading deputy to the Jordanian throne since the 1960s, and was the heir apparent to former King Hussein until 1999 when Talal’s nephew King Abdullah II assumed the crown. With his longtime role as a prominent voice in the king’s inner circle, Prince El Hassan is inextricably involved in the Jordanian government’s questionable human rights record and suppression of political opponents.

During Prince El Hassan’s long tenure as a leader in the Jordan, the kingdom has been consistent in repressing political opposition, censoring newspapers and swiftly punishing dissenters of all stripes. Criticizing the royal family (Prince El Hassan included) is a serious crime that will likely land the offender in jail and at the mercy of the regime’s torturous intelligence services.

Moreover, despite claims of liberalization by the Jordanian royal family, Human Rights Watch notes the existence of “continuing serious rights abuses in Jordan.” According to an Amnesty International report, the monarchy can freely detain its citizens without charges, and suspects in state custody are often tortured. The report also notes that so-called “honor killings” of women persist in Jordan, and the government has largely condoned the practice, treating male murderers with only a slap on the hand.

If you were to read the fawning description of Prince El Hassan on the Brandeis website, however, you would not know any of this. In the press release announcing the prince as a speaker and recipient of an honorary degree (just like the one the Dalai Lama was given in 1998), the prince is portrayed as a progressive intellectual, not as a man who has played an instrumental role in shaping the policies of a repressive government. The Brandeis press release dwells mostly upon the work he has supposedly done to advance religious freedom, lauding him as “a leading international advocate of interfaith dialogue and understanding.”

Indeed, Prince El Hassan has spoken frequently of religious tolerance, but the record of his government belies this.

The 2002 International Religious Freedom Report issued by the U.S. State Department reveals a number of alarming things. In Jordan, as in Afghanistan where the prosecution of Christian convert Abdul Rahman generated international outrage a few weeks ago, Muslims are forbidden from converting to other faiths. The government appoints imams and forbids them from preaching anything inconsistent with the views of the government. Muslim opponents of the regime are frequently detained with baseless accusations of terrorism. Furthermore, members of the Druze and Baha’i minority faiths in Jordan routinely face discrimination, with the government embarking on a vicious campaign to officially deny and suppress the religions. I wonder how Prince El Hassan explains that when he attends his international conferences on religious understanding.

Although Jordan is considered a “moderate” government by Middle East standards—meaning that it looks good in comparison to Syrian Ba’athists or Saudi Islamists, which isn’t that difficult—it is a reactionary, repressive state in regards to political freedom, human rights and women’s rights. By inviting a prominent Jordanian government figure, Brandeis is engaging in an unfortunate but all too typical form of condescension toward Arabs. Put another way, if the British or French governments were as repressive and undemocratic as Jordan’s, Brandeis would certainly not be interested in inviting a British or French leader. The Arab world, however, is held to a different standard, one that acts as though universal human rights mean a different thing to people in the Middle East. Thus, Arab regimes such as Jordan’s are given a pat on the head as long as they make show reforms while running closed autocratic states.

Brandeis would be well-advised to reverse its decision to welcome Prince El Hassan as a commencement speaker. For a university founded upon the principles of justice and tolerance, and with a proud history of human rights activism and social conscience, this choice is odd at best and offensive at worst. Both the Class of 2006 and the entire University deserve better.

Much Ado About Rummy

2006-04-19T09:21:00.000-05:00

It’s clear that Donald Rumsfeld needs to be replaced as Secretary of Defense. Nonetheless, I find his critics just as annoying as I find him.

As many have pointed out recently, the retired generals calling for his head have little credibility. Even though we live in a bizarre age in which civilian Pentagon leaders are more hawkish and even nuttier than the generals, civilians still control the military. This is the law of the land, and rightfully so. Generals therefore serve at the will of civilians and have no say over who their civilian bosses are. Moreover, if the generals really wanted to change the policies, they should have pushed for change while they were still serving. True, they probably would have been punished for speaking out, but if they really feel the way they do, they should have put their country before their jobs.

Even more frustrating than the retired generals are the war hawk pundits who are out to cover their own asses by pretending that Rumsfeld messed the war up, as though the whole thing wasn’t inherently messy. The war these pundits support is a fictional one in which nothing goes wrong. The fact that things did not go as well as planned reflects more on the nature of war as an ugly, uncontrollable beast and less on the planners of the war themselves. Yes, Rumsfeld and Co. made errors in carrying out the war, but no one could have won this war. In case no one remembers Vietnam, one of the lessons of it was that you can’t defeat a million angry peasants with small arms. It doesn’t matter how technologically advanced your army is if you are trying to illegally occupy a hostile land.

A perfect example of this kind of silly “The war was brilliant in my head but Rumsfeld botched it” argument comes from the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, whose support for the war has been unwavering from the start. In an op-ed called “Replace Rumsfeld,” Ignatius rehashes typical criticisms of Rumsfeld’s war planning – that we didn’t have enough troops and that we shouldn’t have disbanded Saddam’s army.

Ignatius is right in that Rumsfeld’s strategy of a light force did not work. But would more troops have made a difference? I think the answer is clearly no. Escalation did not work in Vietnam, and it wouldn’t have worked in Iraq. Again, it doesn’t matter how big and mighty your force is if the locals don’t want you there. More troops would just mean more targets for insurgents and more difficulty in eventually pulling them out.

Ignatius is also right that disbanding the Iraqi army angered Sunnis and left a lot of ex-soldiers angry and vulnerable for recruitment by insurgents. But c’mon, let’s have a little historical perspective. When we invaded in 2003, we were much more worried about inflaming the Shi’ites, and rightly so. They are the larger religious sect and are a potent and well-organized force, one that will clearly dictate the future of Iraq. Saddam’s army had been brutalizing the Shi’ites for years, and by leaving it intact we would have set off an immediate Shi’ite insurgency. We would also have lost all credibility in our de-Ba’athification campaign, because how can you try to hold the old regime to account when you’ve re-hired all their old generals and head torturers?

Finally, as though he was just relishing for a chance to prove his own incompetence, Ignatius concludes by suggesting that Joe Lieberman would make a good replacement for Rumsfeld. The apparent reasoning is that Rumsfeld’s act can only be followed by the one man in the country more out of touch on the war than Rumsfeld himself.

Make no mistake – Iraq was a failed war from the beginning, and changing tactics would have just led to different kinds of failures. It doesn’t matter how much hawkish pundits complain; their support for the war led us to where we are. And it doesn’t matter what retired generals have to say, either, because they don’t control the military, and they passed their chance to try to change its direction.

Furthermore, the criticism of Rumsfeld for his war planning grossly overlooks his real crime, the normalization of abuse and torture. In just five years, he turned the US into a torture empire, one with a human rights record rivaling third-world dictatorships.

Stepping down as Defense Secretary is just the first step. Rumsfeld needs to stand before The Hague and face trial for overseeing the creation of a network of prisons where evidence, charges, trials and lawyers have been replaced with torture. Rumsfeld deserves the kind of just legal proceeding that he would not grant his prisoners all over world.

Today's Journey into the Bizarre

2006-04-11T12:31:00.000-05:00

VIRGINIA SENATOR and likely Republican presidential candidate George Allen is such a man of the people, he emphasizes that he cuts his own grass. Moreover, he says "uses a John Deere 155 lawn tractor on his acre while listening to NASCAR with earphones."

I'm sorry, but anyone who can find a car race on the radio interesting lacks the intellectual capacity to be president. It's boring enough on TV. Next time the Senator needs entertainment, I suggest a nice ball of yarn. I also hear that repeatedly zipping and unzipping one's jacket is fun.

MY VOYEURISTIC TENDENCIES cause me to explore the right-wing blogosphere every now and then. I usually discover some pretty weird stuff, and today's journey to the National Review's blog, the Corner, was no exception.

The Corner's John Derbyshire, a man best known for open hatred of gays and public announcements that he doesn't care about foreign lives, wrote an interesting little post today. Challenging the critics who charge that border enforcement is too difficult, he reminds us that we're a "can-do nation" that achieves such tasks as "bringing democracy to the Middle East." Oh yeah, how's that working out?

On a similar note, Andrew Sullivan (who is actually quite interesting and worth reading, even if his neo-con views drive me nuts) fought off war critics today and said that the simple explanation for the war in Iraq is 9/11.

That sound you hear is me banging my head on my desk. Hard.

DOES CNN NOT REALIZE that somewhere in Pakistan this year, a school was painted? But they don't tell those stories, no, because they're lazy and biased.

AND WHY DOES MSNBC only talk about divisions in French society? Why don't they talk about how many people voted in elections there? I demand pictures of French women with purple fingers!

TOM DeLAY is not just Jesus; he is also Martin Luther King Jr. Tomorrow he will claim that he is Gandhi.

(Almost) Spring Break Blogging

2006-04-06T22:14:00.000-05:00

TOM DeLAY is being persecuted because he loves Jesus. Cynthia McKinney was racially profiled, and singled out for her hairstyle and liberal views. As for me, I only got an F in Algebra 2 in 10th grade because I had a lot of pimples and because I'm one-sixteenth Chilean. The reasons my teacher gave for grading me the way she did -- that I “did zero homework assignments,” “turned in blank tests,” and “often disrupted class with loud snoring”-- were nothing but a thinly-veiled disguise for her rabid bigotry.

THE U.S. IS BUILDING 125 new nuclear weapons. Remind me again why we’re angry at Iran?

…AND THE U.S. continues to have by far the world’s highest incarceration rate. Remind me again why non-violent drug offenders go to prison?

IN A MUST-READ Washington Monthly article entitled “Not as Lame as You Think,” the indispensable Amy Sullivan raises a lot of good points.

First, she points out that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are actually doing a much better job as opposition leaders than liberal critics (especially bloggers) have given them credit for. This is a point I’ve tried to make a few times before. While there have no doubt been occasions over the last two years when Democrats could have and should have put up more of a fight, they’ve actually been quite successful in blocking most of Bush’s atrocious agenda. Don’t believe me? Then let me know what major new policy initiatives Bush has been able to pass since his re-election. To me, it’s clear that his agenda has basically been derailed.

Second, she correctly notes that it has become a media narrative that Democrats are weak and divided. In truth, congressional Democrats are relatively united and fighting harder that it appears, and have actually voted in unison more often than the Republican caucus. She also argues correctly that the media often credits “moderate” Republican defectors for derailing Bush’s agenda, instead of the united and on-message Democratic caucus that has forced Republicans to defect for fear of the political consequences.

I personally recoil frequently when I read the many invectives on liberal blogs trashing Democratic leaders. And sadly, such criticisms are all over. When Nancy Pelosi posted on Daily Kos a few weeks ago, she was flooded with angry, general comments questioning her will to fight. (Sorry--can't find link).

I think liberals tend to do this because they’re in a pre-2004 mindset, if you will. After September 11 and until Bush’s re-election, it’s true that congressional Democrats just gave up any idea of resistance and let Bush get away with some of the most awful governance in this country’s history. That’s why I still think the best thing that happened in the 2004 elections was the defeat of Tom Daschle, whose legacy is one of incompetence and submission. Democrats, I think, were still so angry about the Daschle Democrats that they never gave Reid a chance. So far, he’s done a pretty damn good job, and his biggest test will be the midterm elections. Give him a chance to succeed before criticizing him; he’s earned it.

Stating the Obvious

2006-04-02T21:47:00.000-05:00

BILL FRIST, man of curiosity: "There are 3 million people every year coming across our borders illegally. We don't know who they are; we don't know what their intentions are."

In case no one else has yet informed him, let me be the first: the answers to his questions are a) they're Mexicans, and b) they're coming here to work.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND why they only report the bad news in Canada. Why is it that we hear about every bombing, but we don't hear stories about schools being built and people with purple fingers?

The Media's Focus on the Negative

2006-03-31T17:20:00.000-05:00

If we lose the war against kidnappers and sexual predators, we’ll have the media to blame. Every day, literally thousands of young white women and girls in quiet suburban and exurban towns attend school, soccer practice, and church and nothing bad happens to them. Nonetheless, the media only pays attention to the white girls who go missing. This not only paints an inaccurate picture of the situation facing white girls, but it also causes Americans to become needlessly pessimistic and prone to cutting and running, undermining our fight against those who prey upon our nation’s females of good, Aryan stock.

When Natalee Holloway, a young white girl from the real-America state of Alabama, went missing in Aruba last summer, the media storm was massive. Cable news channels gave round-the-clock coverage of the affair, with both CNN and Fox routinely overemphasizing the tragedy. Fox’s Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity were the worst, consistently leading with the story and focusing on it relentlessly. What pundits such as O’Reilly and Hannity did not do, however, was report just how many white girls from Alabama did not go missing in Aruba that summer.

Indeed, many other young women from Natalee’s graduating class spent the summer engaged in wholesome Christian activities, doing so in complete safety. Many of these girls were just as young and Caucasian as Natalee, but the media completely ignored their stories. These girls not only attended freshly re-built and painted schools, but also attended them unveiled. Some even turned 18 that year, and gained the opportunity to ritualistically color their fingers purple. But what did Sean Hannity have to say about this? Not a single peep. The media is simply unwilling to dig up positive stories about unharmed white women.

Sadly, the Holloway case is not the only one the media has obsessed over. The media’s negative reporting on the conditions of young white women was seen when similarly well-bred white women and girls such as Laci Peterson, Jennifer Wilbanks, and Elizabeth Smart went missing, to name just a few. Despite the high-profile coverage of the suffering faced by such suburban lasses, I can assure you that the majority of white women were not, in fact, kidnapped and harmed during the same time frame.

The fact that media figures such as Bill O’Reilly give such prominent, negative coverage to the few white women who go missing seriously weakens our fight against predators. There is little to explain this kind of biased coverage, other than pure, simple hatred of young white women. If only Bill O’Reilly would report that over half of our nation’s white girls were not abducted in the past few years, we would not be facing such out-of-control kidnappings. History will record that the war against abductors of young women was not lost by those on the ground fighting it, but rather by a hateful media that secretly rooted for their failure.

Wednesday Roundup

2006-03-29T23:04:00.000-05:00

ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS: A Washington Post reporter braves the frontlines of the “War on Christians” to update us on the progress of the conference:

Another Jewish speaker, Michael Horowitz, told the conference that the "Christian decency of this country" saved him from becoming "a bar of soap" in Nazi Germany.
"You guys have become the Jews of the 21st century," said Horowitz, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, just before a false alarm interrupted his speech. Several attendees called the fire alarm suspicious, though a hotel spokesman said it resulted from a mechanical problem in a distant location.

Then the black helicopters came -- black helicopters filled with transgendered, Bible-burning, Hollywood Jews. And all the Christians were rounded up, and given the choice of renouncing Jesus or being tossed into a meat grinder.

It’s hard out there for a paranoid Jesus freak.

BEFORE LONG, when Republicans wish to declare their candidacy for higher office, they will forgo a rally and a speech. Instead, they will invite the media to a small farm field where they keep a gay person tied to a post, and with cameras rolling, hit the poor bastard repeatedly with a baseball bat.

AN INTERVIEW with reformed neo-con Francis Fukuyama:

DER SPIEGEL ONLINE: How is the United States doing in the battle for hearts and minds?

FUKUYAMA: Not well.

Only Thomas Friedman’s mustache can save us now.

AN INTERESTING peek into the bizzarre world of Bill O'Reilly.

Vacation's Over

2006-03-28T16:57:00.000-05:00

A UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA study shows atheists to be America’s least-liked and least-trusted minority:

American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology.

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.

Oddly enough, though, we’re not the ones holding conferences to whine about how we’re under attack. From Christianity Today:

The War On Christians And The Values Voter in 2006 Conference will be held March 27-28 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C.
...
Keynote speakers at the conference include: Sen. John Cornyn, Sen. Sam Brownback, Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, Rep. Tom DeLay, Phyllis Schlafly and Vision America President Dr. Rick Scarborough.

A SEPARATE STUDY, conducted by the Pew Research Center, found that both Catholics and evangelicals are more likely than “secular” Americans to justify and condone torture by the U.S. in its Endless War against an Abstract Concept (EWAC).

Yet we non-believers are the mistrusted ones. We’re supposed to be the ones without morals.

DONALD RUMSFELD says the U.S. deserves a D or D+ grade for its performance in the fabled “War of Ideas” in the Islamic world.

As far as I can see, there is only one solution to this problem: We must deploy Thomas Friedman’s mustache to the Middle East. The longer we wait to do this, the more perilous the situation will become.

SOMEONE once said something about those with a plank in their eye and those with speck in their eye, and criticism thereof. I can’t remember who said it, or the details. But anyway…

Tennessee State Rep. Debra Maggart justifies her opposition to gay adoption, saying:

We also have seen evidence that homosexual couples prey on young males and have, in some instances, adopted them in order to have unfretted (sic) access to subject them to a life of molestation and sexual abuse.

On a related note, Catholic Charities in Boston recently announced it would no longer participate in adoption services because the state will not allow them to discriminate against potential adoptive parents for their sexual orientation.

Yes, this is a debate I’d like to have. Where is a child more likely to be molested? With gay adoptive parents or with the Catholic Church in Boston?

THE NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK in Times Square, lacking the requisite amount of space to hold the fourteen digits needed to display tens of trillions, is on pace to be maxed out within two years.

How convenient that it will happen in early 2008, when those responsible for such a fiscal atrocity will all be busy campaigning for the Republican nomination for President, probably on platforms of deficit reduction. Oh my, won’t that be awkward.

CASPAR WEINBERGER is dead. Thousands of Nicaraguans are still dead.

Blogged Out

2006-03-23T23:29:00.000-05:00

When I started this blog (a little over a year ago now), it was largely for both the outlet and the space it provided me to sound off and explore different ideas that I couldn't explore by writing op-eds for the campus paper. More than that, though, it was also because I was looking for something productive to do with the long hours that I was spending doing little but reading newspapers and blogs and getting my blood pressure up.

Long story short, the last few weeks have been perhaps the busiest of my life, so time to read and write about politics has been hard to come by. Thanks to all who check my site sporadically, anyway. All I can say is that more posts will come soon, as things should slow down a bit in April.

Howard Dean, Meet Jane Roe

2006-03-07T23:38:00.000-05:00

There's been a rash of stories lately about Democratic disarray and the party's fruitless search for unity and a message in the run-up to the midterm elections this November. For certain New York Times and Washington Post reporters, it has become something of a cottage industry. This type of media coverage, rife with dubious conventional wisdom, clichés, and quotes from anonymous D.C. insider sources, is as irritating as is it typical. Nonetheless (and perhaps most irritating of all), the reports that Democrats lack clarity and focus are generally true.

What was once a proud party that unabashedly advanced environmentalism, the anti-poverty programs of the New Deal and Great Society, and a woman's right to choose is now stuck cowering in fear of the Karl Rove machine. As Iraq so plainly demonstrates, Democrats are uncomfortable taking a firm stand on just about anything, no matter how much the public agrees with them.

But you've all heard this criticism before. If you're reading this, it means that you read blogs, so chances are high that you've read many an exhortation for Democratic spinal fortitude. So why is this relevant now, you ask? Just look at South Dakota, where abortion was declared illegal on Monday.

Poll after poll after poll has shown that vast majorities of Americans support Roe vs. Wade. Less than two months ago, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that 66% of Americans want to uphold the landmark 1973 ruling, while just 25% would like to see it overturned. No matter how anti-choice activists spin it, there's a consensus in this country that safe and legal abortion should be defended and preserved. Despite this, Democrats have treated abortion rights as a losing political issue, internalizing the criticism of the radical right-wing lobby.

After the passage of the South Dakota law, Republicans with presidential ambitions, including supposed moderates like John McCain and Mitt Romney, have been falling all over themselves to endorse it. Democrats, meanwhile, seem caught off guard and afraid to talk about it until James Carville sends them their weekly, centrist talking points. While Republicans wear their opposition to abortion on their sleeves, Democrats often seem uncomfortable discussing the issue. Furthermore, when they do discuss it, they stray away from firm language in favor of nuance; much like John Kerry did in 2004. Nuanced views, however, not only leave pro-choice voters unsure and unenthused but also fail to win over any anti-choicers, who see little grey area when it comes to fetuses.

Sadly, the Democrats feel they have reason to fear, no matter what the polling numbers are. After all, the anti-choice crowd has proven time and time again that they are organized, single-minded, and devoted to criminalizing abortion. Backers of a woman's right to choose, however, have been taking Roe vs. Wade for granted. With a majority of Americans voting for George W. Bush in 2004, one can only conclude that a large number of pro-choicers cast a ballot for a man who would make a coat hanger a gynecological instrument. Anti-choicers, meanwhile, will almost unanimously back anti-abortion politicians even if costs them their Social Security checks.

History provides us with numerous examples in which a radical, zealous minority has been able to achieve its aims despite its numbers. These minorities win not because of public support, but because the opposition is lackadaisical, inattentive, and insufficiently committed to defending its values.

Although I doubt it, such a scenario could play out in America, whereby a motivated and organized quarter of the population forces its warped concept of morality on the masses. For the majority to prevail, it will take a renewed commitment to Roe created by a climate of insecurity that forces voters to take their pro-choice stances more seriously. That's where the Democrats come in.

The conventional wisdom on Bill Clinton's victory in 1992 holds that economic uncertainty and the candidacy of Ross Perot propelled the Arkansas Democrat into the Oval Office. While I do not disagree with this analysis, I think that the role of abortion in the election must be seriously considered. In the backdrop of the election was a Supreme Court in a defining transitional period, grassroots anti-choice activism that climaxed with 1991's "Summer of Mercy," and a Republican base that was itching badly to see serious abortion restrictions after twelve years of Republican control of the executive. All over our culture, abortion seemed at the forefront of the political debate. These factors resulted in a revived pro-choice movement, one that suddenly saw its greatest surge in activism since the 1970's. Entertainers and media figures spoke out on the issue frequently, and an abortion rights rally in 1992 drew nearly one million people to the National Mall in D.C.

Guess what the result at the ballot box was? Women voters and candidates were so mobilized in 1992 that the election was dubbed the "Year of the Woman" in politics. With his huge victory, Bill Clinton was no doubt a beneficiary of this, winning a large majority of women with his pro-choice stance. As Democrats focus on 1994 as a precedent for taking over Congress, perhaps they should also examine the lessons of 1992.

With the mobilization of pro-choice voters in 1992 in mind, Democrats must not hesitate to make support for abortion rights central to their campaigns. The problem in the past has not been that Democrats have been too loud in their support for abortion rights-- it's that they've been too quiet. When abortion is a major issue in a campaign, one that energizes and engages voters, Democrats will benefit. Anti-choice voters are always energized over abortion, so whipping up pro-choice sentiment will not cause any more of them to turnout.

Instead of talking meekly about supporting abortion rights although personally opposing the procedure, instead of talking about wanting to find common ground and reduce the number of abortions, Democrats should be stridently and unapologetically pro-choice. No matter how well-intentioned such language is, it's unnecessary. Democrats should use the rhetoric of coat hangers and back alleys, and talk about not wanting the female genitalia to become the property of state, overseen by Dick Cheney and James Dobson. And they should talk about abortion all the time.

The events that have transpired in the past week in the Great Plains should cause Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Rahm Emmanuel to drop to their knees and thank Gawd. They've been searching for winning issues for months, and the South Dakota legislature and Gov. Mike Rounds just dropped one on their laps. By banning abortion, South Dakotans have created a great political opportunity both for Democrats and for defenders of a woman's right to choose. This is not just an opportunity to build the Democratic Party, but also an opportunity to further the pro-choice movement in general, which will always win when it can mobilize voters. It's a win-win situation for Democrats and women alike. The South Dakota GOP has decided to bring the abortion battle to the forefront of media and society, and now is the time for pro-choice Americans to hunker down in the trenches and fight back-- hard.

Black Coffee Blogging

2006-03-06T16:38:00.000-05:00

HILARIOUS UPDATE: That thing I posted on Thursday about Jerry Falwell saying Jews can go to Heaven? Oops. Falwell says a Jerusalem Post reporter made the whole thing up, that he's still firm in his belief that the Chosen people will burn in hellfires for eternity. Do you hear that Paul Wolfowitz? He means you.

God, of course, is still firm in his belief that Jerry is going to hell.

I'M A BIG FAN of Chris Cillizza's poltical news blog, The Fix at washingtonpost.com. But when he calls Joe Biden "an articulate spokesman for the party especially on foreign policy," I wonder just how many days he's been awake taking hallucinogenic drugs. Joe Biden is articulate in the same way that Jerry Falwell is sane.

Very busy with real-life duties n' whatnot. Hopefully, more posts soon.

Red Pepper Blogging

2006-03-02T02:26:00.000-05:00

Couldn't think of a good title, so I decided to name it after what I was eating while working on the post. Perhaps a new tradition has been born.

THE SPRING CANVASS for MassEquality begins next week, so it's back to work I go. The Massachusetts Family Institute can kiss my ass and/or relocate to Kansas. Our state will have a discrimination-free constitution, thankyouverymuch.

HOW CUTE. They learn so fast.

Kerry Healey, Lt. Gov. of Massachusetts and Republican candidate for governor in 2006, is getting the hang of running for office as a Republican in Massacusetts. Just tell the people you're a social liberal, whether that's the truth or not.

On Monday, she issued a statement backing stem-cell research, breaking from Romney's position. (And when I say Romney's position, I mean the one he's using now that he's running for President). On Wednesday, she attacked South Dakota's abortion ban and described herself to an audience as "extremely pro-choice." Next week, she will declare herself a proud member of the ACLU and People for the American Way, and two months from now she will be seeking the endorsement of NAMBLA.

AND NOW for a preview of what Healey will be like after she decides to run for President following a few years of being governor:

Joan Venocchi has a great op-ed in the Globe about the Mitt-ster's flip-flopping ways. To paraphrase:

1994, while running for against Ted Kennedy for Senator in Massachusetts:

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country."

A few years later, after moving back to Utah:

''I do not wish to be labeled prochoice."

2002, while running for governor of Massachusetts:

''I believe women should have the right to make their own choice."

And he's not talking about choosing car insurance.

2006, while unofficially running for President:

"This week, Romney spokesman Julie Teer told the Boston Herald that if Romney were governor of South Dakota, he would sign a bill that outlaws abortion even in cases of rape or incest."

Can South Dakota take him? Please?

And that exhausts my Mitt Romney and Kerry Healey-bashing for the day. Be sure to tune in tomorrow, when I quote Calvin and Hobbes to call them "a pair of pathetic peripatetics."

JERRY FALWELL has changed his mind and decided that Jews can, in fact, go to Heaven.

God has not changed his mind; He stills plans to send ol’ Jerry to Hell.

And that concludes my Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell-bashing until the next time one of them says something stupid or tries to interpret the will of the gods. Be sure to tune in two minutes from now, when Pat Robertson next opens his mouth.

Another Day, Another Dose of Cynicism

2006-03-01T12:22:00.000-05:00

SHOCKING HEADLINE of the day:

"Romney shifts on adoption by gays"

If Mitt Romney thought that publicly sacrificing a puppy would make him more appealing to the GOP's Christian bigot base, Boston-area animal shelters would have to deadbolt their doors and board up their windows. And you could forget about taking Snoopy for a walk on Boston Common, given its proximity to the Statehouse.

THE NEW REPUBLIC'S circulation has dropped by 40 percent in the past four years, while The Nation's circulation has rapidly climbed and surpassed it. This may be the one casualty of the Iraq War worth celebrating.

It's no doubt a good sign that liberals are shifting their reading prefernces in this way. TNR is so hopelessly out of touch, it endorsed Joe Lieberman in the 2004 Democratic primary. I don't know if Joe Lieberman's wife even endorsed him. If Franklin Foer, the new TNR editor, continues his magazine's support for Mess-O-Potamia, then no one should ever buy it again. Hell, I don't think anyone should buy it no matter what it does. I'd rather read The Weekly Standard or The National Review and get my conservative news & opinion from a source that doesn't try to pass itself off as a liberal one.

A NEW SurveyUSA POLL shows the approval ratings of every Senator. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, analyzing the polls, calculates that the average Senator has a 52% approval vs. 36% disapproval rating. I fail to understand how Senators in general could have such high ratings. I personally approve of only a dozen or so Senators, and I don't see what makes a majority of people in most states like their leaders so much. Congress as a monolith continues to have terrible ratings (I think 28% percent approval last I saw), but individual legislators seem to be doing fine. And what's up with McCain and Obama being the two most popular statistically? I fail to see what makes these two so special.

OUR DEAR LEADER told Hamid Karzai that the progress of Afghanistan is "inspiring others." I agree. He is clearly referring to those who have been inspired to invest in the opium trade in the past few years.

More Miscellany

2006-02-28T17:10:00.000-05:00

MITT ROMNEY has been unofficially campaigning for President a lot lately, and recently spoke to a group of Republicans in South Carolina. He told the crowd that he was completely anti-abortion, made his typical derisive remarks about Massachusetts, and used the phrase "thanks, ya'll" after receiving a gift. All this after years of campaigning in Massachusetts as a pro-choice, socially liberal Republican. If Romney was running for elected office in Saudi Arabia, he would make jokes about Israel and the US and state that he unequivocally opposed a woman's right to drive. Whatever the electorate wants to hear, Mitt's ready to say it.

WHENEVER anyone suggests that we should pull out of Iraq, a right-winger will inevitably accuse them of undermining our troops. So why do our troops want so badly to undermine themselves?

"Most Troops Think They Should Leave Iraq"

MY COMPADRE JOSH emailed me an op-ed about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that Henry Kissinger had written for the Washington Post. Much debate ensued, little of which was related to the op-ed itself. My point is how can I take anything that a war criminal like Henry Kissinger writes seriously? Who cares what he thinks about anything when he's nothing but a thug who contributed to the destruction of Vietnam and basically killed Salvador Allende and other democratic leaders in Chile? His point is who cares about the author of the article if the case it makes is interesting and valid. This raises a larger question, one that has no doubt been debated before: Can an argument still be worth listening to despite its source? I'm divided.

1,300 DEAD in a week in Iraq.

That would be as though roughly 15,000 Americans died in a week, when adjusted for population size. I just feel bad for Dick Cheney; he wanted so badly to rescue the Iraqi people, and his humanitarian mission is deteriorating. He must lose sleep thinking of all the poor, dying Iraqis he tried so nobly to help.

More Monday Morning Moaning

2006-02-27T00:37:00.000-05:00

LOVELY:

From Newsday:

Citing new safety assurances, the Environmental Protection Agency has dropped its objections to a plan to treat and dispose of chemical weapon wastewater at a DuPont Co. plant along the Delaware River.

[...]

DuPont has been seeking a lucrative Army contract to treat 2 million to 4 million gallons of chemicals left over from an operating VX nerve agent disposal operation in Newport, Ind. VX is a deadly military nerve agent, capable of quickly killing an adult after exposure to a pinhead-size droplet.

Delaware and New Jersey opposed an earlier version of the plan. Officials expressed concerns that traces of VX, other toxic byproducts and basic pollutants would reach the river even after treatment in DuPont's commercial wastewater operation at its plant near the foot of the Delaware Memorial Bridge in New Jersey.

2 to 4 million gallons of nerve gas disposed of... next to a river? Bush's EPA doing what it does best, I suppose.

Now let's all imagine that instead of the Delaware River in 2006, millions of gallons of VX were found dumped by the Tigris River in 2003. I think we would have had more than a few celebratory speeches about finding WMD, and more than a few condemnations of Saddam for deceitfully and dangerously releasing nerve agents near a major waterway. And just for good measure, we might have even gotten another super-cool aircraft carrier landing.

IRAQ IS A TOTAL MESS, PART 2,784,331:

From The Scotsman: "...in some areas, militants appeared to be engaged in ethnic cleansing."

AND FOR PART 2,784,332:

From The Independent: "Hundreds of Iraqis are being tortured to death or summarily executed each month by death squads attached to the Interior Ministry in Baghdad, the UN's former human rights chief in Iraq has told The Independent on Sunday."

Next semester, Thomas Friedman is offering a class at Brandeis about globalization. I have a good mind to take it, if for no other reason than to just sit in the front row at every lecture and ask him about how his clever little invasion is working out.

However, since the result of the ideas of Friedman and others is ethnic cleansing and death squads (ethnic cleansing and death squads, for chrissake!), saying "I toldja so" won't cut it, as it just isn't appropriate. As for Friedman himself, saying "sorry" just won't cut it, either. But it would be a good start, and much better than the "It all worked so well in my head, but Bush screwed it up" defense. It's war, after all. War is messy, and inherently screwed up. As Bush so nicely put it once, "war is a dangerous place."

Ohio Democrat Blogging

2006-02-25T14:15:00.000-05:00

NEW HERO ALERT: The Ohio GOP has proposed barring GLBT people from adopting kids. Democratic State Sen. Robert Hagan calls them "homophobic" and responds with a bill barring registered Republicans from adopting kids. Hagan justifies his bill by arguing that "credible research'' proves kids living in Republican homes experience "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities.'' How cool is that?

MORON ALERT: Charlie Wilson, the Democratic favorite to replace gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland in the 6th District congressional seat, failed to qualify for the upcoming Democratic primary because he did not submit the required 50 signatures. 50 signatures? You can get that many by sending out a team of kids for one afternoon of canvassing. Did his campaign just forget to take this necessary step?

One day, I swear I'm going to stop being surprised by the incompetence of the Ohio Democratic Party, which has been a pathetic, lifeless beast for as long as I can remember. This year represents the best chance Democrats have had in statewide races since the days of Sen. John Glenn. With strong candidates contesting for governor and senator, and an ethically-challenged Ohio GOP, we'd better see some results this year. But if the Wilson case is a sign of things to come, we're in serious trouble. If the state party cannot produce winners this year, then we have to throw the bums out and rebuild the state party from scratch.

OPPORTUNISTIC ASSHOLE ALERT: Paul Hackett could not have possibly withdrawn from the Senate primary against Rep. Sherrod Brown in less graceful way. Despite Brown's more liberal record on the issues (including, interestingly, the Iraq War), I had not chosen a favorite among the two. But by whining and trying to divide the state's Democrats on his way out the door, Hackett proved he was an unworthy candidate all along. It proves he has no devotion to the ideas or to the cause, and was instead just a political opportunist. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. Fortunately, I think by the time November rolls around, people will have forgotten his charade and will have united behind Brown, whose race against Mike DeWine is one of the country's most important Senate showdowns.

Photos of the esteemed blogger himself taken at the WWII Memorial on the National Mall from this week's excursion to DC. The esteemed blogger is in the orange jacket, and is pictured with his three excellent partners-in-road-tripping.

Racism Works, Part 1 Million

2006-02-24T16:33:00.000-05:00

In light of the controversial UAE port deal, a new Rasmussen poll shows that 43 percent of Americans now trust Congressional Democrats more on national security, while 41 percent trust President Bush more. If I'm not mistaken, this is the first time since September 11 that Democrats have had such an edge. Maybe even the first time Democrats have polled better on national security in a long time; I don't really know. The poll also found that Americans opposed the port deal by a 64 to 17 percent margin.

So what happened? Although Bush's national security poll numbers have been falling steadily as his War for Terrorist Recruitment spirals out of control in Iraq, he has still maintained a substantial lead over the Democrats on national security matters. The Karl Rove strategy of massive fearmongering and anti-Arab racism has successfully kept Americans frightened and supportive of Bush. So in order to take the national security advantage away from Bush, the Democrats essentially did a better job of using scare tactics and scapegoating minorities.

While there are no doubt legitimate questions about the secretive nature of the deal, the reason this has become an issue is pure, simple anti-Arab racism. The Democrats argument is basically that Arabs as a whole are scary, untrustworthy, and bent on harming America. While I enjoy seeing Bush and his cronies in serious political trouble, it's sad that Dems had to use Bush's own dirty, racist scare tactics on him in order to gain an edge. For all the progress this country has made on issues of tolerance, it never ceases to amaze me how scapegoating minorities (typically blacks, immigrants, Arabs, gays, or a few others) almost always works in politics.

Cheatin' Bible-Thumpers and Anglo-Saxon Tragedies

2006-02-19T03:52:00.000-05:00

IN THE SPIRIT of my last post, I’ve been thinking a lot about 2008 nominees lately. The other day, I was pondering prospective Republican candidates, and something occurred to me. Of those widely suspected to be running, three have carried on extramarital affairs (John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich). There’s also Bill Frist, whose lifetime accomplishments include insider trading and killing stray cats. Yet, this is the party that will run a campaign based on “moral values.” I guess since our candidates don’t have so much trouble living by moral values, they don’t feel the need to talk about them constantly. Once Republicans are able to remove the plank from their eyes, they need to shut up about everyone else’s specks.

THE NORTH CAROLINA GOP has a novel idea: Let’s get churches to give us their directories so that we can exploit the bigotry of religious voters. We’ll bring them to the polls to vote against gay rights, then we’ll send their kids to Iraq, eliminate their Social Security benefits, and deregulate the factories polluting their air and water.

The indicted former Tom DeLay aide and Jack Abramoff business partner, Michael Scanlon, explained GOP political strategy best in an email a few years ago to a tribal leader, letting him know that he and Ralph Reed would turn out the evangelicals to oppose a rival tribe’s casino bid:

"The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees. Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them."

STORIES like this are why I read the British press:

“Today Mr Deghayes is one of eight British residents being held in Guantanamo Bay. During his three-and-a-half years' incarceration he has been tortured, held in solitary confinement for months, had his finger smashed, lost the sight in one eye and has resorted to a hunger strike, unable to defend himself in a court.”

They don’t treat US torturers with kid gloves. They don’t substitute “alleged abuses” and “mistreatment” for the word “torture.” They don’t use a different standard for their coverage of human rights abuses in places like China than they use for the same abuses by the US and Britain. Most American journalists are either incapable or unwilling to report the news without a jingoistic slant.

HOW’S THIS for a juxtaposition?

“The world will have 100 million extra hungry people by 2015, scientists say.”

“A new study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes concludes that the total costs of the Iraq war could top the $2 trillion mark.”

$2 trillion for a war that does little more than create terrorists and kill civilians. That’s more than the GDP’s of every country in the world, save the US, China, Japan, India, and Germany. How much are we investing to stop such famines? Still proud to be an American?

And you know what may be the worst of all? How many people have even seen these two sparsely-covered stories? And how many have heard about a man in Massachusetts who murdered his wife and daughter? It’s as though American media magnates are constantly searching (no pun intended) for the next Natalee Holloway or the next Scott Peterson, just like record execs look for the next Nirvana or the next Britney Spears. It’s as though there’s no need to cover massive starvation or a $2 trillion war as long as there’s a tragedy that has befallen an idyllic family of Anglo-Saxons.

Looking Ahead to 2008

2006-02-03T18:49:00.000-05:00

For political junkies such as yours truly, the speculation over the 2008 presidential race began on November 3, 2004. I've been trying not to obsess over it too much at least before the midterm elections this year, but yesterday I gave up and decided to feed the addiction. The trigger was seeing the 2008 Straw Poll on MyDD.com, made up of a list of people widely believed to be running.

After hanging my own chad in the blog's balloting, I felt it was time to properly analyze the candidates. Below are my ratings of the 11 potential candidates according to MyDD, rated on a scale on 1 to 10 on both their substance and their electability. The ideal candidate, of course, would be one who has both strong progressive views (substance) and broad appeal (electability). The best candidate is therefore the one who finishes with the highest total score of substance and electability combined. Starting with the highest rated candidate, here goes my list:

Sen. Russell Feingold - Total Rating: 17.5

Substance: Hard to beat Feingold in this regard. The only one to vote against the Patriot Act in the post-September 11 frenzy, a fervent opponent of the war, and an all-around good, ol' fashioned Wisconsin progressive. Rating: 9

Electability: His opponent will no doubt try to paint him as liberal extremist, out of the mainstream, yadda yadda yadda. But will it work? My guess is no. Feingold is nobody's puppet, and no extremist. He has voted for right-wing judges, teamed up with the oh-so popular John McCain on campaign finance, and generally demonstrated a fiery independent streak. His history also speaks to this. When he ran for re-election in 2004 against a Republican Gulf War vet, the unpatriotic liberal charges didn't stick. Besides his political views, he is also very charismatic and good-looking, two factors that probably count more than anything else in winning "swing voters." Rating: 8.5

Fmr. Gov. Mark Warner - Total Rating: 14.5

Substance: He was a pretty moderate governor, but also a very effective one, well-respected by most Virginians and able to keep the state's fiscal house in order like most governors have been unable to do lately. I'll be curious to see how he positions himself as the primaries approach. Rating: 5

Electability: Damn good, overall. He's a Virginian, young, well-spoken, and good-looking. He's already demonstrated the ability to win in a red state, and being a governor is always better than being in Congress when you're running for president. He also has a corporate background as a brilliant executive, which people seem to like, surprisingly enough. Rating: 9.5

Fmr. Gen. Wesley Clark - Total Rating: 13

Substance: Total wild card. The guy's never held office, so he has no voting record, and he's never taken firm stances on most pressing issues. Every time I've seen him talk about issues, he never seems particularly conservative or liberal. I'm also divided in my opinion of his military background, since that sort of thing usually makes me suspicious. On the other hand, though, it would also mean that he wouldn't have to constantly prove his toughness, as I'm sure someone like Hillary Clinton would. Rating: 4

Electability: It doesn't get any better than a general in this regard. Although I'm sure it would come out in the course of a campaign that he faked his wounds in Vietnam and was actually a Viet Cong operative, the military background is still a big plus. And it also means that he has no voting record for Republicans to distort. While he's not extremely inspiring, he still has some charisma and seems comfortable in his own skin. Rating: 9

Gov. Bill Richardson - Total Rating: 12

Substance: He's run New Mexico in a pretty moderate way, and without real distinction. Like Clark and Warner, he doesn't strike me as too conservative but it wouldn't hurt to move a little to the left. Rating: 5

Electability: I tend to think he's pretty electable. He has a somewhat dull personality and a tendency to say weird, off-the-cuff things which could potentially hurt him. But on the bright side, he's a governor and he's from the Southeast, which rivals the Midwest/Great Lakes area as a swing region. The main point, too, is that he could really get out the Hispanic vote for a party that has been hemorrhaging Latino voters in the last few election cycles. Rating: 7

Gov. Tom Vilsack - Total Rating: 9.5

Substance: He comes from the unceasingly irritating DLC School of "If I attack other Democrats constantly for being too liberal, then I can get elected." His last outburst was a few days ago when he attacked the Democrats for criticizing Bush for breaking the law, for Gawd's sake. He doesn't take his DLC-ism quite as far as Lieberman, but then again, not everyone gets to make out with the president on a regular basis. Rating: 2.5

Electability: Relatively good. He's fairly popular in Iowa, a crucial swing state, and he's not a bad orator. Also, he's got an interesting personal story, being an orphan and all. But I'm not so sure that the attacking other Democrats strategy actually works for many people. Rating: 7

Fmr. Sen. John Edwards - Total Rating: 8.5

Substance: The "Two Americas" rhetoric is cute and all, but this guy doesn't do it for me. Like Kerry, his voting pattern shows serious shifting with political winds. Also, his anti-free trade stance just doesn't make sense to me, but I realize that I diverge from most liberals on this one. Still, he does have some redeeming aspects, and is by no means a conservative. Rating: 3.5

Electability: His electability, I think, has been overrated many times before. Just being from the South doesn't win elections by itself. And let's not forget that when he ran for president in 2004, he was abandoning a Senate race in which he was badly trailing. True, he does have good looks (OK, really good looks) and he is charming, but I think his lack of experience and four years out of politics will hurt him. Rating: 5

Sen. Hillary Clinton - Total Rating: 8

Substance: Ick. Blah. While she's in the right place on health care and the environment, two of my pet issues, her stance on the war makes me physically ill. If I were Maureen Dowd (or perhaps the Rude Pundit), I would sum it up like this: For five years we've been dealing with an out-of-control foreign policy because Dick Cheney has insecurity issues about his manhood. The last thing we need is a president who has even more to prove in that regard. If she doesn't get her act together about Iraq, then I have no use for her. Rating: 2

Electability: With her huge fundraising and name recognition, she might be such a sure thing in the primaries, rendering this whole list pointless. But nevertheless, she's not infallible, and if she indeed wins, it will be interesting to see how the national electorate takes to her. I disagree with the conventional pundit wisdom that she's totally unelectable, mostly because I think that being a woman is a plus, since it will galvanize female swing voters and because most of the bigots are already Republicans anyway. Despite this, she has some serious problems. Thanks to years of uncritically repeating Rush Limbaugh-esque attacks on her, the media has incorrectly painted her as too far left, so she could have trouble winning moderates. And on the other side, anyone who's ever checked out the blogosphere knows that liberals can't stand her. Rating: 6

Fmr. Sen. Tom Daschle - Total Rating: 8

Substance: I must confess that I hated his stint as the leader of Senate Democrats. I was actually pleased when he lost in 2004, because it signified a chance for Democrats to move away from his "appease Bush" style of leadership, something Harry Reid has done in some ways though not in others. Currently, Daschle's been trying to get back on the radar by calling for withdrawal from Iraq. What an empty attempt to get back in the good graces of the base. He knew the war was wrong when he gift-wrapped it for Bush back in 2002, and I'm not forgetting or forgiving. Rating: 2.5

Electability: Not terrible. He's been out of politics for a bit too long, but he still has some strengths. Though he lost in 2004, he can win in conservative areas. He has enough looks and charisma to get by, and people might remember his term nostalgically for a time when there was balance in government. Rating: 5.5

Sen. Evan Bayh - Total Rating: 6.5

Substance: Typical middle-America Democratic centrism. Whatever. Rating: 3

Electability: Not too great. His name recognition outside of Indiana is next to zero, and for good reason. He's a guy who just doesn't stand out in a crowd, and lacks the magnetic personality of winners like Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, or Dubya. I predict he will fare like Sen. Bob Graham did in the 2004 primaries, just a no-name who lacks the personality or politics to gain a following. And even Graham had a personality. At least Bayh has no serious problems, just a general weakness. Rating: 3.5

Sen. John Kerry - Total Rating: 5.5

Substance: Although Satan will soon come to collect for Dick Cheney's soul, the gout-ridden V.P. was right on the mark when he ridiculed Kerry for switching his voting patterns when the threat of Howard Dean presented itself. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Rove-ian talking points about an unprincipled waffler are true. And I know I'm not the only one who saw the pathetic filibuster attempt on Alito as just the first act of trying to gain the base for a primary run. Rating: 2.5

Electability: If at first you don't succeed, dust yourself off and fail again. What a sad embodiment of the Democratic Party's overall problem with this. Rating: 3

Sen. Joe Biden - Total Rating: 4

Substance: Do you have an hour? Do you understand curse words? I'd like to rant. Rating: 1

Electability: Way overrated. People think he has charisma and note that he's from Delaware, which is vaguely middle-American. But the guy's just an insufferable blowhard, and although the stupidity of the electorate never ceases to amaze me, I think most people will be able to see through his lame act. Rating: 3

So there it is. To steal a line from Groucho Marx, those are my opinions, and if you don't like them, well, I have others. Any comments/discussion on this is highly encouraged. I'm really curious to know what other people's thoughts are. Was I wrong about some candidates? Did I leave anyone out? And before you say it, no, Barack Obama is not running. Dream on.

(update) Barack Obama is still not running. Give it up, already. And no, Gore's not running either.

Barbara Boxer? Now you're just being absurd.

Media and Middle East Briefs

2006-02-01T12:44:00.000-05:00

Any regular reader of mine would probably know that the media and the Middle East are two of my fixations, and today there was a lot happening on both of these fronts.

RICHARD COHEN at the Washington Post summarizes why we must not have illusions about Hamas:

"But the hard truth is that culture and religion matter, and we should not expect moderation just because that's how we would react. Toto knows the truth. The Middle East is not Kansas."

And thank Allah for that. The last thing the Middle East needs is more Kansas-style religious fundamentalism.

TWO PROFESSORS of Middle East Studies (and bloggers), Juan Cole and As'ad AbuKhalil give their own reactions to Bush's Mideast gibberish in yesterday's State of the Union. They're a lot like what I said, just with a lot more detail and intellectual heft, and in AbuKhalil's case, more wonderful sarcasm.

I urge you to read them both, as Cole and AbuKhalil are two of the best sources for Middle East news and opinion on this side of the Atlantic. Choice excerpts:

Cole: "Bush's main accomplishment in the Middle East since 9/11 has been to strengthen Muslim fundamentalist parties everywhere in the region."

AbuKhalil: "But the lack of seriousness of Bush's "push" for democracies is best exemplified by this sentence: 'Saudi Arabia has taken the first steps of reform -- now it can offer its people a better future by pressing forward with those efforts.' One of the most oppressive states on earth, and certainly the most misogynistic and religiously exclusivist, is praised for cosmetic steps that it took in the last years, and which did not affect the fundamental monopolization of power by an unelected royal family, and their allies in the clerical establishment."

AN INTERESTING piece in Britain's Guardian about a media conference in the Middle East, sponsored by al-Jazeera.

THERE is nothing more irritating to me than when a CNN anchor talks about "Arab opinion," as though Arabs are monolithic. Arabs are one of the most politically and religiously divided people in the world, and to think that they all react the same way to certain events, playing up this myth of an "Arab street," is just plain foolish. CNN also likes to bring on Arab correspondents, typically from the pro-U.S. al-Arabiya station, which mainly functions as a mouthpiece for the Saudi royal family. The mere idea that these journalists can speak for all Arabs is even more ludicrous than the idea that Dick Cheney can speak for all Americans.

BUSH said today that the U.S. would defend Israel against Iran. How pointless and unnecessarily provocative. Even if that is our policy, why state it? Doesn't he know how that sounds to many in the Middle East? Besides, Israel is a big boy, with its own nuclear arsenal and the strongest conventional army in the region. Iran wants no piece of Israel, despite Ahmadinejad's rhetoric. It's just that--rhetoric. Doesn't anyone else realize that the Iranian leader is just using scary talk to frighten his citizens for political gain? Haven't we seen that enough in this country to know how to recognize it?

Post-SOTU Thoughts

2006-01-31T22:41:00.000-05:00

BEFORE the speech, Wolf Blitzer said of Dick Cheney and Dennis Hastert, "They look mighty good there together, don't they?"

Must be the way that Hastert's sagging cheeks reach all the way down to Cheney's gout-ridden foot. Oh my. If anyone could possibly find two uglier, less healthy people, I'd be curious to see.

On second thought, I think I'd prefer not to.

BUSH actually praised alleged democratic reforms in Egypt and Saudi Arabia while criticizing Iran's lack of a democracy. Say what you want about Iran, but it's much more democratic than Mubarak's Egypt or the House of Saud. Also, none of its citizens attacked us on 9/11, something that Egypt and Saudi Arabia can't say.

TERRORISTS now want "weapons of mass murder." They apparently gave up on "weapons of mass destruction" because our fearless leader rid the world of them a few years back.

THE CHANCES that George "Failed Oilman" Bush and Dick "Secret Energy Meetings With Ken Lay" Cheney will end America's addiction to oil are far less than the chances that the two men will design a rocket and fly it to Mars.

A plan to go to Mars? Wasn't that introduced at, let's say, a presidential speech before Congress around this time of year in 2004?

I AGREE that "human life" should never be "devalued." That's why every time one of the sick warmongers in your adminstration uses the phrase "collateral damage," I sell my stocks in human life because the value is driven down.

RONALD REAGAN did not reject "isolation and retreat" as Bush said. He pulled out of Lebanon in the early 1980's after the attack on the Marine barracks, something cited frequently among al-Qaida types for inspiration.

BEST MOMENT of the speech:

"Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security..."

(APPLAUSE)

Yay for the only unscripted moment of the night!

Five Things To Watch For

2006-01-31T16:28:00.000-05:00

State of the Union speeches are so scripted, boring, and lie-packed that watching them can can seem downright torturous to anyone who hasn't done time in one of our jails overseas. So to keep things interesting, here are some things I suggest looking out for:

On his way in, will Dubya plant a big wet one on Joe Lieberman's lips or on his cheek?

Which religious charity will the obligatory black person sitting behind Laura Bush represent?

What will be the oh-so compelling personal story of the ordinary soldier who will also be seated in a choice spot?

Which word will be used more: "freedom" or "terror?"

If Bush doesn't directly appeal for it, will God no longer bless the United States?

Wednesday Roundup

2006-01-25T20:44:00.000-05:00

EVERY liberal blog in the world seems to have taken up a crusade against MSNBC in repsonse to Chris Matthews' patently stupid comments about the bin Laden tape. Many are calling for a boycott of the channel, which strikes me as really odd. I know MSNBC is really proud of the 13 or 14 people who actually watch their network, but I doubt they'll worry too much if a couple of them drift away. It's hard, after all, for ratings that hover around 0.000001% to drop in any significant way.

JEFF JACOBY, the Boston Globe's token conservative columnist, went to town today with typical misinformation about terrorism in a piece on Iran. The basic argument he was trying to make, I think, is that a meal of Iraqi children only tastes good with a Persian dessert. And with his hunger rising and with Bush & Co. not beating the war drums the way he would like, Jacoby is a desperate beast.

He calls Iran "the planet's foremost sponsor of terrorism" and says that "the radical Islamists in Tehran bankroll the world's deadliest terrorists." I know you weren't only conservative asleep on September 11, Jeff, but let me spell it out for you: S-A-U-D-I-A-R-A-B-I-A. Let's be clear about one thing: Saudi money (followed closely by Ronald Reagan's money) has been al-Qaida's lifeblood for years. I know the Saudis are our friends in oil and torture and all, but let's stop pretending that they haven't been, as the once-useful Thomas Friedman said, the main source of the money, ideology, and individual fighters of al-Qaida.

Iran does indeed support terrorist groups, but they do not support al-Qaida, whose Sunni followers in Iraq have committed numerous atrocities upon Shi'ites, the co-religionists of the Iranian regime. The most prominent terrorist group that Iran bankrolls is Hizbullah, the Shi'ite group with a power base in Southern Lebanon. Hizbullah, which has never attacked U.S. interests, would be flattered to know that Jacoby thinks they are "the world's deadliest terrorists." While al-Qaida is capable of killing thousands in a single day, Hizbullah's attacks usually involve shooting a small missile into a farmfield in Northern Israel, resulting in a casualty count of seven cotton plants and a fig tree.

Jacoby's writing represents an all-too typical conservative misrepresentation of modern terrorism. Let's not forget how Iraq (the Middle Eastern regime that was most unfriendly to al-Qaida types while Saddam was in power) became the center of global terrorism after bin Laden got away. Either conservatives are willfully misleading about the nature of terrorism, or they are just too ignorant to understand the not-so-subtle differences between radical Sunni jihadists, Iranian Shi'ite clerics, and secular Ba'athists. Whichever the case, can the media please stop lauding them as the party of national security?

POPE: Church Duty Is To Influence Leaders

LEFT BANK BLOG: Leaders' Duty Is To Ignore Unelected Ayatollahs Everywhere

A NEW PENTAGON report questions whether the army will be able to succeed in Iraq. Once again, a Pentagon analyst managed, in 2006, to figure out what should have been fairly obvious in 2002. As with the entire Iraq conflict, a breeze through daily headlines often reveals the many ways in which the administration lied, messed up, and got things wrong. And frankly, it's no fun playing the "I-told-you-so" game when every bleak and tragic scenario comes true. *Sighs*

REPRIMAND?? For killing an Iraqi in a brutal interrogation!? Just a reprimand!?? I'll be excited to see how Karen Hughes spins this one. Maybe she'll say that the U.S. is so committed to freedom that we can't even put people in jail for murder...

IS IT BAD that I find it hilarious that Dick Cheney has gout, the illness of decadent kings?

Ticked Off Tuesday

2006-01-17T16:17:00.000-05:00

THE WASHINGTON POST editorial board explains the Middle East:

Thanks to Mr. Mubarak's autocratic backsliding -- including his crude persecution and imprisonment of his leading liberal opponent, Ayman Nour -- Egypt will continue to lag behind Jordan, Morocco and other modernizing Arab states that enjoy tariff-free access to U.S. markets. For Egypt's business community and the reformist technocrats in its cabinet, the message should be clear: Egypt won't join the global economic mainstream unless it abandons its corrupt dictatorship.

That's right. Egypt needs to stop being so autocratic and start behaving like the good democracies of Jordan and Morocco. Who the hell comes up with this stuff? Is Ashlee Simpson their resident Middle East analyst?

AN INDIANA prosecutor explains his support for the death penalty:

There is no adequate and acceptable alternative. Life Without Parole does not eliminate the risk that the prisoner will murder a guard, a visitor, or another inmate, and we should not be compelled to take that risk. It is also not unheard of for inmates to escape from prison.

A good example of why he's right:

At 76, Allen was the oldest inmate on California's death row and the nation's second-oldest convict to be executed since the U.S. Supreme Court declared capital punishment legal in 1976.

Allen petitioned for clemency on the grounds that his age and poor health made the death penalty a cruel and unusual punishment. He was confined to a wheelchair, was deaf and legally blind, and had diabetes and a variety of other medical conditions.

I, for one, have been paralyzed with fear that Charles Ray Allen would escape and hurt me. Between people like him and those al-Qaida-sympathyzing children we killed in Pakistan in an illegal airstrike a few days ago, I had been too scared to leave the house. But now that blind, wheelchair-bound 76 year-old men and innocent Pakistani kids have been killed with an assist from our tax dollars, I can finally drive my SUV to Wal-Mart unafraid. That is, as soon as they find a cure for the bird flu that has left millions of people dead. Or was it SARS or mad cow disease? I get 'em all mixed up.

Out of Exile

2006-01-16T22:40:00.000-05:00

Today I had two thoughts that I deemed worth sharing, one of which is appropriate and one of which probably isn't.

As I embarked to the airport to fly back to Boston, I saw garbagemen out in the cold at a ridiculous pre-dawn hour, picking up Akron, Ohio's trash. I know many people in many professions don't get Martin Luther King Jr. Day off, but you'd think sanitation workers would be the first to have a vacation day, seeing as how Dr. King was shot while supporting a trash collectors' strike. As Chris Rock once pointed out, even James Earl Ray, as a federal prisoner, used to get the day off (and none of his fellow prisoners probably even bothered to thank him, quipped Rock).

Less appropriately, I noticed that Gerald Ford, now 92 years old, has been hospitalized. Ever since Reagan's death, I've been cringing every time bad ex-politicians develop health problems. Although the Gipper's administration actively supported both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (and for good measure, terrorists and butchers in the Western hemisphere, too) it became a fact among the news media that this was one of our greatest national heroes, responsible for winning the Cold War. Too hear CNN tell it, the man tore down the Berlin Wall with his bare hands, saved Western civilization from Eee-vil, and made the sun come up every morning in our shiny, happy country, where no one lived in poverty, had AIDS or smoked crack. When Gerald Ford dies, I'm bracing for his depiction as a fearless leader who restored our country from Watergate, rather than a complicit fellow traveler who did all in his power to cover up the wrongdoing and let the wrongdoers off the hook. Maybe we'll even learn than he won the Vietnam War for us.

Winter Hibernation

2005-12-21T01:39:00.000-05:00

Heading back to Uh-Hi-Uh in about seven hours, to the land where there are no computers. (No, seriously, we don't have one at home and I'm not taking mine back on the plane.) So needless to say, blogging may be a tad bit light for a month.

In the meantime, just know that snow goons are bad news. This is the most important lesson you can learn in life.

Scorching Saturday Snippets

2005-12-17T16:42:00.000-05:00

LAST week, I wrote about the fear-mongering, racist ad campaign of Coalition for a Secure Driver's License.

AP covered the story today, and the inevitable backlash that such blatant racism creates: "The message of the ad says that Arabs are dangerous and violent people and that therefore they should not get driver's licenses and I think it's bigoted. It's racist," said Christine Saah Nazer of the Washington D.C.-based Arab American Institute.

SPEAKING of racism, Montana governor Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, defended gun rights by saying that Western states have different values about guns than people living in places where ''teenagers are wearing their caps backward, wearing baggy pants, and are shooting at each other."

Wow. As far as racial code phrases go, that's pretty blatant.

Now, I like Schweitzer (or liked him, anyway), and I think his election was one of the best things that happened to Democrats in 2004. The formula that he created for winning out West has been studied by Democratic strategists a lot, and I think it offers the party a great deal of hope out there. Furthermore, I think his strong opposition to gun control is politically smart, and one of the issues that Democrats should definitely concede in order to win in places like Montana. In my opinion, it is much better to move to the right on this issue than on things like the environment, the war, and social programs.

But why would Schweitzer use such language to defend his gun policies? Similarly, why would the Coalition for a Secure Driver's License use racism to push its entirely reasonable call for tighter regulation in the issuing of state ID's? The sad reality is that bigotry is alive in this country, and it's often a politician's best friend.

AMEN, Boston Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson

From "Iraqi civilian deaths mount -- and count"

President Bush actually acknowledged that Iraqi civilians died in his war. ''I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis," Bush said to a questioner this week in Philadelphia.

Up until now in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush denied as much annihilation as possible. General Tommy Franks said, ''We don't do body counts" and Navy Captain Frank Thorp said, ''We cannot look at combat as a scorecard." Even as news organizations cobbled together credible numbers of Iraqi civilians killed by US forces, the head of statistics of the Iraqi health ministry said she was told to stop counting civilian casualties under pressure from the health minister and Bush's Coalition Provisional Authority. The authority and the health minister denied the suppression, but the same ministry had issued preliminary numbers months earlier.

In April 2004, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt was asked about the images on Iraqi television of civilians being killed in Fallujah by American forces. His answer was, ''Change the channel. Change the channel to a legitimate, authoritative, honest news station." In light of recent revelations, one has to wonder if he meant for Iraqis to change to one of those Iraqi media outlets paid off by Pentagon contractors to print sugar-frosted stories of the invasion.

In the United States, there was no channel to change. Iraqi civilians became invisible the moment Americans were wrongfully convinced by administration rhetoric to connect Saddam Hussein and the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction to the fears spawned by Sept. 11, 2001.

Fantastic Friday (Noun with F?)

2005-12-16T12:35:00.000-05:00

WRITING an article (a regular journalistic piece, not an editorial, mind you) on the recent racist violence in Australia, the NY Times' Raymond Bonner has this to say about conservative Australian P.M. John Howard:

"More recently, he has campaigned for tough antiterrorism laws by creating fears of another terrorist attack by Islamic radicals."

Funny. While Bonner's piece is in the International section, the paper's Washington section has an article about the debate over the Patriot Act. I don't remember any NY Times writer using such strong, blatant terms to describe Bush, who has undeniably used fears of another terrorist attack to push his antiterrorism laws.

This, sadly, is typical of American journalism. In order not to offend delicate Republican sensibilities, journalists give American leaders a free pass on issues where they condemn foreign leaders. Look at the torture "debate"- see if any mainstream paper describes our torturers (sorry, "abusers" or "mistreaters") in the same way that they describe Chinese torturers. Look at how they cover Putin's adventure in Chechnya- they blatantly describe his war as a failure that has harmed Chechen civilians and created terrorists. Remind you of anything?

SOMETIMES, I think Sen. Ted Stevens is a drone controlled by Exxon-Mobil. And since this is Bush's America, the burden of proving that he is, in fact, human is on him. Until Sen. Stevens can show beyond a reasonable doubt that he isn't the robot of a major oil corporation, we will have to consider him as such.

SINCE leaving home, I've successfully kicked my cable news habit cold turkey. And Gawd knows I'm a better person for it. However, while at the gym today, I gave into temptation and turned the usual suspects on to watch while working out. I actually started with Fox, because I hit it first while searching for the channels. I watched the typical right-wing spin for a few minutes as the daytime Fox people talked about the Patriot Act and Iraq, then I got sick of it and found CNN. There, for the next 20 minutes, I was treated to nothing but bottom-feeding tabloid crap. The first two segments I saw were about Ashlee Simpson and Desperate Housewives, then after a break, they did a long piece on people who think they've been abducted by aliens. They even went so far as to stick a camera in the face of some poor crazy guy while he recounted the pain of his abduction during hypnosis, showing his moans and grunts up close for an exceedingly painful 15-20 seconds. I'll take the hypocrisy of Sean Hannity or the racism of Brian Kilmeade any day over the fluff that passes for news on CNN. Right-wing garbage or not, at least they talk about things that actually matter on occasion.

POOR Bush- with so many of comrades under investigation or indictment, how can he be expected to have a consistent policy for all of them?

(Adjective that starts with T?) Thursday Twosome

2005-12-15T12:15:00.000-05:00

HOW petty can we get?

The Treasury Department said yesterday that Cuba would not be allowed to send a team to the World Baseball Classic, an exciting baseball event reminiscent of soccer’s World Cup that is coming up next March. The rationale for the decision was that allowing Cuba to play would violate the decades-old embargo of Castro’s would-be socialist paradise.

Memo to the U.S. government: The Cold War is over. We won. The free market beat the state-run model. Now stop being such poor winners.

The embargo is stupid and hypocritical for so many reasons that it’s not worth it to list them all here. The only people who benefit from it anymore are Florida Republicans and Castro himself, who has used it legitimize his rule for years. And if senselessly hurting the Cuban economy while propping up Castro wasn’t enough, now the embargo has to ruin the World Baseball Classic by denying entrance to one of the best teams.

This hurts the baseball fan in me, too. Makes you wonder if the U.S. was just afraid that its boys would lose to Cuba and face embarrassment on the world stage…

CUE drumroll...

And the Thomas Friedman Award for the stupidest use of analogies goes to the Huffington Post!

It pains me to give such a notorious award to a site that I love as much as the Huffington Post, but they really deserve this one. While the overall quality of the website is terrific, they employ a few more writers than they should, people who are often amateurish and boring. And in the past few days, two particular writers published columns on the site that were built around absolutely atrocious comparisons.

First is Aaron Freeman’s article called “Saddam Hussein is the Bobby Seale of Baghdad.” Oh…My…God... His point is that their trials were both raucous and that the verdicts were pre-determined. Yes, but that’s still a stupid analogy on so many levels. First of all, Saddam is able to represent himself- no one’s tying him and gagging him. Saddam even gets Ramsey Clark, international idiot extraordinaire, to defend him. Second, Bobby Seale fought for equality and justice and was prosecuted by a racist, out-of-control government that was systematically trying to destroy his Black Panther Party for its civil rights activities. SADDAM IS AN EVIL MASS MURDERER!!

Next came R.J. Eskow’s piece that compared the crucifixion of Jesus to the execution of Tookie Williams. You don’t have to be Christian to find this one offensive, nor do you have to be for the death penalty to see how stupid this analogy is. I’m, of course, neither Christian nor a proponent of state-sanctioned killing, but c’mon- although Williams’ execution was senseless and political just like the alleged messiah’s, JESUS NEVER KILLED ANYONE!!

On a related note, there’s another horrible HuffPo column about Tookie. Although its not based on a terrible analogy, Greg Gutfeld’s column states that Tookie was executed “because he wrote children’s books.” Um…Uh…Right…Is he just trying to provide fodder for pro-death penalty conservatives??

The Huffington Post has so many valuable columns and links that it’s a shame they choose to embarrass themselves by regularly publishing truly idiotic columns. You can see how nice this must be for conservatives to have a liberal website that prints articles so dumb that a four year-old could take them apart.

Weary Wednesday Whims

2005-12-14T17:54:00.000-05:00

WHAT if Fox News threw a "Holiday Party" and lots of people came?

I think that brings the score to Reality 587, Bill O'Reilly 0.

1,000 Days of War.

In case you had forgotten that the British media is clearly superior to its counterpart across the Atlantic, The Independent today published a series of articles about the state of the Iraq War, noting that the illegal invasion began exactly 1,000 days ago, on March 20, 2003. Although they are all worth a read, "The war in numbers: From WMD to the victims," may be the most interesting piece.

Among its calculations:

0- Number of WMDs found

8- Percentage of Iraqi children suffering acute malnutrition

47- Percentage of Iraqis who never have enough electricity

70- Percentage of Iraqi's whose sewage system rarely works

90- Daily attacks by insurgents in November 2005. In June 2003: 8

30,000- Estimated Iraqi civilian deaths

$204.4 billion- The cost to the US of the war so far. The UK's bill up until March 2005 was £3.1 billion

My only critique is that they chose to use the 30,000 figure for Iraqi civilian deaths, since it is one of the most conservative estimates and for that reason the one that Bush himself cited the other day. They could have at least pointed out that some estimates are north of 100,000. At any rate, though, it is a tragically interesting set of articles, and a breath of fresh air from our media's coverage of Iraq, which pretends that Iraqi civilians don't exist (except for those with purple fingers) and therefore doesn't bother to report on their lives (and deaths).

MITT Romney has decided not to run for re-election as Massachusetts governor, according a source close to him.

Shocking. Truly Shocking.

Puh-leaze! This hardly merits news coverage. It's been painfully obvious for over a year now that the Mitt-ster would be running for president, and thus disinterested in trying to get re-elected and getting his ass kicked by Attorney General Tom Reilly, who has been out-polling him for quite a while now.

To be honest, this piece of "news" is just a reminder of how much fun I'm going to have watching the sleazy Mr. Romney lose miserably in the Republican primaries. Who does he think he is, anyway? Good luck trying to get support from evangelicals when you're a heretical Mormon who was in charge of Massachusetts when it began allowing gays to marry and who has flip-flopped on abortion more than Kerry did on the war (yes, my fellow liberals, that wasn't just an annoying RNC talking point- the man was quite inconsistent).

Mitt Romney has been politically dead for a long time, with no influence over the overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts legislature, unable to win support for re-election, and without a chance in hell of becoming president. As clear as this is, I've still been excited to witness the moment when his political death is confirmed. As for now, I'm salivating.

Ticklish Tuesday Tidbits

2005-12-13T00:44:00.000-05:00

WHAT if they gave a War on Christmas and nobody came?

Fox News' John Gibson knows what that's like. His new book, which has been plugged mercilessly on Fox, is all about how the Christ-killing Jews and the godless sinners are out to get Santa. Guess what? It's barely selling at all.

Here's a tip, John: even religious fundamentalists are sometimes smart enough to realize when you're just pandering to them. Get back to talking about what's important, like how the homosexual lobby is out to get our children.

SOMETIMES, America can be a great country. Sometimes, it's not. I'm proud to be a liberal so that I can, as Al Franken once explained, be adult enough to recognize when we're wrong.

"'Never Before!' Our Amnesiac Torture Debate."

Read it, already. It's written by the incomparable Naomi Klein, and published in the incomparable Nation magazine.

I READ this piece over the weekend and became understandingly agitated, but it slipped my mind since then.

"...It was another Sunday morning at Beulah Land, the church's worship class for children under 3. The 15- to 20-minute class teaches Bible stories and Christian tenets to children using songs and stories illustrated with characters that affix to a felt board."

From the NY Times: "A Church Reaches Out to The Very Young."

As offensive as this blatant indoctrination is, the more I think about it, the less angry I get. Religion can be something of an infantile practice, so maybe its appropriate that one year-olds are its newest constituency.

GREAT Americans...

Hale: "My only regret is that I have but one life to give for my country."

Bush: “I don't regret is that I have but 30,000 Iraqi lives to give for my oil.”

Or might I have misquoted him? Oh well, I was close...

"I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis."

...

And knowing what I know today, I'd make the decision again,"

Miscellaneous Monday Moans

2005-12-12T00:22:00.000-05:00

COMPLAINING about media coverage of Iraq, Fox hack Neil Cavuto says "I'm not saying it's a bed of roses. But would it kill you to report the positive?"

Of course it's not a bed of roses, Neil; the Iraqis tore up all their flower beds in 2003 so that they could throw the blooms at their liberators. Don't you remember your own network's extensive coverage of it?

WHAT the hell is wrong with British politics?

Newly-elected Tory Party leader David Cameron channels Bush: "I want us to give this country a modern, compassionate Conservatism that is right for our times and right for our country."

The current leader of Labor, Britain's other large party, is a fella known as Tony Blair, A.K.A. Bush's poodle. What in store for the next elections? Are they going to try to out-lapdog each other? Is that what it takes to lead the U.K.?

I WONDER why I haven't heard Bush hail Egypt's elections as the next democratic domino in his big Middle Eastern gameboard? Perhaps it's because "our sonofabitch" Mubarak unleashed his police to block and intimidate voters, and yet the Muslim Brotherhood opposition still won big. Not such a good day for the neo-cons when democracy is subverted by the U.S.-backed ruler and anti-American Islamists demonstrate their popularity.

But couldn't the U.S. media at least have given us a touching photo or two of purple fingers? No?

Well, in lieu of purple finger images and accompanying "white man's burden"-style stories about how the backwards, silly little camel-riding Arabs are embracing our gift of democracy, I guess it's appropriate for the media to hardly cover the elections or mention how the events in Egypt perfectly exemplify the utter failure and hypocrisy of our foreign policy.

AND it begins...

From the LA Times: "GOP Faction Wants to Change 'Birthright Citizenship' Policy"

I'm surprised that in his selfless quest to bomb Mecca, Rep. Tom Tancredo even has the time make sure Mexican babies don't get rights. You would think that he'd be too busy building his bombs and preparing his fighter jet.

Willie Horton Lives

2005-12-05T18:34:00.000-05:00

If one thing has been true about post-Civil War politics in America, it's that one of the most tried and true ways to win a campaign is by attacking and scapegoating hated and feared minority groups. The tactic was especially clear in the South throughout the reign of Jim Crow laws, and Ronald Reagan brought it into the modern era by kicking off his "states rights"-themed 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site of the 1964 murders of three civil rights workers. George H.W. Bush and and his political guru Lee Atwater perfected the "Ohmygawd minorities are so scary!!" technique with their infamous 1988 Willie Horton ads, attacking Michael Dukakis' purported "softness on crime" with the image of a black convict. Not to be outdone, Bush Jr. and Karl Rove (who, alas, still hasn't hit his getting-terminal-cancer-and-repenting phase the way Atwater did) used the specter of scary gay people to get idiotic, churchgoing Ohioans to vote Bush in 2004.

Sadly, I've seen two examples in the last few days that this kind of politics isn't going away.

This weekend, Howard Dean delivered a speech in Phoenix suggesting that Republicans would use immigrants as their scary minority du jour to try to win the 2006 elections. He's absolutely right, and he should make no apologies for it. He correctly pointed out that they used gays to scare voters in 2004, and that all the signs point to a growing anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic campaign to capture Congress next year. Democrats who are willing to defend immigrants' rights had better be prepared for attacks ads showing their faces next to those of scary Hispanic criminals.

A new group called Coalition for a Secure Driver's License just launched a website and a series of billboard ads in North Carolina, with more planned in New Mexico. Their goal, according to their website, is "to advocate tighter identification requirements for individuals seeking driver's licenses within the 50 states, in order to prevent future terrorists from obtaining that critical form of ID." That all sounds fine with me. While I'm typically weary of allegedly anti-terrorism security measures, this doesn't sound so bad. Their website, however, is filled with images of hijackers and scary-looking olive-skinned men glaring at the viewer. Worse, check out the billboard design they're using to push this seemingly reasonable demand for reform:

Read: Scary, scary A-rabs. With weapons. And with those crazy things them Muzz-Lim people wear on their heads, just like them scary Eye-Rack-Ees what I seen on TV.

The politics of racism and fear just don't get much worse than this. The coalition got a couple of actors (probably white people under that clothing) to dress up like Iraqi insurgents. And they superimposed those images over an image of a quiet North Carolina mountain highway, much like the ones that drivers looking at the billboards will probably be on. On top of that, they used a bunch of Arabic letters at the top of the billboard for no particular reason, other than to add to the scary, foreign appearance of it all. Still worse, they didn't even connect the letters properly, indicating that the racist idiots responsible for this ad just found an Arabic textbook and copied some of the funny-looking characters.

The only connection North Carolina has to recent terrorism is that of Eric Randolph, the Christian terrorist who set off bombs at an abortion clinic, a gay nightclub, and the 1996 Summer Olympic opening ceremonies. But guess what? An image of a good ol' white boy isn't going to scare people in North Carolina (or anywhere, for that matter), so they trotted out pictures of people dressed up like Arab terrorists. Even if I agreed with their call for more restrictive licensing, I'd never want anything to do with a group like this. Its members, who include 9/11 family members, need to drop this racist fear campaign and use calm, rational arguments to make their case.

David Brooks, Inept Hero Worshipper

2005-11-27T23:01:00.000-05:00

Thanks to the advent of TimesSelect a few months ago, I've been denied my right to read David Brooks' column, which had been something of a bi-weekly ritual of self-flagellation. Having picked up a paper copy of the Sunday Times this morning, however, I was able to open up all the old self-induced scars.

Brooks' latest crime against logic and common sense, entitled "Heroes Abroad, Unknown at Home," reads like an awed exercise in hero worship by a breathless 13 year-old boy that has played too many violent video games. Decrying the lack of publicity given to individual "heroes" fighting in Iraq, Brooks offers a doubtlessly exaggerated account of Capt. Christopher Ieva's unit and their battle against insurgents in Ubaydi last year. His tale, rife with clichés and military jargon, reveals his typically bigoted American attitude that the value of human life is relative.

After spending a good two-thirds of his column sharing his feel-good war story about savagely killing the "enemy" and knocking down homes with 500-pound bombs, Brooks tries to make a few larger points. Typically, this is the classic portion of the Brooks column that relies upon his inability to comprehend the blatantly obvious or follow natural patterns of logic. This, of course, is also the part that always coincides with the escalation of my self-mutilation, as banging my head on the desk takes a back seat to cutting myself and trying to gouge my left eye out.

Brooks' first larger point goes likes this:

"After the Marines took Ubaydi, they didn't have the troops to hold it, and it again became a terrorist safe haven. Over the past two weeks, the Marines have been back in Ubaydi for more bloody fighting. This time they have enough trained Iraqi forces to hold the area, but why weren't there enough troops last spring? Every time you delve into the situation in Iraq, you come away with the phrase "not enough troops" ringing in your head, and I hope someday we will find out how this travesty came about."

Cut, cut, gouge.

Someday? Someday!!?

It's really quite simple, Dave: the top military brass said that anywhere from 250,000 troops (Gen. Tommy Franks) or "several hundred thousand troops" (Gen. Eric Shinseki) would be necessary. But civilian neo-con leaders like Paul Wolfowitz said these figures were "wildly off the mark," and pressed for closer to 100,000 troops. Shinseki was later forced into early retirement by the Bush administration for speaking his mind and not blindly following the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz plans.

Moving onto larger point #2, Brooks brings these threads of wisdom:

"Why aren't there more stories about war heroes like Christopher Ieva? The casual courage he and his men displayed is awe-inspiring, but most Americans couldn't name a single hero from this war."

Jessica Lynch?... Oops, wait, no. Oh well, at least the Pentagon tried to give us one, lying as best as they could.

But the failed effort of the Pentagon and cable news to sell us a Joan of Arc- er, West Virginia- isn't the real reason we don't know any heroes, of course. Take it away, Dave:

"That's because despite all the amazing things people are achieving in Iraq, we don't tell their stories back here. That's partly because in the post-Vietnam era many Americans- especially those who dominate the culture- are uncomfortable with military valor. That's partly because some people don't want this war to seem like a heroic enterprise. And it's partly because many Americans are aloof from this whole conflict, and couldn't tell you a thing about Operations Matador and Steel Curtain and the other major offensives."

Hack, slice, rip.

Of course Americans couldn't tell you a thing about specific military operations! But they probably could tell you all about Laci Peterson and Natalie Holloway. Send your pals at Fox News a thank-you-note for that one, Dave. Furthermore, why should Americans even care every time some Pentagon bureaucrat comes up with a cool-sounding name to describe random, inconsequential patrolling by U.S. forces along the Syrian border?

Well done so far, Dave. Now bring it in for the kill:

"This is a culture that knows how to honor the casualties and the dead, but not the strength and prowess of its warriors."

Tear, bleed, stab.

And what exactly is your problem with this? I'm sure Sparta sounds really nice in epic tales, but I doubt life there was actually that good. If you'd like to honor our "warriors" so much, Dave, perhaps you could leave the comfort of New York (where most people are sane enough not to fawn over people simply because they've studied the art of killing) and ship out to Iraq. Since the Pentagon keeps raising the enlistment age to provide all those extra troops you want so badly, you'll soon be young enough to join.

It's time for the NY Times to show its commitment to the environment and stop cutting down trees on David Brooks' behalf. It needs to just make the page on which his column would go smaller and do its part to save the rainforest from senseless destruction. Or at the very least, it could do me a personal favor and stop running his columns so that my right eye won't have to go, too.

God To Spare Kansas and Texas

2005-11-09T02:39:00.000-05:00

On the evening of November 8, 2005, the Big Guy In The Sky got off His rear and took action. Did He finally decide to stop the killing in Darfur, you ask? Did He see to it that urgent food supplies were sent to Malawi, perhaps? Or did he just tell Dubya, the enforcer of His will among the mortals, which country to invade next?

While I can't verify that He did not indeed notify our Praying President that Iran needs to be taken out, I can say for sure that He didn't do the first two things.

What the Great Lord did do last night, however, was take a stroll over to His desk in order to revise His legendary "To Smite" list. The list, a constant topic of speculation among His disciples Pat and Jerry, has been undergoing some changes lately. Two months ago, a check mark was placed next to sinful, unrepentant New Orleans to signify "Mission Accomplished" (in the real sense, not the aircraft carrier kind), while Venezuela was thought to have been added for future smiting. Last month, similar check marks were placed next to the entries "Pakistani Muslim infidels" and "Harriet Miers," and the words "Fitzgerald" and "Earle" were reportedly added to the Holy Rolodex of Vengeance.

Last night, though, the Heavenly Father From Whom All Things Come, Including New Kids On The Block Albums And Smallpox, searched His list for His previous entries "Texas" and "Kansas" and summarily removed them. Kansas, as the Rev. Fred Phelps lets us know, had been entered two years ago when some of its soldiers had been killed in Iraq, which is a sin, ya know, 'cause the troops are only fighting to protect our freedom of sodomy. Texas, meanwhile, was placed on the list last year when God felt that Gov. Rick Perry's haircut made him too sexy and the subject of too much sinful lust.

Well, never fear, Kansans and Texans, your bold actions yesterday successfully spared your states from being struck by Jehovah's righteous fury train.

In the Lone Star State, 76 percent of voters approved an amendment that ensured marriage would never be desecrated by practitioners of sinful lifestyles. While the 24 percent who thought they could subvert Gawd's will may still be smited individually, the state itself is now safe from all manner of natural disasters. More importantly, it won't have to suffer the way godforsaken Massachusetts has, with low divorce rates, low gun violence, and highly-educated and wealthy citizens.

In the case of Kansas (what the Hell is the matter with it, anyway?), the state Board of Education single-handedly took the state off the "To Smite" list by finally inserting unscientific challenges to evolution into their curriculum. The best part of yesterday's 6-4 vote was that it officially (and I'm not making this up) "rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena." While the Big Guy would've preferred that they just assign Genesis instead, He rewarded their effort and removed them from the list, assuring that Kansas will never again suffer from tornadoes. Furthermore, He offered Kansas a guarantee that they would never again grace His list if they would find Galileo's body, dig it up, and beat it several times before publicly hanging it as a warning to others who would challenge Aristotle's perfect worldview.

After crossing out Kansas and Texas last night, however, the Lord did not rest. Rather, He penciled in the word "Maine," vowing to punish His rebellious province that decided that discrimination against gays in employment was not okay.

Horror and Shame

2005-11-08T01:12:00.000-05:00

“The horror! The horror!”

Kurtz gasped these final words before he passed away in his Congolese hut. Those who have read Joseph Conrad’s novella Heart of Darkness (or least read the Cliff's Notes when that pesky high school English teacher assigned it) generally agree that these words are meant to signify Kurtz’s realization of his evil deeds and the darkness of his own heart. Kurtz had joined the European colonial venture with the vague idea of “civilizing” the “savages” of the “Dark Continent,” but came to understand that he was capable of dark and savage actions in the same way the Congo’s Belgian subjects were thought to be.

Believing from a young age that America is incapable of violence and evil the way our enemies are, most Americans spend their lives holding mythical views of our country. We constantly celebrate our good deeds while we are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge to our bad deeds. We place ourselves in a moral fantasy world that gives us the perpetual high ground, whether we actually hold it or not. We are frightened to examine our own capacity for evil, and we go to great lengths to avoid talking about it or putting it into context.

When our newspapers write about prison conditions and torture in places such as China or Iran, they use language that fully conveys the brutality down to the bloody details. They talk about holding people without charges as a serious human rights violation, and beating or humiliating detainees as a moral failure. When discussing our own country’s violence against detainees, polite euphemisms like “mistreatment” replace “torture,” and “dying in our custody” replaces “murdered by our interrogators.” While Americans recoil in horror at the accounts of Saddam Hussein’s torture, we condone and make excuses for our own torturers, adamant that we don’t see shades of gray in our war of “good” against “evil.”

Even the so-called “critics” of our torture policy today refuse to use moral language in their arguments. Senators pushing for a ban on torture seem incapable of plainly stating that we shouldn’t torture because torture is inherently wrong. Instead, they argue that we must stop torturing because it hurts our image. The still-unrepentant Iraq War hawk Thomas Friedman once devoted an entire New York Times op-ed column to making this very argument, saying that Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay should be shut down because it makes us unpopular in the Muslim world, as though holding people without charges and torturing them is not reason enough to close our gulag.

We Americans react angrily, and rightfully so, when we see ordinary Muslims denying and excusing the barbaric crimes being carried in the name of their religion. One can imagine, then, how Muslims must feel when ordinary Americans condone or refuse to acknowledge the heinous acts of tortured committed in our country’s name.

Lost and bogged down in our own imperial mess, we Americans have yet to have our own Kurtz-like epiphany. While the president (the one we have chosen to represent us before the world) gives weak denials that we don’t torture, the vice president is fighting for a CIA exemption from an amendment banning “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” of detainees. Despite Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, “extraordinary renditions,” and CIA “black sites” in Eastern Europe, we still assume that we are superior to the people in our occupied lands who “don’t value human life.” It is time we as a society recognize our capacity for violence and work to overcome it lest we wait, like Kurtz did, until repentance is too late.

The Ex Post Facto Opposition Party

2005-11-02T01:34:00.000-05:00

Harry Reid's action yesterday, moving the Senate into a closed session in order to review prewar intelligence, was a crucial and necessary step for a nation once again caught in a fictional war. While Reid and his Democratic colleagues should be applauded for pressing for a review, let us not forget that this review is a mere 1,117 days overdue.

On October 11, 2002, Reid joined 28 other Democratic senators, including Tom Daschle, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Tom Harkin, and Joe Lieberman in supporting the resolution to authorize force against Iraq. A filibuster attempt by Senate conscience Robert Byrd was roughly pushed aside by a 75-25 bipartisan vote to invoke cloture. While principled and wise Senators like Byrd, Russell Feingold, Lincoln Chafee, Jim Jeffords and the late, great Paul Wellstone stood their ground against the fictional war, the Senate Democratic leadership betrayed their constituents, the troops, and the country.

Instead of waiting for 2005, Democratic leaders should have called for a closer look at the intelligence in 2002. Despite the popular mythology that everyone was fooled about WMD's and al-Qaida ties, there were plenty of conflicting reports and plenty of holes and weaknesses (not to mention outright lies and forgeries) in the administration's intelligence case that we knew about before the war. (For more on this, see Seymour Hersh's interview with former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter). Before giving Bush a blank check to create a new generation of terrorists, destabilize an entire region and kill thousands of people, Senate Democrats really should have asked Bush for facts other than those prefaced with "Ahmed Chalabi says..."

Bitter? Moi?

While I believe that we should be able to forgive our Democratic leaders for their sins, we must never forget them. More to the point, I believe that it's important that we make sure Democratic leaders don't repeat them.

On that note, Donald Rumsfeld announced yesterday that U.N. inspectors won't be allowed to visit our Guantanamo prisoners. This outrage, coupled with the popular new practice of "extraordinary renditions" and the continued stonewalling about Abu Ghraib, makes it clear that we need immediate Senate investigations into the administration's authorizing of torture. Can we get a hearing on it now or should we wait until 2008?

The Unpersons

2005-10-25T18:36:00.000-05:00

"An unperson is completely erased from history. All records of their existence is removed from record, and all party members are expected to remove them from memory. To mention their name is considered thoughtcrime." -Newspeak Dictionary

To hear the U.S. military tell it, the only people that actually die in Iraq are fighters of some kind. When a U.S. soldier dies, he or she becomes a "fallen hero," and is treated like a martyr in the U.S. media much like the way Islamic suicide bombers are treated in the Arab media. His or her death is widely reported, and the total number of soldiers killed is carefully counted and re-counted. This is particularly notable now as the total number of soldiers killed in W.'s big adventure passes 2,000.

When an anti-U.S. fighter dies, this is also important to the military. According to yesterday's Washington Post, the U.S. military has revived the Vietnam-era tradition of reporting enemy body counts. These figures, sure to overstated and inaccurate, are now being released to the public in the latest of pathetic attempts to show Americans that "progress" is being made in Iraq. As the Post puts it, the military is "eager to demonstrate success in Iraq" and "cites such numbers periodically to show the impact of some counterinsurgency operations."

The only lives the Pentagon is unconcerned with in their Babylonian bloodbath are the lives of the innocent, the noncombatants. Or, as the former philosopher-general and accused war criminal Tommy Franks once put it, "we don't do body counts." Not of civilians, anyway, huh?

Everyday, some 26 million Iraqi civilians go about their daily lives like everyone else in the world; they go to work, take their kids to school, attend religious services and socialize with family and friends. On top of that, they worry that the next rape, kidnapping, shooting or bombing will affect either them or a loved one. Thanks to President Bush, their nation has been turned into the "central front in the War on Terror." But what can they do? They simply have to try to live like everything's normal while the forces of jihad, neo-conservatism, and ethnic and tribal strife reduce their neighborhoods to rubble and kill their families.

Although the Pentagon, callous as ever, makes no effort to account for the innocents killed in its war of choice, others are working their hardest to keep track for the sake of humanity and historical records.

The website Iraq Body Count currently estimates that roughly 26,000-31,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have perished in the violence. A note on the methods used to establish this number, as well as a breakdown of the causes of civilian deaths can be found here.

Last year, a study published by the British medical journal Lancet indicated that 100,000 civilians had been killed, 46 percent of whom were children under 15. While that number may have been too high, it was nonetheless a legitimate attempt to account for the carnage. Furthermore, this estimate was taken an entire year ago. If correct, who knows how high the total could be today?

Professor Juan Cole, using figures from Iraq Body Count, notes that on an average day, 38 Iraqis are killed by insurgents or American forces. He adds:

"Over thirty-five years, that would amount to nearly 500,000 dead. In fact, it is estimated that the Baath party killed 300,000 Iraqis, so the current rate seems to be greater than the Baath rate."

Shame, shame, shame.

While the media and the current political elite have done their best to cover up and ignore our national shame, history will not forget. The thousands of Iraqis killed will not become unpersons. Their stories will not simply prove the cruelty and evil of our current administration, but will also serve as a testament to the inherent shortcomings of military solutions.

Update: Coincidentally, AP weighed in on the matter tonight, and actually got a Pentagon spokesman to discuss possible figures. My timing is indeed weird.

Forgetting About 1969

2005-10-17T15:04:00.000-05:00

Note: This op-ed I wrote will appear in tomorrow's edition of The Justice, Brandeis' student newspaper.

***

From the horrible death tolls of natural disasters in both the United States and South Asia, to the reports of crop failure, genocide and starvation in Africa, to the daily bloodshed and chaos of U.S.-occupied Iraq, news junkies like me have been getting violently depressing fixes lately.

With all of the recent unpleasantness in my head, I reasoned that a baseball game would take my mind off the endless news cycle and let me relax a little. Unfortunately, TV presented me with new subjects for anger.

After a break in the first inning, a commercial opened with images of Paul McCartney. Beginning with classic, Beatles-era photographs of McCartney the songwriting genius—and continuing with pictures of his post-Beatles life as a father, husband, musician, and knight—the ad closed by depicting McCartney as an investor, right alongside Fidelity Investments’ logo. Until the ending, the photo history would have served as a great eulogy, beautifully chronicling the life and career of one of rock n’ roll’s icons.

But Paul McCartney isn’t dead. Nope, Paul McCartney just sold out.

OK, OK, I know what you're thinking—Paul McCartney has sold out plenty of times before. But seriously—using classic photos of himself to hawk an investment firm is just disgusting. Hasn't McCartney already earned enough money by playing corporate gigs and selling the Beatles catalog?? Is it really necessary for him to keep whoring himself out?

By the end of the second inning of the baseball game, I was still cursing Paul McCartney for selling out and for his utter uselessness in the past 35 years. But then a new commercial began that gave me an equally rude jolt. This time a clip of a young Bob Dylan performing was splashed across the screen as part of a montage of various celebrities. The sponsor of the ad: E*TRADE Financial.

Let’s pretend for a minute that it's 1969 again:

The Beatles have recently released the definitive Abbey Road. Bob Dylan's "Lay Lady Lay" is tearing up the charts in both the U.S. and the U.K. Woodstock has been an amazing success and become a crucial generational moment. Public opinion has turned against the evils of Jim Crow and the horrors of the Vietnam War. The country appears to be on the verge of fully sweeping away the militarism and empty materialism of the 1950s and creating a culture that once again values the arts, the individual, and peace. Now try telling the young people of 1969, politically and artistically hip as they were, that one day Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney would be featured in competing investment banking commercials. And while you're at it, gently let them know that all of those costly lessons they were busy learning in the jungles of Southeast Asia are quickly being unlearned in the sands of the Middle East.

Suddenly, it hit me.

I now realized why I was so mad about all of this. The selling out of artists like Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney is not so different from the quagmire in Iraq—both are the result of forgetting the lessons that we as a society had learned roughly 36 years ago.

Since 1969, we’ve forgotten the sacredness of music and art. We’ve forgotten the problems inherent with brutally invading and occupying foreign countries for lies. And as long as we’re busy forgetting the lessons of America 1969, let’s pretend that LSD is harmless again so that I can escape the cultural and political wasteland of America 2005.

Racism of the Right, Judge Jesus and Juan Cole

2005-10-07T10:42:00.000-05:00

In his op-ed yesterday (which you can read for free from the link), Bob Herbert looks at Bill Bennett's recent remarks in the context of the underhanded racist political strategy that Republicans have been skillfully employing for the past few decades. It's pretty clear that Republicans have never stopped using racism to appeal to embittered whites, both in the South and elsewhere. As Herbert writes, "our job is to keep (their racist politics) from spreading into the future." Yet another reason to work for progressive causes, as if I still needed one.

Speaking of Republican racism (or in this case it may just be a gross lack of sympathy coupled with a gross misunderstanding of history), on his October 4 radio show Bill O'Reilly compared the Irish experience in America to that enslaved blacks. I was initially planning to write a few paragraphs comparing the discrimination of Irish immigrants to the treatment of slaves, but then I realized that anyone who's literate enough to read the words that I write probably understands the distinction already. If you can't, I'm sure there are lots of great 4th grade American history textbooks that I could recommend.

Becoming one the first prominent Christian conservatives to back Harriet Miers, Jerry Falwell made a speech in Chattanooga in which he said certain Democratic senators "would vote no on Jesus." Well, I should hope so! Anyone with no judicial experience and a messianic complex probably wouldn't make for a good justice. Besides, Republican senators would probably block his nomination in the first place over those memos he wrote years ago saying "blessed are the peacemakers" and "turn the other cheek." Sounds like he's some radical who couldn't be counted on to hold up the death penalty and rule against the rights of Gitmo detainees.

Lest there be any doubt over who is America's best living Middle East analyst, Juan Cole makes the case for himself pretty clear today. In a piece posted on his blog this morning, he skillfully dissects Bush's speech on Iraq yesterday. It is also a good example of how Thomas Friedman would talk about Iraq if his sanity hadn't departed him some time in mid-2002. Here's to hoping University of Michigan will accept me into their Middle East Studies graduate program so I can take classes with Prof. Cole!

Two Quick Thoughts

2005-10-06T10:58:00.000-05:00

Today's NY Times has a long article about the Grand Canyon and how it falls into the "debate" over evolution. The next time I hear anyone refer to battles over the teaching of evolution as a matter of philosophical "controversy," I'm going to cut off an opposable thumb. There is no debate, and there is no controversy. It's over; the matter is settled. When Ivy League science professors with PhD's from elite institutions have to sit down and argue with hicks who may or may not have graduated from Circleville Bible College, the only "debate" that exists is whether or not advocates of "intelligent design" should be viciously mocked or given condescending pats on the head.

If you haven't read the text to Al Gore's speech yesterday on the media and democracy, follow the link and do so now. What a smart, smart man... 'Tis a damn shame, thinking of what could and might have been... I hope all those Nader voters are glad that they established the principle that Gore and Bush are indistinguishable.

Daily Iraq Carnage, Senate Races, Nicaragua

2005-10-05T13:21:00.000-05:00

Another day in sunny, liberated Iraq: A suicide bombing at a Shi'ite mosque is the latest development in the sectarian violence. 5 U.S. Troops were also killed fighting in some tough-sounding, code-named operation meant to kill a few existing insurgents while creating tenfold more new ones.

For No Good Reason. What do you say to the maimed soldiers and the families of the soldiers killed? The title of Bob Herbert's latest column (yay for websites that subvert the $50 Times Select program and post bootleg op-eds!) sums it up pretty clearly. After all, Bush and Co. will have a tough time telling that families of the five killed yesterday that they died to ensure that the "smoking gun won't appear in the form of a mushroom cloud."

More 2006 election news:

Both Iraq vet Paul Hackett and Congressman Sherrod Brown will be challenging Republican incumbent Mike DeWine for his Senate seat next year. I'd personally prefer Hackett, but I think both would be serious challengers for DeWine. My main hope is that they don't spend too much time and money attacking one another in the primary and focus on the attainable goal of electing a Democrat in Ohio.

DeWine, after all, is pretty weak and this is a great opportunity for the Dems. From the left and center, DeWine has to deal with outrage at state-level Republican corruption and the nationwide drop in Bush's poll numbers. He also has to shore up the religious right base, which has been heavily critical of him for his support of Satanic, hedonistic judicial nominees.

In West Virginia, the most serious Republican challenger for Robert Byrd's Senate seat has dropped out of the race a mere week after Byrd announced he'd run for re-election. Simply put, this is great news. I love Robert Byrd for a number of reasons, most notably his eloquent speeches against the Iraq war on the Senate floor and for the fact that his scholarship foundation has helped put my sister (and by extension, me) through college.

U.S. Envoy Robert Zoellick is warning against a coup in Nicaragua. To do so, Zoellick is apparently drawing upon the decades of democratic credibility and moral authority that the U.S. has enjoyed in the region. The U.S. knows nothing about coups in Latin America, or supporting dictators. Nope, nothing at all. Particularly, we know nothing about supporting murderers in Nicaragua. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

On Iraq, Republican Seekers of Higher Office, and the Greatness of Barney Frank

2005-10-04T13:08:00.000-05:00

From the Guardian: Foreign Fighters Leaving Iraq to Export Terror, Warns Minister

Foreign fighters who have used Iraq as a combat training ground are returning home with plans to mount similar attacks throughout the Muslim world, Iraq's interior minister said yesterday.

...

A western diplomat in Baghdad said he had seen intelligence warnings of the consequences of two-and-a-half years of "porous borders and political instability." The diplomat said: "The space enjoyed by militants in jihadist training camps in towns in the 'Sunni triangle' and the remote desert areas of western Iraq has enabled them to perfect all sorts of insurgent knowhow, from bomb-making to urban guerrilla warfare. Now they could well spread it to the rest of the region."

From the Lowell Sun: Retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom states the painfully obvious: “The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history."

Not to play the "I toldja" game, but I've been arguing the same exact thing since late 2002, before the war started.

This war has inspired, recruited, and trained the next generation of Islamic militants. The only way that George W. Bush has defeated Osama bin Laden since 2001 is that he has replaced him as the Muslim world's top terrorist recruiter. While he can't get Americans to enlist in the Army anymore, George of Arabia is doing his best to ensure the well-being of al-Qaida for years to come by stocking it with new enlistees.

Thanks a lot, Bush voters. Still glad that gays can't get married?

Rudy Giuliani is openly speculating about running for president in 2008. Best of luck to you, Rudy- trying to convince millions of bigoted social conservatives to support you in the primary despite your pro-choice and pro-gay marriage stances (not to mention the inconvenient fact that you left your wife after publicly cheating on her a few years back) is no easy task.

Methinks that Rudy may have some Romneyesque position shifts in his future. After all, September 11 heroism means little to people who saw the attacks as God's curse on Rudy's city of abortionists, secularists and sodomites.

Also seeking higher office is Alabama's Roy Moore, the judge who fought tooth and nail to keep Gawd's commandments in his courtroom. He will be setting off a social conservative smackdown by challenging Republican incumbent governor Bob Riley, whose own Jesus-freak credentials are pretty well established. Kicking off his campaign, Moore was photographed signing a Bible for a young supporter. Uh, Judge- aren't books typically just signed by their authors? Don't forget that God hath only anointed you to run for governor- He's not asking you to challenge Him and run for God, even if that would be reasonable for an ego as big as yours.

Massachusetts Democratic congressman Barney Frank has a great sense of humor: Reporters were asking the openly gay congressman Barney Frank if David Dreier was denied DeLay’s leadership position because he was too moderate – or because he was gay. Frank said it was because Dreier was too moderate, and then quipped, “And I’m going to a moderate bar after work tonight.”

In case you missed it, the arch-conservative Roy Blunt of Missouri was picked to temporarily succeed the indicted exterminator, edging out David Dreier, the California Republican whose homosexuality has been an open secret lately despite his lengthy history of anti-gay politics.

Left Bank Blog Note: Opinion Briefs

2005-10-04T11:24:00.000-05:00

I haven't found the energy or inspiration to write an essay or the like in the past few weeks, but as you can probably imagine, that doesn't mean I haven't been closely following the news and feeling outraged as usual. So today I'm trying out a new blogging style whereby I just post a series of news stories and/or links, and then briefly put in my own two cents. For those of you who are as similarly addicted to the blogosphere as I am, you might recognize that this is a similar format to the one used on blogs such as Eric Alterman's Altercation, Juan Cole's Informed Comment, and the great, but sadly defunct, Daily Outrage by Ari Berman.

This does not mean that I have given up writing longer things or that I will discontinue composing and publishing essays, both here and wherever else I can submit them. It simply means that I'm looking for new, creative ways to keep my blogging active between longer posts. (If you haven't noticed, the frequency of my posting has been pretty pitiful since sometime in May). Also, if I find that some brief ideas I'm posting are too interesting for a quick spin, I may expand them into more in-depth, op-ed style posts. I'm not sure how long I'll keep this style up, but for now I hope to be able to post 3 or more quick ideas on a daily basis while continuing my search for essay inspiration.

Comments, advice, constructive criticism and/or complaints about this are highly welcome.

Reading LaHaye in Amman

2005-09-27T23:50:00.000-05:00

Sometimes, these people just make my job too easy...

It seems that Khaled al-Qudha and Ali al-Faqir have been reading a lot of Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye lately. One might guess that the Jordanian duo (al-Qudha is a law professor and al-Faqir is a former government minister) is going so far as to make a bid to become the Middle East's own Jenkins and LaHaye.

For those of you not up to date on your Armageddon lit, Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye are the co-authors of the bestselling "Left Behind" series. Jenkins is a nutty writer who put the ideas of veteran Christian right activist and hate preacher (Yes, I know that's redundant) Tim LaHaye into words. Brief synopsis of the series: The end of days is now, the true believers will ascend to heaven, the world will descend into warfare with the U.N. and global lib'ruls representing the Evil side, and a Warrior Jesus will emerge to kill and/or convert the pesky Jewish race.

The ADL best sums up the hatefest that is the novels:

"The fate of the Jews in this scenario is not pleasant: all but a small remnant are killed in the final battle between good and evil at Armageddon. Left Behind posits that 144,000 will be spared (a common but not universal belief), and all of these will profess faith in Jesus."

For more on the series, go check out this and this.

This brings me to our esteemed Jordanian pundits al-Qudha and al-Faqir. The two men recently appeared on al-Majd TV to discuss their own theories on Jews and the end of days:

(Translations by MEMRI)

Khaled al-Qudha: "The Prophet said: "Judgment Day will come only when the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind the tree and the stone, and the tree and the stone say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him' - except for the Gharqad tree."

This, of course, shows us that the decisive battle will take place on the banks of the Jordan River, which are part of the blessed land. If we survey the decisive battles throughout history, we can see that most of them took place on the banks of the Jordan River - the Battles of Al-Yarmouk, 'Ein Jalut, and Hittin. They all took place on the banks of the Jordan River. The decisive battle between the Jews and us will take place on the Jordan River, Allah willing. This is inevitable. This is a hadith of the Prophet, who does not talk idly."

[...]

Ali al-Faqir: The Prophet has told us that the time will come when man will talk without using his voice - the cell-phone, the cordless phone. This cordless phone - where did it come from? From the earth. Plastic comes from petroleum. The wires, the iron, and the copper – where do they come from? From the earth. Furthermore, some communication devices are now made of wood. It is not impossible that "the tree and the stone will speak" refers to the advanced scientific instruments that warn you about people. Today you have, for example, early warning stations in Sinai. Early warning stations exist in the Golan. They give the Israelites information about the other side's movements.

Host: Sir, this is if we interpret (the hadith) metaphorically. But isn't it possible that the tree and stone will actually talk? That the tree itself will talk, and the stone itself will talk?

Al-Faqir: Sir, it has been proven scientifically that the trees and the stones have languages of their own. But we don't have the ability to invent the instruments that will convey the tree's voice and the stone's voice to us.

Science has progressed so much that there are instruments that are placed in gardens. The plant produces certain waves, which are received by the instrument, and the plant says: "I am thirsty, water me, I am sick, heal me."

Weird stuff, huh?

Al-Qudha and al-Faqir are in lock-step with LaHaye and Jenkins in their view that the Armageddon will yield a glorious, epic battle, wherein the true believers vanquish the Jews. I just love the interpretations these people come up with to justify the bizarre, anti-Semitic crap that they spew. While Jenkins and LaHaye furiously ripped through Revelations to develop their apocalyptical oddity, al-Qudha and al-Faqir relied upon a truly odd interpretation of the Hadith, a collection of the Prophet Muhammad's sayings that is considered holy by Muslims.
These two Jordanian "scholars" really believe that not only does the Hadith say that trees and stones will tip off Muslims when it's their chance to wipe out the chosen people, but that Jews have figured this out and are taking the precaution of monitoring noises in the Jordan River valley.

And they say evolution is crazy...

A Few Bad Apples... A Few More Bad Apples... A Few More Bad Apples...

2005-09-24T00:51:00.000-05:00

Ever wonder if maybe the barrel itself is bad?

3 in 82nd Airborne Say Beating Iraqi Prisoners Was Routine

Absoultely horrendous, upsetting, and sad. I am so outraged at what this administration is doing, and I'm even more outraged at the fact that this doesn't even shock me any more.

From the Times article linked above:

In one incident, the Human Rights Watch report states, an off-duty cook broke a detainee's leg with a metal baseball bat. Detainees were also stacked, fully clothed, in human pyramids and forced to hold five-gallon water jugs with arms outstretched or do jumping jacks until they passed out, the report says. "We would give them blows to the head, chest, legs and stomach, and pull them down, kick dirt on them," one sergeant told Human Rights Watch researchers during one of four interviews in July and August. "This happened every day."

[...]

He said he had acted under orders from military intelligence personnel to soften up detainees, whom the unit called persons under control, or PUC's, to make them more cooperative during formal interviews.

"They wanted intel," said the sergeant, an infantry fire-team leader who served as a guard when no military police soldiers were available. "As long as no PUC's came up dead, it happened." He added, "We kept it to broken arms and legs."

The soldiers told Human Rights Watch that while they were serving in Afghanistan, they learned the stress techniques from watching Central Intelligence Agency operatives interrogating prisoners.

This makes me so ashamed to be an American. I feel really sick to my stomach and heartbroken, thinking of how my tax dollars are being used for this. At this point, I don't think we should just impeach these people- I want war crimes tribunals and prison sentences. Give Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and assorted Pentagon leaders the fair trials they've been denying Iraqis, Afghans, Americans, and others. Those tortured deserve no less.

Republican Priorities

2005-09-24T00:40:00.000-05:00

AP: Georgia Governor Asks State's Schools to Close to Save Gas

"Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue asked the state's schools to take two "early snow days" and cancel classes Monday and Tuesday to help conserve gasoline as Hurricane Rita threatens the nation's fuel supply line.

If all of Georgia's schools close, the governor estimated about 250,000 gallons of diesel fuel would be saved each day by keeping buses off the road.

The governor also said an undetermined amount of regular gasoline also would be saved by allowing teachers, other school staff members and some parents to stay home those days. Electricity also would be conserved by keeping the schools closed."

Back in 1942, when our nation found its resources stretched too thin because of the need to fight Germany and Japan, FDR's government instituted gas rationing that regulated how much each person could use per week, effectively limiting car use to essential purposes only. In other words, FDR asked people to be responsible so that our nation would have the fuel to do things like fighting a world war. FDR asked each citizen to make a personal sacrifice; he didn't simply try to solve the problem by cutting things like children's access to education.

But Sonny Perdue, alas, is no FDR. The Republican governor, who defeated Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes in 2002 after a campaign that centered on the plight of poor, historically-oppressed white Georgians. Barnes, of course, was guilty of pushing for an offensive law that prevented the long-persecuted white race from displaying a symbol of slavery and hatred on the state capitol building. When Perdue found himself in trouble, he stepped on black people to dig himself out of a hole. Now, with high gas prices making him unpopular, Perdue chose to wriggle out of trouble by stepping on education.

With today's announcement that he intended to close schools to save gas, Perdue made his priorities quite clear. He chose not to ask people to limit their own gas use for a week or two. He chose not to ask owners of Hummers and other SUV's to try to stay off the road as much as possible for a short time. He chose not to do anything that would have alienated his white, exurban base of voters whose kids go to private schools, anyway.

While I understand that 2 missed school days will not permanently stunt the educational growth of Georgia's 10 year-olds, I think Perdue's choice to close schools says a lot about Republican priorities. Let's not forget that our president's idea of sacrifice involves a lot of tax cuts and vacations while 19 year-olds are getting maimed in Iraq and poor people are drowning in New Orleans.

Some Canvassing Insights

2005-09-23T00:29:00.000-05:00

With today's (OK, technically yesterday's) canvass on Cape Cod marking the completion of my second week at MassEquality, there are a few patterns and trends I've noticed about the state of gay civil rights in this country.

1) The future is ours. Time and history (to say nothing of decency and sanity) are on our side.

Young people are very supportive of gay rights while older people are strongly opposed to them. Simply put, the age gap on this issue is astounding. While it's to be expected, it still surprises me how wide it is. I would say that the breakdown of opinion by age that I notice while canvassing is roughly this:

Ages 20-35: 90 % in favor of gay rights
Ages 35-55: 50 % in favor of gay rights
Ages 55-75: 10% in favor of gay rights
Ages 75+: "I don't hear so good. What was that? Why are you here? Go away!"

Keep in mind that this breakdown is my rough estimate taken from the sample of people I've canvassed. While these people live in liberal ol' Massachusetts, they also live in its more conservative legislative districts, as we're only canvassing in places that have state representatives who have voted in the past to discriminate against gays.

To give a condescending explanation of these stats, I'd say that it's clear that the public is quickly moving to the left on this issue. In my opinion, in 20-30 years this will no longer be much of an issue. The right-wing will lose (as they always do eventually on social issues) in a Hell-fire'd blaze of glory, and the laws of this country will reflect its growing acceptance and tolerance of all people.

2) Religion is still a lame, pathetic and utterly unacceptable excuse for bigotry- just like it always has been.

So many times after I finish saying the rap, people will politely interject and say something like, "Sorry, I'm Catholic." Or, "I support equality, but I, uh, ya know, don't want to go against God." One woman tonight simply said "Catholic" and pointed to the crucifix on her door. Well, excuse me! Next time, I'll remember to stereotype everyone of your faith as bigots!

This argument that people make is essentially that they know what's right but cannot do it because of what their church says. Nothing so accurately validates what the physicist Steven Weinberg once said: That "with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil- that takes religion."

While some of the people I encounter are full-blown religious nuts who do everything from getting angry, offering to pray for me, or declaring that they will pray for my failure, many of the religious people I meet are friendly and polite. They often seem apologetic for their lack of support for equal rights. While I appreciate the fact that these people give me no hostility, I still believe that their positions are completely morally indefensible. It's like these people accept the fact that the opinions of others cause their own opinions to be bigoted, but they still do not abandon them and think for themselves.

Well, I guess that was just two insights. Perhaps more later, as soon as I can figure out how to whittle down a complex topic like the decline of Ottoman Turkey and Egypt in the 19th century into a coherent 650-word essay.

Pro-War Garbage at The Globe

2005-09-16T15:21:00.000-05:00

Although the editorial page of the Boston Globe is reliably liberal and anti-war, today's paper features an op-ed written by a U.S. army major that spouts typically inaccurate pro-war talking points. Keeping up the Pentagon tradition of assuring Americans that things are improving in Vietnam- er, Iraq- Brian P. Golden does his best "Baghdad Bob" impression with a series of misleading and downright odd assertions that "show" that his side isn't, in fact, losing badly.

Golden begins by discussing the squalor and destruction that he's witnessed firsthand in Baghdad, from "homes... dingy with trash, crumbling buildings, and the carcasses of exploded vehicles." Nonetheless, he quickly catches himself and suggests that the city is currently in a mood of "hope." This is nothing but an example of the racism and imperial hubris demonstrated daily by U.S. occupiers- things are terrible by our standards, but for the simple-minded, dark-skinned locals, everything is great and everyone is smiling. Continuing in this vein, he takes a quick jab at the press for choosing to focus on problems instead of positive feelings, as though a people rocked by roughly 400 violent insurgent attacks per week should be thrilled because somebody's painted a local school.

Golden goes on to make one of the most bizarre logical twists ever made outside the White House press briefing room, offering this set of statements:

"Can constitutional democracy work here? Bernard Lewis, a premier historian of the Middle East, identifies the West as originator of harsh authoritarianism here, from Napoleon's dictatorship in Egypt in the 19th century, to the arrival of European-style fascism in the 20th century. Lewis insists that prior to European approaches the region produced far less menacing leaders. Lewis sees hope in history because these earlier leaders -- while not democrats -- governed through consultation and consensus among the major stakeholders in society. Looking at the political posters throughout Baghdad left over from the January election, I realize there may be a historical and cultural foundation that accepts democracy."

So, essentially, it's like this: The Middle East has the potential to be very democratic, if only the West would stop interfering in its affairs. The logical jump from this seemingly anti-neoconservative reasoning is that by interfering with a massive invasion and occupation, the U.S. has given Iraqis a chance to return to their pre-imperial democratic roots. So an invasion by the West helps the Middle East to shed its negative Western influences. Only in a country with president who suggests that going to war is the best way to "protect the peace" can such Orwellian logic go unchallenged.

Still swinging after his rationally-impaired invocation of Bernard Lewis, Golden trots out the usual talking points: The insurgency is in retreat, it's desperate, and it's widely hated by normal Iraqis. My guess is that they'll still be saying this until the morning of the day that our forces withdraw from Iraq in defeat.

But Golden is not finished; following the orgy of tough-guy talking points, he continues to test the willingness of Globe readers to follow him into warped logical heights. He notes that "electric power generation has grown above prewar levels," but fails to mention that it took over two years for the U.S. to accomplish this and that the vast majority of Iraqis still go for hours every day without power. He gleefully remarks that "greater numbers of Iraqis receive medical treatment," though he doesn't mention that this is likely because more Iraqis have required medical attention in the wake of our invasion. That's right, folks- now we're bragging because we've been able to treat some of the Iraqi civilians that our invasion has harmed, from shootings to bombings to a rise in disease. Golden also mentions that health care spending has gone way up, but this is highly misleading. "Public spending" in Iraq is a euphemism for bloated contracts given to corrupt corporations that charge exponentially more to provide services that Iraqi contractors could otherwise provide.

Although I give Golden credit for being one of the few pro-war spinmeisters to actually go to Iraq himself, his experience there as an aloof high-level officer doesn't excuse the garbage he dumped all over today's Boston Globe.

Read...NOW!!!

2005-09-16T14:44:00.000-05:00

A Polluter's Feast

by Tim Dickinson

It's a short and succinct article in Rolling Stone concerning Bush's war against the environment. It shocked even me, and my cynicism on this matter is almost as massive as Ralph Nader's ego.

Keep in mind that Nader's ego is so large that it helped to prevent a President Al Gore from being our environmental steward. Way to fight for your environmental principles, you aging idiot crusader!!

Well, what are still doing here?? If you don't read it, you like air pollution and hate America.

Why Did God Smite New Orleans?

2005-09-13T13:32:00.000-05:00

Note: A somewhat abbreviated version of this post appears as the featured op-ed in this week's version of The Justice, Brandeis University's student newspaper.

As my regular readers may know, a main obsession of mine on this blog is pointing out the many ways in which Christian and Islamic fundamentalists are eerily similar. I think this is a highly important issue that has been sadly absent from the media and public discourse over the past few years. After all, how can anyone take a war against religious extremism seriously when our own president is nothing but a religious extermist himself?

I've recently observed that the aftermath of tragedies seems to be a typical time for fundamentalists of all religions to do what they do best: find the usual hated minority groups and publicly flog them.

After the September 11 attacks left nearly 3,000 innocent Americans dead, Islamic fundamentalists wasted no time circulating popular conspiracy theories about how the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, was responsible and that Jews in the World Trade Center had been given advanced warning of the hijackings and told to stay home. The Christian fundamentalists, of course, were not be outdone by simple anti-Semitism- they saw the Jew-baiting of Muslim extremists and raised them homophobia, sexism, and plain ol' crass political exploitation. Just days after the horror unfolded, the dynamic duo of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (AKA the inspiration for a great Jeff Daniels and Jim Carrey movie) declared that gays, feminists, and the ACLU had made God so angry that the Holy Father had no choice but to kill some office workers in New York, Pentagon employees in D.C., and plane passengers from all over the U.S.

When the entire crew of the space shuttle Columbia died as it exploded over Texas in early 2003, Islamic fundamentalists were quick to say that the crash was a reflection of Allah's judgment against America in general, and against George W. Bush specifically. Radical Christians, meanwhile, found their favorite target and flogged away, too: evidently, God was judging NASA for not using its "bully pulpit" to rail against homosexuality.

Now, of course, comes the recent horrible tragedy in New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina. After well-documented and well-publicized bungling by federal and state officials ultimately exacerbated a situation that has likely caused thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of deaths, the religious fundamentalists got right to work. The fundamentalists, it could be argued, responded much more quickly to the hurricane with spin than our government did with aid.

The Muslims struck the first blow, as Sheikh Abd Al-Jalil Al-Karouri weighed in from Khartoum, Sudan:

"If America wants to maintain what is left of its civilization, it must free itself, as we say in Sudan, from the curse of the Jews. Our Koran says that this (Jewish) nation is accursed - those who have incurred Allah's wrath. The curse of Israel has afflicted America. In the south of the US.... The state (sic) called New Orleans is no longer 'new' at all."

The Christians, naturally, responded in kind. Pastor Rick Scarborough of the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration first blamed the gays (God must've seen that equal-marriage rights bill in California coming) before moving on to blame those who commit bestiality (huh?), and concluded by offering this bit of wisdom:

"One other factor which must be considered: Days before Katrina nearly wiped New Orleans off the map, 9,000 Jewish residents of Gaza were driven from their homes with the full support of the United States government. Could this be a playing out of prophesy ('I will bless that nation that blesses you, and curse the nation that curses you')?"

Good God, just stop dragging the Jews into this. Like Moses said, let their people go, already.

But Jewish fundamentalists couldn't pass up an opportunity to enter the fray with their partners in monotheism. The Israeli rabbi Ovadia Yosef joined Scarborough in blaming the pullout from Gaza and made some interesting points of his own:

"There are terrible natural disasters, because there isn't enough Torah study... black people reside there (in New Orleans)... Blacks will study the Torah? (God said) let's bring a tsunami and drown them."

The Muslims extremists, however, were undeterred by these counter-attack. From Iraq, Sheikh Ahmad Al-Kubeissi offers his own (Jew-free, thank God) explanation for the hurricane, saying:

"Allah uses these torments when a nation tyrannizes the world unjustly."

The Christian Right came back swinging, landing the knock-out blow with this quote from Michael Heath, the executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine:

"By an odd coincidence - and it was perhaps no more than a coincidence - an enormous gay rights celebration was scheduled for New Orleans just as the worst natural disaster ever to strike our nation was venting its full fury on that helpless city."

And of course, Pat Robertson couldn't be left out of the action, so I've skillfully dug up some vintage Pat Robertson, quoted as the dear reverend addressed the people of Orlando in 1998 in response to Gay Days at Disney World and the flying of gay-pride flags in the city:

"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you."

If there's one thing these honorable theologians can certainly agree upon, it's that an angry, vengeful God killed thousands of people in New Orleans so that right-wing religious movements all over the world would be blessed with exploitative talking points for weeks to follow. If there's one thing that we know God likes, it's the success of people working crassly and/or violently on His behalf. While we're not completely sure of what He hates, we're pretty convinced that if you're gay and you worship Him improperly (i.e. as a practitioner of a different faith), you're probably on His famous "To Smite" list. And if you're just a poor black person left to die in New Orleans, you're nothing but a sacrificed pawn in the political chess match being played by fundamentalists.

New Job

2005-09-05T16:15:00.000-05:00

As of this morning, I've accepted a position to work as a part-time door-to-door canvasser for MassEquality, a Boston-based coalition organized to protect the equal marriage rights that are unique to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Starting this Thursday, I'll be canvassing in the districts of state representatives who oppose marriage rights in order to put grassroots pressure on them.

This is my second foray into political canvassing, following my work in the summer of 2004 raising money for Ohio PIRG, the Sierra Club, and the Human Rights Campaign. I'm very excited to get back to canvassing, and especially excited that the nature of this canvass is spreading the word and identifying supporters, as opposed to fundraising, which adds several levels of stress.

Needless to say, I'm also thrilled to be working for this cause. People are beginning to see that the 6,000-plus gay marriages already performed in Massachusetts did not, in fact, cause the collapse of Western civilization and/or the Armageddon, and the preservation of marriage rights will allow Massachusetts to remain a beacon of success for this important civil rights issue.

And Finally, the Truth Comes Out

2005-09-01T23:10:00.000-05:00

In this roughly chronological order, let's briefly review the shifting rationales for the Iraq War:

1) Chemical and biological weapons (FALSE)

2) Al-Qaida links (BLATANT LIE)

3) Imminent development of a nuclear device (OOPS... NOT SO MUCH)

4) Giving freedom to the Iraqi people/ 21st century white man's burden (I'D LAUGH IF THIS LIE HADN'T CAUSED SO MANY DEAD BODIES)

And finally, in a speech this week, President Bush offered up the real reason for war in Iraq-

Bush: US Must Help Keep Iraq's Oil From Terrorists

President George W. Bush Tuesday answered growing anti- war protests with a fresh reason for American troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protecting that country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

While in the past he has avoided making links between the war and Iraq's oil reserves, Bush used ceremonies marking the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II to say that the Iraqi oil industry - and the wealth it could create - must not fall under the control of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida forces in Iraq led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks. They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions."

Apparently, Bush has emerged from his vacation with a new spirit of candor. Either that, or his speechwriters forgot about the longstanding internal policy of "NEVER USE THE WORD 'OIL' WHEN TALKING ABOUT IRAQ- WE WOULDN'T WANT TO LET THE WORLD KNOW THAT WE VALUE OIL PROFITS OVER TENS OF THOUSANDS OF HUMAN LIVES."

Radical Clerics

2005-08-28T13:31:00.000-05:00

In today's New York Times, a series of opinions by the Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani are printed in the Week in Review section. Taken from Sistani's own website, the opinions are presented in Q & A form and give Sistani's takes on various things that are or aren't permissible in accordance with Islam.

What struck me the most about the piece is moderation of Sistani. Some of his opinions are more conservative than those of most American Christian clerics; some are far more moderate. Without a doubt, you could traval to any city in America and find a dozen Christian preachers who are considerably more intolerant and radical than Sistani. In a week when perhaps the most prominent American evangelical was calling for the assassination of a popular, democratically elected leader, an Iraqi cleric distrusted by many Americans proved to be reasonable and relatively moderate.

A sample of the Ayatollah's judgments:

Question: Are there any rights given to a woman to choose the life partner of her own choice? Especially after she has been rejected by her fiancé. Can she be pressured to marry the same person just because he is her cousin?

Answer: Consent and agreement of the woman is a must. Without her consent, a marriage contract is invalid

Q: Is it permissible for a woman to use contraceptives in order to prevent conception?

A: It is permissible for a woman to use contraceptives (the pill) to prevent pregnancy, provided that it does not damage her health in a serious manner, irrespective of whether or not the husband has agreed to it.

Q: If a Muslim woman is raped (out of marriage by a stranger), is she permitted to have an abortion?

A: No, she is not permitted except for when it may cause her an insufferable problem or difficulty. For instance, in the case that she might be killed if her relatives come to know about her pregnancy, she is allowed to have abortion.

Q: Is one allowed to consume alcohol for medical purposes? Consume drugs for medical purposes?

A: It is permissible to benefit from just the amount needed for treatment.

For the full New York Times' piece, go here. To see more on Sistani's website, go here.

Obviously, a great deal of what is he says strikes me as ridiculous and old-fashioned. Then again, so does everything that evangelical Christians say on these matters. Are our church leaders any better than their foreign counterparts? Are they even that different?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If radical Muslims and Christians would stop hating one another for a minute or two, they'd probably notice how similar they are. Gays, women, and Jews are inferior species. Western secular culture is a major source of the world's problems. Violence is required to defeat the foreign enemy. Fighting musn't stop until a hardline brand of religion is forced onto the whole world.

On a personal note: Packing up the computer today, heading back to Boston tomorrow. :-)

Down in the Mud

2005-08-23T23:52:00.000-05:00

"How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison!?" -Al Gore, May 26, 2004

As the former Vice President and president-elect said over a year ago in the wake of Abu Ghraib, the United States has been dragged though the mud by an administration with no regard for human rights. After the election of 2004 gave Bush and his cronies a chance to claim a "mandate" for their policies of torture, the United States has found itself up to its neck in mud. And if recent events are any indication, it's going to take years and years to wash off the mud stains left on our nation’s reputation by this bunch.

When a nation rolls around the mud like Bush's America does these days, it often finds itself in the company of other dirty characters. Earlier today, China, one of our fellow mud dwellers and leading competitors in worldwide prisoner abuse, announced that it would allow a U.N. envoy to tour its prisons and investigate reports of torture and mistreatment. With this announcement, China is officially taking a step on human rights that the U.S. government has been unwilling to take. Despite repeated efforts by human rights groups and pleas by the international community, the Bush administration has refused to let U.N. monitors check reports on detainee abuse in Guantanamo Bay. When an aspect of our nation's human rights standards starts comparing unfavorably to that of China, it's time to stop and reflect how far we've slipped into the mud these past five years.

There was a time when the State Department could indignantly report that Chinese human rights abuses "have included arbitrary and lengthy incommunicado detention, forced confessions, torture, and mistreatment of prisoners" without sounding completely ironic. There was a time when foreign nationals couldn't be kidnapped by the U.S. and sent to dictatorships to be brutalized. There was a time when holding a U.S. citizen in a navy brig without charges for years would have been unthinkable.

At the age of twenty, I'm too young to have to feel nostalgic for the way things used to be in this country. How long will it be until torture is once again considered an absolute moral wrong? How long will it be until we can emerge from the mud and honestly champion human rights?

The Way Ahead; Strategies for Taking Back the Country in 2006 and Beyond

2005-08-15T20:48:00.000-05:00

Ever since the defeat in 2004 (and perhaps long before), Democrats have been arguing passionately over how to start winning elections again. The underlying issues that we liberals have been seeking to resolve are 1) why we've been so unsuccessful in the last few cycles and 2) what it is that we need to do to win back the trust and votes of the majority of the American people. It seems every liberal has weighed in previously on this matter, so I thought I'd humbly offer my own two cents.

So far, discussion about what the Democrats should do has largely revolved around a few main ideas:

1) The party needs to move further to the left.

If you're a liberal blogger, a New Englander, or a member of a liberal interest group from the Sierra Club to MoveOn.org, chances are you think the Democratic party needs to move to the left so that it can clearly distinguish itself from a party that threatens to veto anti-torture legislation.

2) The party needs to move further to the right.

If you're a Bill Clinton disciple, a Midwesterner, or a Democratic Leadership Council supporter, you probably think the party needs to move toward the right to compete for the votes of independents and undecided voters.

3) The party needs to work harder to compete in the so-called Red States from the Deep South through the Great Plains.

This doesn't necessarily mean moving to the right politically; it just means trying hard to win and forcing Republicans to compete and spend in states they would normally consider safe. This is the strategy currently being employed by DNC Chairman Howard Dean.

4) The party needs to find God.

After those unfortunate exit polls showed heavy evangelical support for the Bush/Cheney ticket, many liberals like Jim Wallis and his Sojourner's Magazine staff say Democrats need to talk more openly about faith and use it as a basis for promoting liberal social policies and opposing the war. (Complete side note: The Sojourner's writers are lovely, lovely people- when protestors such as myself were freezing and looking for a bathroom while marching against Bush's inagauration, they threw open the doors of their D.C. office and let tons of us warm up and regenerate.)

5) The party needs to find William Jennings Bryan.

The influence of big labor is on the decline, and working-class whites are no longer trending Democratic. Writers like Thomas Frank argue that Democrats must recapture the glory days of economic populism to keep rural, lower-class whites from voting Republican based on gays, guns, and God (that alliterative triumverate never gets old).

6) Forget changing our policy ideas- let's just learn to sell them better.

Tired of having to say partial-birth abortion instead of late-trimester abortion? Death tax instead of estate tax? Constitutional option instead of nuclear option? Well, say liberals like Berkeley linguistics professor George Lakoff, we just need to frame the issues on our own terms. We need to stop using their vocabulary and come up with words of our own to frame the debate. After all, when polled, about half of Americans oppose "welfare" but a huge majority strongly favors "government assistance to the poor."

All six of the aforementioned ideas are quite interesting and worth considering. I would not immediately endorse any of them as perfect, singular solutions, nor would I dismiss any of them out of hand. Despite my very far-left views (do I really have to be considered a crazy left-winger because I think polluting industries should be regulated, health care should be universal, and war and torture are fundamentally wrong?!), impartiality to Northeastern culture and society, and non-religious leanings, I'm willing to go with whatever brings victory. While I'd rather not see the Democratic Party become more centrist and religiously-oriented (and I'd be really worried if we suddenly became popular in the South), the last two Democratic presidents were an avowed centrist (Clinton) and an evangelical (Carter), both of whom were proud Southerners. (The other Democrat to be elected recently, Al Gore, was also a Southern centrist).

I think the solution for the Democrats to regain control of Congress and the presidency is far more complicated than any sound-bite solution can fix. I believe the Democrats need a combination of many of the ideas I mentioned and a number of fresh ideas. I also believe that the Democrats will be able to advance these solutions by emphasizing a few issues on which we're particularly strong and the Republicans are particularly weak. Let me also say that I certainly do not profess to have all the answers, and I doubtlessly may rethink my opinions on these matters over time.

All of this finally brings me to... (cue drumroll) My 7-Point Democratic Victory Plan.

If the Democrats are serious about winning back a number of seats in Congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008, here are 7 ideas that I think can help accomplish the goal.

1) Forget moving to the right or the left- be yourself.

Let centrist candidates run as centrists and liberals run as liberals. And if you do move to the right or the left or stay moderately liberal, be proud of it!! One of the worst things one can do in politics is show uncertainty with one's own ideas. We saw this clearly with John Kerry in 2004; while he wasn't the dreaded flip-flopper the Republicans said he was, he did have an awful tendency to act very unsure of his own positions. It seemed that every time Kerry made a new policy proposal, he issued an accompanying apology for anyone who might have disagreed with it. Democrats need to run as who they are and be proud of who they are- it's not just good child psychology, it's also good politics. While great politicians like Clinton, Reagan, and W. (yes, W.- like him or not, he's a political animal) are very comfortable in their own skin, losing presidential campaigners like Kerry and Michael Dukakis fought as much with their own identities as they did with the other candidate.

2) Stay on the offensive.

Keep up the heat on Republicans and don't be afraid to attack. As Eric Alterman points out, Americans are on our side on most pressing issues. Faced with this gap between their stances and mainstream Americans' views, Republicans often win using repeated character attacks. Instead of spending too much time worrying about these, attack away on the issues that matter. Don't forget that scandals followed Clinton from the 1992 campaign to the end of his 2nd term, but his strength on important issues like the economy kept him popular and above Republican attacks.

3) Social Security, Social Security, Social Security- it's your Social Security check, stupid.

This is a super-important issue to most Americans, and the Republican plan for it couldn't possibly be any less popular. 'Nuff said?

4) Take on social conservatives directly.

This is similar to point #2. Let's not forget that evangelical right-wing loonies are only a tiny minority. Just because they won't shut up about fetuses and feeding tubes doesn't mean people actually agree with them. It slays me how Democrats constantly talk about re-thinking our stance on abortion while a good two-thirds of Americans support Roe vs. Wade.

5) Get some fresh ideas, or at least re-package old ideas in new, exciting ways.

How about a new push for universal healthcare? How about talking about election reform? Anything new or different that can generate media attention and a welcome reaction from voters is good.

6) Re-energize key groups in the party base.

Don't let the Republicans contiune to make inroads among Latino voters. Talk about our plans that help working-class families and the creepy, anti-immigration and borderline racist faction of the Republican Party.

Actively campaign in black communties, talking about Social Security, education, and healthcare. Believe or not, black people can be found in places other than churches where politicians go to awkwardly dance and sing along. I think a politician campaigning on the streets in Bed-Stuy or East St. Louis would do a number to energize black voters.

How 'bout environmentalists? Despite growing international environmental crises, little attention is being paid by the government or media to these issues. Let's talk about them again, in a way John Kerry failed to do. Having canvassed for a summer on environmental issues, I can testify to how popular they are across the political and demographic spectrum.

7) Run with a united, national strategy in the midterm elections.

As Bill Clinton points out in his autobiography that I just finished, whichever party has done this in recent years has had success. In 1994, the Republicans ran united with the nationally-minded Contract for America and won big. In 1998, Republicans were divided over Clinton's impeachment while Democrats ran a united campaign with the theme of "let's move on to important issues" and picked up some seats. In 2002, while Democrats were divided over Iraq, the Republicans found success with the "Saddam's got WMD's!! You're all gonna die!!" campaign.

Whew.

If you've actually made it this far and slogged through all of my pontificating (as well as my disgusting overuse of parentheses), thanks mucho. Any comments that anybody has on this subject are highly valued; this is a debate Democrats need to have now so that we don't go into the 2006 election season still trying to define ourselves and form coherent positions. I'm very interested in hearing opinions and feedback on this topic.

Violent Last Throes

2005-08-04T23:13:00.000-05:00

"Last throes could be a violent last throe" -Donald Rumsfeld, June 26, 2005, defending Dick Cheney's comments about the state of the insurgency.

A violent last throe indeed- 3 more Marines just died, totaling 28 U.S. troops killed in the last four days alone. According to Reuters, that is "the highest rate of deaths since the first week of the war."

Every time I spend my lunch hour sitting down and watching White House spokesman Scott McClellan wax philosophical on Iraq in a press conference, the official transcript usually reads something like this: "Freedom democracy 9/11 freedom democracy 9/11 freedom democracy stay the course. And in conclusion, 9/11 freedom freedom."

Despite that, what I'm hearing often sounds more like this: "Nevermind the fresh blood on the wall and the red stains on my hands, we've got to keep killing until the last pipeline is secure. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if the media keeps doing its job, talking endlessly about some missing white girl so that no one talks about the hundreds of detainees that have disappeared in our custody."

"Baghdad Bob" Lives, Part 2

2005-08-04T06:58:00.000-05:00

Yesterday in a Los Angeles courtroom, the multimedia giant Sony was ordered to pay a $1.5 million settlement after it was discovered that they had created a fictional movie critic to hype their films. After one "David Manning" lavished praise upon movies such as The Animal (a "winner") and A Knight's Tale (Heath Ledger is "this year's hottest new star"), someone must have known something was up. Similarly, someone must have found it a bit odd when they saw two identical RNC-style quotes from "anonymous" Iraqis in two separate military releases about two separate attacks, as I addressed two posts ago.

In accordance with the settlement, Sony will have to pay $5 to anyone who saw any of the movies favorably critiqued by "Manning." It is unlikely, however, that Sony will have to dole out too many $5 bills, because claiming the money means making the embarrassing admission that, well, you actually went to see one of the movies. (Except, of course, for The Animal, a classic in which Rob Schneider's gritty, heartfelt performance was grossly overlooked for an Oscar.)

On a serious note, why doesn't the military have to pay for its fictional source that hypes the Iraq war, a product even less appealing than the films? As taxpayers, we all funded Bush's little adventure to the tune of $200 billion and counting. Divided by roughly 275 million Americans, that's about $700 that we could all be refunded. Or better yet, we could take the money and bail out the Social Security fund. Or build more schools and raise teacher's pay. Or provide universal healthcare. Or provide low-cost AIDS drugs to needy patients worldwide, and so on.

Whether it's movies or wars, Americans shouldn't have to be tricked by imaginative and lying sources into wasting their money on bullshit. And as long as I'm dreaming of compensation for the war in Iraq, I'll bet the families of the 24 Marines killed in the past week would like their loved ones back. I have no doubt that the families of the hundreds of innocent Iraqis killed by each week's violence feel the same way.

The Origin of the Specious

2005-08-03T00:16:00.000-05:00

DISCLAIMER: Apologies to anyone whose beliefs may be offended. I'm fine with anyone's religious views so long as they don't try to use government and public schools to further them- this should go without saying. America is not the Taliban because of a lovely "wall of separation." Anyway, without further ado...

Generally when reading about the "debate" over evolution, I dismiss the issue with these three pleasant thoughts:

1) Jerry Falwell vs. thousands of brilliant scientists is about as fair of a debate as Dan Quayle vs. a chimpanzee. I mean, shouldn't the chimpanzee have to use some kind of handicap to make it just a little more fair?

2) If conservatives want their kids to learn fantasy instead of science, fine- nature will only be too happy to run its course and naturally select them for their ignorance. Sound harsh? Sorry, 'tis truth. The mere fact that people still deny evolution is a testament to the varying degrees to which humans have evolved. While some are comfortable with believing centuries-old myths and using pathetic anti-intellectual rhetoric to further their causes, scientists are actually out there applying modern science to cure diseases and develop new technologies. Don't like science? Then stop using electricity and taking prescription drugs. C'mon, at least the Amish are true to their beliefs.

3) If Mitt Romney's views on abortion and stem cell research can "evolve" once he decides to run for president, couldn't humans have evolved, too? (OK,OK, I know that's completely illogical- but how else can I use this space to mock the powerless hypocrite that rules one of our greatest states)

Today, however, when our nation's Fearless Leader weighed in on the debate, I had another revelation on the matter (no, I didn't reach the conclusion that a Warrior Jesus would kill or convert the Jews on the day of reckoning- that's a whole 'nother set of Revelations). Reading about George "My Christian values are just inclusive enough to support torture" Bush's gentle declarations that "both sides... should be taught" and "people ought to be exposed to different ideas," I realized that I agreed wholeheartedly. Why not teach both science and religion?

After spending time summarizing evolution from microscopic molecules in the sea to dinosaurs all the way down to homo sapiens, teachers should spend time teaching an alternate explanation for the appearance of humans: Teachers should be required to tell how the Earth Mother Gaia incestually begat the Titans with her son Uranus, creating the first important race of the gods and eventaully leading to the births of Zeus and Poseidon, and so on. Anyone who disagrees with this must not only be a secularist bent on denying the power of the gods, but must also hate the Greek democratic roots out of which our country grew. After all, it's only fair to make sure that everyone's theological views get represented in science class.

"Baghdad Bob" Lives; Fictional News for a Fictional War

2005-07-26T17:45:00.000-05:00

"People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers for news." -A.J. Liebling

In early July, a horrific car bombing by Iraqi insurgents in Baghdad killed dozens of people, including several children. A U.S. military press release after the explosion quoted an "unidentified Iraqi" at the scene of the attack, who was fuming. The "unidentified Iraqi" was so mad that he had this to say:

"The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the children, and all of Iraq. They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists."

Amazingly enough, after an insurgent attack two weeks later on newly-trained Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), another "unidentified Iraqi" interviewed at the scene railed against those responsible. The angry man, quoted in another U.S military press release, said this:

"The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the ISF, and all of Iraq. They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists."

Well, that unidentified Iraqi seems to have quite a habit of finding himself conveniently armed with a stack of unchanging Republican talking points and getting himself quoted amidst the carnage of daily insurgent attacks.

Yesterday, however, after someone noticed the similarity between the ridiculous, over-the-top quotes by our Mesopotamian mystery man, the U.S. military apologized for the lines in its official news releases. Freaked out by the discovery of the outright falsifications and lies that led to the double quoting of a fictional person, and determined not to let it cause further exploration of their daily campaigns of disgusting war propaganda, two different military sources quickly put to the rest the "confusion" that they ascribed to an "administrative error."

While reading about this, I suddenly found myself drifting back to good ol' 2003, the year when the multilateralist-friendly Bush administration declared it was going to war simply to enforce U.N. resolutions about WMD. Although the rhetoric and talking points justifying the war have shifted a good five or six times since then, the same standards for fictional news stories were around.

Remember the outrage back in 2003 when the New York Times' Jayson Blair was caught making things up to fill his articles? Remember how it led to a national investigation of journalistic truth and ethics that exposed several other writers for having made up stories? Remember the soul-searching at the Times it caused? Remember the weeks of heavy media coverage it provoked?

Remember the hilarity back in 2003 when Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf made up stories about how the war was going? (Sahaf was dubbed "Baghdad Bob" by dumb Americans who couldn't pronounce a name they hadn't seen on soap operas or in NASCAR races). Remember how we all laughed when he declared that "there are no American infidels in Baghdad" even as the city fell to U.S. troops? Remember the endless jokes on cable news networks and late-night shows about the silly Iraqis who pretended to be winning a war that they were clearly losing?

Well, it's a good thing that it's 2005 now and no one makes up silly stories anymore, especially not about things like losing a war in Iraq. Or maybe that's just what I've been led to believe because of the lack of media coverage given to this blatant example of U.S. propaganda.

The U.S. military and government can, and will, keep lying about the status of the war in Iraq to the bitter end. Let's not forget that the government tried to declare victory even as it was pulling out of Vietnam.

The truth deficit between the Bush administration and average Americans will continue to widen as the government gets more desperate in the face of an insurgency that continues to grow. No amount of lies, however, can cover the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and 1,700 U.S. troops. In the end, the truth about a war that has recruited al-Qaida's next generation of suicide bombers will emerge, but the human lives lost and human rights abuses committed will remain as George W. Bush's legacy.

Apple Pie, Baseball, Fascism

2005-07-12T23:04:00.000-05:00

Like millions of other Americans, I spent Tuesday evening plopped down on the couch to watch the Mid-Summer Classic, the Major League Baseball All-Star Game. An avid baseball fan, I was excited to see this year's young class of all-stars, particularly Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez of my Chicago Cubbies.

Although I should have known better, I started watching early and caught a few minutes of the pre-game. After touching on the recent terrorist attacks in Great Britain and giving a colonial rendition of "God Save the Queen," the pre-game presenters launched into the National Anthem. As the song wrapped up, a U.S. military stealth bomber flew over Comerica Park in Detroit to the enthusiastic cheering of the crowd.

Why, I ask, is the stealth bomber necessary? Why the display of militarism and violence at an otherwise peaceful celebration of the national pastime?

Historically, stadiums have been major focal points and symbols for fascist governments. When Mussolini rose to prominence in Italy, new stadiums were built with the purpose of celebrating fascist culture. Hitler tried to use the 1936 Olympic Games to showcase the Third Reich. The murderous, American-backed Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet "disappeared" people after detaining them in the Santiago Stadium while assuming power. More recently, the Taliban converted Kabul's soccer stadium into a hub for public executions.

In America today, there are ominous parallels emerging. In addition to the already-obnoxious National Anthem (can someone please explain to me the logic behind swearing allegiance to piece a cloth?), "God Bless America" has become a post-September 11 staple, even replacing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" during the seventh-inning stretch at Yankee Stadium. The repetition of the song during wartime says it all- an all-powerful deity favors America in its crusade against infidel enemies. Remember those ancient Greeks we learned about back in high school? Remember how silly that was, the way they had mythological gods who took sides in their imperial wars and stuff?

Even worse than the religious, jingoistic tune is the trend of military fly-overs. The display during the All-Star Game of the stealth bomber was perhaps the most tasteless I'd ever seen. To millions of people in different countries, the sight of a U.S. stealth bomber flying overhead brings back terrifying memories of the bombings of their cities and villages. Furthermore, how does this arrogant display of military power look to those living under occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, those who are still being maimed and slaughtered by similar U.S. bombers?

When Americans view grainy films of military parades in North Korea or Saddam Husseins's Iraq, we shake our heads at such naked displays of fascism. The irony of the collective cheering in Detroit and across the country at the sight of the flying, killing machine at the All-Star Game is no doubt lost on typically blind Americans.

Americans, after all, are adept at seeing the bad characteristics of other countries, but blind when it comes to spotting similar traits being reflected back in the mirror. Americans hate far-right theological governments like Iran and the Taliban while they simultaneously support the rise of far-right theologians in the Republican Party. Americans denounce the human rights abuses of Saddam Hussein, but cover up, condone and excuse (and in many cases encourage) similar abuses by the U.S. government.

In his passionate and wrenching book War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, the author and former war correspondent Chris Hedges argues that in sick, violent, and warlike societies, symbols of militarism and violence begin to replace true culture. Paintings of landscapes are replaced by portraits of victories by the glorious motherland, centuries of local musical tradition are replaced by ballads extolling the virtues of killing the enemy, and soccer matches become frenzied outbursts of nationalist hatred and violence.

If we Americans can't recognize the dangerous ground on which we tread when our national pastime is infused with bombers and nationalistic ballads, then no one should be surprised that we find ourselves stuck in a war based on epic fictional accounts that would have made Homer proud.

A Tale of Two Americans

2005-06-28T22:46:00.000-05:00

June 28, 2005-

One American strode boldly into the Ft. Bragg military base in North Carolina to deliver a speech about a war on an abstract concept.

A second American was nearby in a similar setting, a navy brig in South Carolina.

The first American surrounded himself with U.S. troops, cynically using them as political props so that he could justify keeping them at risk in a dangerous occupation in a hostile land. This way, the first American's friends and campaign contributors get to make a fortune off the occupation.

The second American was surrounded by the U.S. troops that have been brutally interrogating him for over 3 years, denying him his 5th Amendment rights and Geneva Convention rights. His interrogators are subverting the rule of law and trashing human rights and the American way because the second American is thought to be an "enemy" in the war against the abstract concept, and the government lacks the evidence to formally try him.

The first American put the second American where he is. The first American is responsible for authorizing the kidnapping of the second American, who, despite numerous court rulings ordering him to be set free, remains in confinement. The first American is the real criminal while the second American must still be considered innocent according to what at least used to be American law.

The saga of George W. Bush and Jose Padilla continues. While one still needs to be held accountable for systematic torture and illegal war, the other has already been held accountable despite not being convicted, let alone charged with a crime.

For those who still believe in constitutional and human rights, this is a most critical juncture.

The Analogies of a Quagmire

2005-06-27T00:26:00.000-05:00

While analogies are always imperfect and often absurd (see Friedman, Thomas L.), they can shed light on complex situations and help us to avoid making the same mistakes twice. Many opponents of the Iraq war draw comparisons to Vietnam, an analogy that doubtlessly possesses some merit. Consider:

- Both wars were justified by a campaign of distortions and outright lies. While LBJ unleashed heaps of lies about the Gulf of Tonkin, the Bush Administration filled entire volumes of fiction with fairy tales about WMD's and al-Qaida ties.

- As casualties mounted in both conflicts, public support began to fade.

- In both cases, the local population that we were supposedly protecting really didn't want us there.

- Pre-emptive war is kinda like the Domino Theory, innit?

- Furthermore, both wars have been characterized by endless credibility gaps. While the Pentagon was still declaring imminent victory in Vietnam just weeks before the fall of Saigon in 1975, the Bush Administration has hardly let a day pass without using phrases like "mission accomplished," "the last throes," and, arguably their favorite rhetorical device, "turning the corner."

Certainly, there are more comparisons that can be drawn, but frankly, I'm tired and it's difficult and awkward to write about two subjects when one is in the past tense and the other (despite what you may have heard in May 2003) is still in the present tense.

Despite the similarities between Iraq and Vietnam, I believe that a more accurate and relevant analogy exists. Consider the parallels between the conflict in Iraq and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which, interestingly enough, some Russians think of as their own Vietnam. The CIA has just let it be known that many of their analysts are reaching the conclusion that U.S.-occupied Iraq is looking eerily similar to Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.

The CIA reached this conclusion by noting that Iraq has become a magnet for international terrorists. Its report noted that fighters in Iraq are learning all kinds of terrorist tactics and that Iraq has become something of a training ground for militants. A New York Times article earlier this month, entitled "As Africans Join Iraqi Insurgency, U.S. Counters with Military Training in Their Lands," mentioned that fighters from places like Egypt and Algeria were cutting their teeth by fighting the U.S. in Iraq, then returning to destabilize their own countries using the tactics they learned along the way.

This is the same pattern of Afghanistan in the 1980's. Muslims from places like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and even the United States converged to fight the Soviets and honed their terrorist tactics. The jihad against the Soviets essentially merged different generations of terrorists and laid the groundwork for al-Qaida and similar groups. Egyptian radicals like Ayman al-Zawahiri who became famous fighting Anwar Sadat's government in the 1970's met up with young Saudi radicals like Osama bin Laden, forming the terrorist network that continues to lash out and threaten the world.

Sadly, I think the same thing is happening now in Iraq. The old generation of radicals is passing on their tactics. New tactics are being created. New leaders like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are emerging.

What an absolutely brilliant war Bush chose to fight in Iraq- he turned one of the most secular Arab countries, one largely free of the Islamic radicalism that has threatened states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, into a breeding ground and training ground for terrorism. This is why the State Department abruptly chose not to release its annual report on international terrorism this year- because the report found that terrorist attacks were way up from last year and that Iraq was the cause.

After roughly 10 years, the Soviets limped out of Afghanistan with 15,000 dead soldiers, having created one of the biggest terrorist nightmares in history. Inevitably, the U.S., unwanted in Iraq by the locals and under attack from millions of understandably enraged Muslims, will be driven out of the country. What have we done? When will Americans realize that war does not end terrorism, but rather creates it?

Scott Ritter, Patriot

2005-06-21T22:15:00.000-05:00

Been too busy/lazy recently to write much, even when I've been feeling like there's a lot to talk about. But for now, check out this must-read link:

The US War With Iran Has Already Begun, by Scott Ritter

The most appalling part of his article:

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.

Wow. I promise more on this and other stuff soon.

Ick, Blah, Gross

2005-06-15T22:52:00.000-05:00

Proud to be an Amurrican. Gawd bless the Yoo-Ess-of-A.

...And they say "lib'ruls" are elitists like it's a bad thing.

The "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" Administration

2005-06-08T23:05:00.000-05:00

Hardly a day passes without a lecture from Bush Administration telling everyone else what they should be doing. Yet everywhere you look, the administration can never seem to follow its own guidelines. Consider:

1) Global Warming

"Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world." -Speech by President Bush, June 11, 2001.

"A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents." Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming, The New York Times, June 8, 2005.

2) Treatment of POW's/Detainees

"Pentagon officials said Wednesday the International Committee of the Red Cross still had not been granted access to the five Army soldiers captured Sunday and the two Army helicopter pilots captured a day later. All seven were questioned in front of Iraqi video cameras and the tapes were later played on Iraqi television -- which U.S. officials say violated Geneva Convention prohibitions on subjecting POWs to public humiliation." Fox News web article on U.S. prisoners captured in Iraq war, March 27, 2003.

"The detainees, a few of them children, are strapped, shackled and blindfolded, into transport planes. Some are forced to urinate and defecate on themselves during the long flights to an island military base. In this offshore prison camp they are held incommunicado in tiny cells, denied access to lawyers, relatives or the courts, and subjected to repeated interrogations and a punitive regime aimed at encouraging their "cooperation". A presidential order announces plans to try some of the detainees in front of executive bodies with the power to hand down death sentences against which there would be no right of appeal to any court. " Amnesty International report on Guantanamo Bay, January 6, 2005.

3) Military Spending

"The Pentagon chief said China is sharply increasing its military spending and buying large amounts of weapons without being threatened by any other country." Rumsfeld says China is building up military, AP, June 4, 2005.

"About half of the discretionary budget will go to the military ($400 billion in FY2004). This does not include foreign military financing, security assistance, and other programs commonly thought of as military, nor does it include the supplementary spending on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan." National Priorities Project, December 2003.

OK, so this is just the start of the list. Since the stories on the global warming edits, Amnesty's report on Gitmo, and Rumsfeld's criticism of China's military spending have been all over the news lately (although not nearly as much as they should be), I decided that these were the three most relevant examples of the Bush Administration's different standards for themselves and others.

Any other examples of this that anyone would like to add to this list, shout 'em out.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Oil

2005-06-06T17:40:00.000-05:00

Flipping through yesterday's New York Times, I was struck by an article entitled "Hunger for Energy Transforms How India Operates." Curious, I began to read it and ended up thinking that NY Times journalist Somini Sengupta must be the most oblivious person in the world. The more I thought about it, however, I became convinced that she just possesses a strong sense of irony, a sense that she likes to display subtlely.

I'm interested in other opinoins on this matter. Take a look at this and then decide for yourself:

...India's ever-growing appetite for energy is quietly reshaping the way it operates in the world, changing relations with its neighbors, extending its reach to oil states...

...That vision is not without its challenges. On the one hand, India seeks to cast itself as the model of democratic pluralism, as in its bid for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. On the other, its hunt for fuel is pushing it to reach out to authoritarian governments like those of Sudan and Myanmar...

Hmmm. Seeking to appear as a promoter of democratic virtues but overl0oking human rights in the pursuit of oil? Sound familiar?

Just in case it doesn't, cheack out this op-ed on Uzbekistan. Unlike the "people power" uprisings in the Ukraine and Lebanon which the Bush administration had nothing to do with but wildly applauded and took credit for, a similar uprising against a tyrant in Uzbekistan is being criticized by Scott McClellan, White House spokesman and refined-redneck in-chief. Uzbekistan, of course, is a major U.S. ally and important oil and natural gas venue, so its government is nothing like those tyrants elsewhere. The Bush administration doesn't particularly seem to mind gross human rights violations there, which include rounding up suspected opponents and killing them and boiling dissidents to death in hot water.

Spinning Days Are Here Again

2005-05-31T17:15:00.000-05:00

Just as the summer evenings grow...

The liars-in-chief have gone wild the last two days, spinning like whirling dervishes to slime the Amnesty International report on U.S. abuses in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

First to weigh-in was Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney on Monday night. Being interviewed by Larry King, America's indisputably worst journalist, the former Apartheid apologist Cheney brushed aside wild accusations that the U.S. might actually torture people from time to time. After claiming that his delicate and fragile nature had been "offended" by Amnesty's report, Cheney delivered an oh-so-elegant defense of administration policy:

Guantanamo's been operated, I think, in a very sane and sound fashion by the U.S. military. Remember who's down there. These are people that were picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan and other places in the global war on terror. These are individuals who have been actively involved as the enemy, if you will, trying to kill Americans. That we need to have a place where we can keep them. In a sense, when you're at war, you keep prisoners of war until the war is over with. (Prisoners of War? Prisoners of War!!?? Since when did you bunch of torturers give them P.O.W. status!? If you're going to lie and refer to them like that on national television, you could at least give the detainees some Geneva Convention protections.)

We've also been able to derive significant amounts of intelligence from them that helped us understand better the organization and the adversary we face and helped us gather the kind of information that makes it possible for us to defend the United States against further attacks (An appropriate news headline in light of this would have been: Cheney Says Torture Works, Helps America.) And what we're doing down there has, I think, been done perfectly appropriately. I think these people have been well treated, treated humanely and decently. (Okay, fine- then let journalists and human rights monitors go down to Guantanamo and confirm your claims. No? Can't do it? Then you have no credibility, and we have to keep assuming that what you say is patently false.)

Occasionally there are allegations of mistreatment. But if you trace those back, in nearly every case, it turns out to come from somebody who had been inside and been released by to their home country and now are peddling lies about how they were treated. (Yep- Haven't you noticed how people who have been detained without charges and rights, and then released after a torturous ordeal due to lack of evidence, simply have no credibility?)

Nice spin, Dick. Your turn, George.

I'm aware of the Amnesty International report, and it's absurd. It's an absurd allegation. The United States is a country that is -- promotes freedom around the world. When there's accusations made about certain actions by our people, they're fully investigated in a transparent way. It's just an absurd allegation.

In terms of the detainees, we've had thousands of people detained. We've investigated every single complaint against the detainees. It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of -- and the allegations -- by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble -- that means not tell the truth. And so it was an absurd report. It just is. And, you know -- yes, sir.

I, I..... I dunno even know where to begin. I can't even be bothered to refute such nonsense and hypocrisy when he can't even speak half-decent English while lying. Needless to say, after reading this statement I had an emotional reaction that has come to define my experience following politics and current events these last four-plus years- I let out a few empty laughs and giggles, and then proceeded to cry tears of desperation and sob uncontrollably for the future of my country, its name and image tarnished by the crimes of its leaders.

Slackin' Off

2005-05-29T15:54:00.000-05:00

Just realized that it's been quite a while since I last updated the ol' blog. Starting last week, I've been working full-time in a job I'll be continuing through August. Furthermore, I just haven't been that inspired to be write (read: laziness).

Since coming home, I haven't been on "the Internets" that much, either. This drastically affects the way I get the news, as blogs and online newspapers and websites are out, leaving my news addiction to be fed by cable news. And quite frankly, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are so bad that they should all be used to break down captured terrorists. It's far more humane than the torture we currently use, (did everyone see that new Amnesty International Report on U.S. torture this past week??) and after an hour or two of putting up with any CNN anchor, most terrorists would tell everything to keep from being subjected to another hour of sensationalist, lowest-common-denominator crap mixed with jingoistic cliches about our brave soldiers single-handedly preserving our freedoms by guarding some oil pipelines near Basra.

I plan to start posting at a more regular speed (though probably not as regular as during the school year) as soon as a lil' motivation kicks in. Thanks to all who read my blog for your patience during my hiatus from self-important political commentary.

Daily Dose of Hypocrisy

2005-05-19T16:18:00.000-05:00

Recently, the case of Luis Posada has been something of a mid-level news story, finding itself in newspapers and and TV reports following all of the truly important stories about missing white women, fingers in chili, and something that's cool that a television station has a video of, like an explosion or car chase. Posada, who requested asylum in the U.S. in April after entering the country illegally through Mexico, is an anti-Castro Cuban exile who was behind a 1976 terrorist bombing of a Cuban airliner.

His case has created a sticky situation for the Bush administration. On one hand, administration officials would like to live by the guidelines Bush set in his post-September 11 speech to Congress that "those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves" and work to bring a deportation proceeding against Posada so that he can be tried for his crimes. On the other hand, Rove and Co. would doubtlessly like to harbor Posada in order to keep appeasing the far-right Cuban exiles in Miami, whose influence has been indispensable in putting both Dubya and Jeb in power.

Just about an hour ago today, the Bush administration's political wing appeared to have lost the fight as Posada was charged with entering the U.S. illegally, setting his eventual deportation process in motion. This, however, raises the question of to which country Posada should be sent.

Perhaps the most interesting comment on this matter came from an anonymous U.S. official who said Posada would not be sent to Cuba "because of torture concerns." How interesting. After all, the Bush administration would never torture anyone in Cuba, much less send anyone abroad to be tortured.

At this point, I should probably just congratulate the Bush administration. Just when I start thinking that they could never top past examples of hypocrisy, they always find a new way to do it.

The Quran/Newsweek Fiasco

2005-05-17T22:00:00.000-05:00

A few posts ago, I touched on the protests in Afghanistan that were taking place in response to the story from the May 9th edition of Newsweek about the flushing of a Quran down a toilet in Guantanamo Bay. Now, as most of you know, Newsweek has retracted the story and apologized, and right-wing creeps everywhere are hailing it as more left-wing media bias uncovered and alleging that Newsweek damaged U.S. standing abroad.

To be quite frank, I can't believe how everyone in the mainstream media is reacting to this. In my opinion, the story that Newsweek initially published is obviously true. Newsweek only retracted the story because its anonymous source in the Pentagon retracted what he told them. Why would the Pentagon source have made up a story about flushing Qurans down the toilet in the first place?

I think what happened is quite simple: The anonymous source realized that he had created problems for the U.S. by telling the truth. Trying to control the damage, he took back his story. Newsweek similarly retracted their story out of fear that they would appear unpatriotic by sticking with a story that was out of line with the typical Onward Christian Soldiers-style war reporting that has come to characterize U.S. journalism.

The criticism being raised against Newsweek is simply ludicrous, as people are charging that they should have had multiple, public sources to confirm their report. But how is that possible? The military won't ley journalists into Guantanamo in order to cover up what they're doing. It's pretty convenient that the Pentagon can try to discredit any story written about the U.S. military on account that it's not firsthand when they won't grant journalists firsthand access to anything, from Iraqi battlefields to Guanatnamo Bay. Also, there is a strong confirmation of Quran desecration in Guanatnamo, as a British citizen named Asif Iqbal who had been illegally detained there and was recently released made similar allegations. Furthermore, what kind of Pentagon figure would publicly allege torture by U.S. troops? The only way to bring down this crowd is with Watergate-style anonymous sources so that the few Pentagon officials with consciences can be heard without fear of retribution.

After all, let's be clear about a few things. Guantanamo Bay is an illegal internment camp where people are systematically being tortured. The only reason people are being held there is because the military does not have the evidence to give them a trial. Since journalists are being denied access, and since torture has clearly become a common U.S. army practice in light of Abu Ghraib and "extraordinary renditions," it is only fair to assume that torture is going on at Guanatanamo. It is up to the military to prove otherwise by allowing indenpendent reporters and human rights monitors into its prison camp. The story about the Quran should be no suprise to anyone, and it should be regarded as true despite Newsweek's cowardly apology.

The response to this incidence typifies the Bush Administration's efforts to improve the U.S. image in the Muslim world- don't change any of the awful policies that enrage Muslims, just deny that they are happening and try to propagate and spin better.

George Voinovich: Dancing Puppet

2005-05-13T13:39:00.000-05:00

It hasn't even been a full day living in his state again, and I've officially had enough with Sen. George Voinovich and his political games. As most of you probably know, yesterday Voinovich combed through the files of illogical Republican reasoning and did some serious political maneuvering on the Bolton nomination.

In short, Voinovich said he didn't support the right-wing ideologue and bully nominated for UN ambassador, but voted to pass him through comittee and send him to the floor anyway. If the year was 2004 and George Voinovich was John Kerry, you can only guess how much fun Bush political operatives would have had with this kind of hedging and bizarre logic.

What Voinovich is doing is simple: He is doing what the White House wants him to do while keeping his own political future safe. By publicly wavering and expressing discontent with John Bolton, Voinovich kept up his completely inaccurate image in the media (both nationally and in Ohio) as a moderate. However, by supporting the nominee now when it counts, Voinovich is doing exactly what Bush and Rove need and what they expect of him. Voinovich knows full well that his pledged vote against Bolton in the full Senate likely won't make a difference with the large Republican majority- if Voinovich truly didn't want Bolton as our UN ambassador, he would have blocked him yesterday.

Sadly, this little political game Voinovich is playing is working perfectly for him. Today's Columbus Dispatch newspaper (AKA The Columbus Disgrace) featured a photo and two articles on the situation that were rife with the word "moderate." Yesterday, while my mother and I were on the 14-hour drive home, we heard Voinovich labeled a "maverick" by NPR. A maverick?? Excuse me?? Has anyone at NPR ever bothered to glance at Voinovich's voting record? 'Cause if they did, they'd see that on every key issue, from taxes to wars to the environment to gay rights and many more, Voinovich is lock-step with the Republican Party line.

This kind of behavior by Voinovich is typical of so-called "moderate" Republican senators. Ohio's other Senator, Mike DeWine, has done pretty well with it while Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are masters at it. When these kinds of Senators know that Senate votes are going to be won by the Republican side anyway, they will sometimes break from the President and cast a meaningless vote against his radical right-wing agenda. Basically, they're just puppets of the Bush administration that are allowed to cut their strings and dance in front of the media occasionally, only to re-attach themselves once the cameras have turned away and when it actually matters. While authentic Senate Republican moderates like John McCain and Lincoln Chafee actually do follow their consciences and often ruffle Karl Rove's feathers, Senators like DeWine, Voinovich, Collins, Snowe and a few others are just dancing puppets. Voinovich's latest actions are a prime example of this.

Back to Ohio with a Heavy Heart

2005-05-11T21:02:00.000-05:00

Well, folks, freshman year of college has been successfully tackled and finished by yours truly. I enoyed nearly every moment of it, and now I must sadly depart for Ohio. Pending the completion of a 12-hour drive tomorrow from Boston, MA to Columbus, OH, I'll unpack my boxed possessions (computer included) and resume posting. Unlike past years when the end of school was a fun, exciting time, this year I'm not too enthused about it. Ohio, quite simply, is no Massachusetts.

Tomorrow, I leave the only state that allows gay marriage to travel to a state with a constitutional amendment against it.

I'm leaving the strongest gun control laws in the country to enter the world of concealed-carry and gun shows.

No more strong environmental regulations, welcome back to the state with the 2nd worst air pollution in the country, surpassed in toxins only by Pennsylavania, our downwind neighbor that receives much of our foul emissions.

Goodbye Rep. Edward Markey, a good liberal Democrat, hello Rep. Deborah Pryce, a right- wing nut and close ally of Tom DeLay.

No more Sens. Kerry and Kennedy, back to living under Dewine and Voinovich.

Hello Gov. Bob Taft, who's so bad that he makes Mitt Romney look competent.

Most of all, it's sad to leave a state filled with interesting, smart, educated and liberal people to enter a place where a majority of people voted for Bush, generally rendering themselves the opposite of the aforementioned characteristics.

Here's to September coming soon.

Freedom on the March in Afghanistan

2005-05-11T17:47:00.000-05:00

No, seriously, it is...

It was the second day of demonstrations by students in Jalalabad who were angered at a report in Newsweek magazine that United States interrogators at the Guantánamo Bay detention center had desecrated the Holy Koran by placing it on toilets, and even in one case, flushing a Koran down the toilet. The students carried banners condemning the action, chanted anti-American slogans and burned effigies of President Bush... Demonstrations were also reported in several other towns in eastern and southern Afghanistan. High school students in Wardak province blocked the main road south from Kabul for an hour but were persuaded to disperse peacefully, said the local police chief, Basir Salangi.

Read on- Afghanistan Sees Worst Anti-U.S. Protests Since Fall of Taliban, from the New York Times.

Desecrating the Koran? Ouch. How will Karen Hughes, the former Bush campaign spin doctor and current P.R. rep to the Muslim world, spin this one?

These protests are what freedom looks like. Freedom is achieved when people take to the streets to demand change from unresponsive, undemocratic and reactionary governments. Freedom is not something that can be imposed by foreign invasions. Freedom does not come from the setting up of puppet governments with former multinational oil corporation employees, nor does it come from questionable elections held under occupation. Freedom is on the march in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq; however, freedom is only marching because the U.S. is losing in both of those places, not winning.

The Right-Wing's Creepy, Bizarre and Unhealthy Sexual Frustration

2005-05-09T15:57:00.000-05:00

It was just a lazy Monday afternoon, and I was sittin' around and generally wasting time when a friend sent me a link to listen to perhaps the weirdest radio interview ever conducted. Alan Colmes had a man named Neal Horsley on his Fox News radio show last Thursday, and the discussion that ensued left me in tears of laughter.

Neal Horsley, for those of you who don't keep up with the movers and shakers of the right-wing fringe, is a nutty anti-abortion activist from Georgia (suprise!). According to a Wikipedia bio of him, he has quite a past. The founder of both christiangallery.com (Warning: creepy right-wing website) and the Creator's Rights Party, Horsley has been associated with anti-abortion and other right-wing terrorists from Eric Randolph, James Charles Kopp, Clayton Lee Waagner and the Army of God in addition to KKK and pro-Confederate figures. And of course, because the Republican Party has plenty of room in its "Big Tent" for advocates of murder and terrorism, Horsley has worked with mainstream anti-gay and anti-abortion activists like Randall Terry, the former Schiavo family spokesman and "family-values" advocate who disowned his gay son and cheated on his wife, divorcing her for a young woman.

In recent years, Horsley has been busy comparing abortion to the Holocaust (which Pat Robertson recently took one step futher) and advocating the murder of abortion doctors and the mass arrests of gays. While on Colmes' show last week, he made some serious admissions about his sexual behavior in the past, which should not be read by the faint of heart or repeated in polite settings.

From a partial transcript of the Alan Colmes show (which you should really listen to from the link above because it's exponentially funnier in Horsley's confused redneck accent):

ALAN COLMES: "You had sex with animals?"

NEAL HORSLEY: "Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule."

COLMES: "I'm not so sure that that is so."

HORSLEY: "You didn't grow up on a farm in Georgia, did you?"

COLMES: "Are you suggesting that everybody who grows up on a farm in Georgia has a mule as a girlfriend?"

HORSLEY: "It has historically been the case. You people are so far removed from the reality... Welcome to domestic life on the farm..."

Wow. The sound you hear is that of my jaw dropping so far that it bangs into my desk. As one person from the Fark.com forum where my friend found the link said, "I love when (Horsley) tries to get the 'Well, Mr. Big City Liberal, I guess you're too elitist to stuff your genitals into an animal's anus' attitude."

So what is the significance of this story? I think it goes beyond the bizarre sexual escapades of one hillbilly and makes a larger point about the right-wing and the creepy, closeted and repressed way they approach sexuality. As the fabulous AMERICAblog has asked on numerous occasions, what is with the right-wing's "obsession with sex?"

Well, these days there are just numerous examples of it:

- Rick Santorum's thankless crusade to equate gay sex with "man on dog" sex is still very much alive.

- The anti-gay Republican mayor of Spokane, Washington has led quite a double life. By day, he has sought to limit gay rights (both sexual and civil), and by night he has spent his time in the wilds of "The Internets," soliciting 17 year-old boys for sex. There are also allegations that he molested teenage boys in the past.

- Pennsylvania Republican congressman and self-described "family values" advocate Don Sherwood is under police investigation for allegedly choking a young woman with whom he had been having a lengthy extramarital affair.

There are plenty of other examples out there, but it would take forever to list them all here today. The point is that liberals are open about sex and sexuality; we believe in practicing it in healthy, adult ways. Conservatives are terrified by it and publicly condemn all sex while leading tortured private lives hiding their sexual orientations, cheating on their wives, and even sexually brutalizing youngsters.

To my list of reasons why I'm proud to be a liberal residing in the Northeast (which as Ted Rall wrote about in a great post-election column called "Confessions of a Cultural Elitist," includes better music, better food, better entertainment and more interesting friends), I can now add that I don't think it's normal to have a mule for a girlfriend while growing up.

"How Stupid Does She Think We Is!?"

2005-05-07T10:52:00.000-05:00

I was reading PM Carpenter's blog as I do occasionally, and he posted a very interesting personal tale yesterday about driving through the countryside and hearing nothing but extremist right-wing talk radio. He wrote about some of his memories during the Clinton years when Rush Limbaugh and his pathetic imitators talked up bizarre conspiracy theories and lies involving everything from Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster to Arkansas state troopers and black helicoptors.

Carpenter recalls this from his days driving around in rural Arkansas and Missouri in Clinton's America:

Back in the late 1990s, when we toiled under Bill Clinton’s wicked empire, one weekend-morning radio host said he had it on excellent authority that Slick Willie had secret plans to use the coming Y2K crisis as cover for a martial-law decree canceling the 2000 elections. He was dead serious.

But my all-time favorite? A regular called in one morning, a few years before the above, complaining about Hillary Clinton’s insidious, socialist health care scheme. He summed up his complaint, I kid you not, this way: “How stupid does she think we is?”

Read more from his excellent post.

A few thoughts about this:

1) What was it about Clinton that upset the right-wing so much? What did they think he was going to do them? I mean, for crying out loud, the man was so moderate it was obnoxious.

Although I was mostly too young to remember the Clinton years first-hand (I didn't really start following current event and politics until I was about 14, so the 2000 election was the first political event I remember truly caring about), I recall the fears right-wingers had of a liberal one-world government or martial law or nonsense like that. During the 1990's it was basically mainstream within the Republican Party to believe in things like the Michigan Militia and fear martial law in the wake of Ruby Ridge, Waco, and for good measure, Y2K.

The ironic thing here is that despite what hate radio-listening, survivalist Christian nuts thought, Clinton never enacted any measures remotely resembling martial law. Now that the right-wing has a President, we get the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, "extraordinary renditions" and indefinite detentions of U.S. citizens without trial.

2) Hate radio is really a frightening staple in much of the country. With both my older sister and I hailing from Ohio to attend college in Boston, my family and I always notice this acutely as we embark upon the awful, 6-hour drive across the width of Pennsylvania to get from Ohio to Boston. In the area of Pennsylvania that many people I know from Philadelphia derisively call "Pennsyltucky," you can drive for hours and hear nothing but jingoistic country music and a lame Limbaugh imitator. As if mainstream media isn't bad enough, many country yahoos cite talk radio as their main source of news.

All over the country, there are thousands of people who find political inspiration from two main sources- Limbaugh-like radio hatemongers during the week and James Dobson-like preachers on Sunday.

I fear for my country. A lot.

Yet Another Reason the South is Creepy and Weird, Part VI

2005-05-05T23:54:00.000-05:00

I keep wanting to end this vitriolically-titled series, but Southern right-wingers simply keep supplying me with too much fodder with which to attack them.

According to a story reported on by a local news station in the area and picked up by the liberal Hoffmania.com blog, the pastor of a Baptist church in East Waynesville, North Carolina is trying to expel church members for the sin of voting for John Kerry or for being Democrats. You can find the brief local news clip on this story by going here and then clicking on the link to the video.

This story initially left me pretty speechless, which isn't too easy to do. I suppose we all should have seen things like this coming with the direction our country is headed right now, and the fact that this situation developed at a Southern Baptist church (as opposed to, say, a Presbyterian or Congregationalist church in New England) should be a suprise to no one. Nonetheless, the fact that anyone would go this far is still shocking.

What I propose is this:

1) This church should be stripped of its tax-exempt status immediately if it continues to pursue its policy of expulsions and keeps this particular pastor in charge- this is a no-brainer.

2) Democrats and progressives all over the country should scream about this until it becomes a mainstream media story and a scandal in not only the Baptist church, but also the larger right-wing evangelical community.

3) Fundamentalist GOP groups like the Family Research Council and others should be called upon to renounce this kind of crap- otherwise, this should be tied to them and used to show the country just how far out of the mainstream they are.

This issue has potential for Democrats. For years, fundamentalists have had the attitude that the Republican Party is the official Party of God (that's "Hizbullah" in Arabic for those of you familiar with the Lebanese terrorist group- after all, the Christian fascists in this country have mindsets pretty similar to those of the Islamic fundamentalists we're fighting overseas now). Now, though, the fundamentalists are not just implying that the GOP is God's party- they're blatantly saying as much with actions like this.

I don't think this is an isolated incident involving just one nutty pastor- I think a lot of religious zealots in this country want to do things like this, making people choose between their faith and their politics. This tactic is un-American, and it's a clear sign of how much the right-wing is overstepping these days. Let's jump on this incident and nail it to the Republican Party if their evangelical base doesn't quickly renounce this sinister, partisan abuse of a religious platform.

Brandeis Alumni Are Making Me Ashamed

2005-05-04T23:27:00.000-05:00

I posted a column I wrote a few months ago for the Brandeis student newspaper, The Justice, in which I criticized Brandeis Professor and Ahmed Chalabi colleague Kanan Makiya for his role in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Now, in addition to Brandeis professors, I have to take on some alumni as well.

Like any good, out-of-touch, latte-sipping East Coast liberal elitist who doesn't understand the values held by "real Americans," I read the New York Times regularly. Just from this week's Times, I've identified two Brandeis grads that are generally giving my school a bad name.

The NY Times magazine this Sunday featured a long article on GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whose sleazy dealings have gotten him in legal trouble and have created all kinds of problems for his close friend and partner in illegally-financed travel adventures, Tom DeLay. The article also revealed a detail about Abramoff that I had previously missed, that he graduated from Brandeis in the early 1980's. While at Brandeis, Abramoff organized for the Reagan campaigns, and then used that experience to land a job with a lobbying group that focused on supporting terrorists.

Still crusing the NY Times website, I noticed another Brandeis grad that was busy publicly embarrasing himself- Thomas Friedman. Ever the stubborn one, he's unwilling to admit that he screwed up by trusting the motives of a bunch of oilmen. To be fair, the Iraq war that he supported was supposed to bring freedom, justice and women's rights to the Arab world- not destruction and terrorist-recruitment. In his Wednesday column, Friedman had this to say about the state of things in Iraq:

...the forces of decency and pluralism are slowly winning.

First of all, does Friedman spend so much time in his own little "pragmatic" reality in the op-ed section of the NY Times building that he never walks over to the news desk? 'Cause if Tom walked over there occasionally, he'd see some news every day that contradicts his constant argument about the inevitable U.S. victory. Also- since when did the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib become "the forces of decency?"

If anyone asks, I guess I'll just have to tell them I go to Tufts...

What's $100 Million Between Friends?

2005-05-04T22:21:00.000-05:00

U.S. Can't Account for $100 Million Spent in Iraq

Where did the money go? I have a few theories...

Halliburton Making a Killing Off The Iraq War

War Propels Exxon Profits to Record $7 Billion

BP Profits Up 35 Percent

Bechtel: Profiting from Destruction

Take your pick.

Republican Racism, Part II

2005-05-03T00:55:00.000-05:00

Last week's post on this topic covered the traditional form of right-wing racism (discriminating against blacks) as seen by the ties between Republican heavyweight and Christian-right lobbyist Tony Perkins and known racists from David Duke to the Council of Coreservative Citizens.

Not to let a fellow evangelical outdo him when it comes to bashing minorities, Pat Robertson went out of his way to one-up Perkins in the racism department. On an ill-fated Sunday TV appearance, which you can watch here, Robertson let Perkins know that he sees his old-timey, good ol' boy racism against blacks and raises him discrimination against Muslims, the new targets of Republican hate along with gays. From an AP article on the appearance:

Robertson, who launched a brief presidential bid in 1988, said that if he were president he would not appoint Muslims to serve in his Cabinet and that he was not in favor of Muslims serving as judges.

"They have said in the Koran there's a war against all the infidels," he said. "Do you want somebody like that sitting as a judge? I wouldn't."

Sadly, this new piece of blatant prejudice is no surprise from a man with a history of hatred of Muslims. Despite this, Republicans will never renounce this type of racist remark. Besides, how can they? Robertson and his band of fascist Christians that never bothered to read the anti-hate lectures central to The Gospels are the base of today's Republican Party.

A vote for a Democrat is a vote to keep hate out of the mainstream of American politics, right (or, I should say, 'on the right') where it belongs.

Is Nobody Responsible for War Crimes?

2005-04-30T07:27:00.000-05:00

An article recently released by a U.N.-backed humanitarian group indicates that there has been a rapid rise lately in infant deformities in Iraq. The likely culprit, according to both the article and a number of health experts, is depleted uranium.

The U.S. began using depleted uranium for the purpose of armor penetration during the 1991 Gulf War, and continues to use it today in the second invasion of Iraq. The radiation that is associated with depleted uranium has a number of negative health effects on humans, and this new report on birth defects is the latest. Depleted uranium is already blamed for various lung and kidney conditions as well as cancer cases in both American war vets (who sometimes call related sicknesses Gulf War Illness) and Iraqi citizens, particularly those in the south of the country where most of the fighting occurred.

It's basically unanimous among doctors and scientists that depleted uranium can seriously hurt human beings, causing anything from minor illnesses to death. This raises a number of serious questions, such as:

-Since depleted uranium hurts both our troops and Iraqi civilians, why does the military keep using it?

-What does the use of depleted uranium say about the government's claim that it wants to help the people of Iraq?

-Isn't using a dangerous product that causes indiscriminate harm against civilians a war crime?

-If we discovered that Saddam had depleted uranium stockpiles before the war, would we have cited it as WMD evidence? Isn't there a horrible irony that we would use such an awful substance in a war purportedly about WMD?

Given that our use of depleted uranium belies our claims that we want to help Iraqi civilians and stop the use and spread of dangerous weapons, these are legitimate and crucial questions that a journalist might ask at a Pentagon briefing if American journalists weren't pushovers and jingoistic liars.

The Continued Decline of My Stomach Lining

2005-04-29T13:51:00.000-05:00

The liar, spy, thief and generally awful human being Ahmed Chalabi has been appointed Oil Minister in the new (read: puppet) Iraqi government. OIL MINISTER!! OIL MINISTER!???

From a great pre-war article about Chalabi:

Chalabi would hand over Iraq's oil to U.S. multinationals, and his allies in conservative think tanks are already drawing up the blueprints. "What they have in mind is denationalization, and then parceling Iraqi oil out to American oil companies," says James E. Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

And there you have it, folks- this war had nothing to do with oil. Nevermind that a convicted criminal with close ties to the Pentagon and multinational oil corporations has been appointed to what is effectively the most powerful position in Iraq.

I think I'm going to crawl into a hole and wither.

Update:
The always insightful Maureen Dowd takes on the Chalabi appointment in her Saturday NY Times op-ed column.

Yet Another Reason the South is Creepy and Weird, Part V

2005-04-28T18:08:00.000-05:00

Time for another installment in the ongoing series...

According to this lovely piece from last night's CBS News, Alabama Republican state legislator Gerald Allen has written a bill that would ban books referencing homosexuality from Alabama public libraries. Apparently, in light of this and the recent banning of Jon Stewart's book from some libraries in neighboring Mississippi, the South is taking to book burning and censorship to protect its "culchur n' hertij."

But in book after book, Allen reads what he calls the "homosexual agenda," and he's alarmed.

"It's not healthy for America, it doesn't fit what we stand for," says Allen. "And they will do whatever it takes to reach their goal."

Yep- those dirty homosexual conspirators and their nefarious agenda. You know those plotting homosexuals only want works by authors such as Truman Capote, Alice Walker and Oscar Wilde on our shelves so that they can "convert" our kids and further their evil plot to destroy modern civilization.

Creepy homophobes like Gerald Allen are no longer just a faction of the Republican Party these days- they ARE the Republican Party. At this point, a vote for a Republican is a damning indication of one's intolerance towards sexual minorities, and that's that.

Racism in the Republican Party- Not Dead Yet

2005-04-27T15:09:00.000-05:00

For those of you who didn't get the memo during the fiasco with Trent Lott a few years ago, I've got a news flash for you: The Republican Party still has a base made up of some very racist people. The latest on this comes from Max Blumenthal, an expert journalist for The Nation whose previous column exposed the Republican's deathly hatred of judges with a quote from the Chief of Staff of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) that indicated that he wanted to brutally kill federal judges ("I don't want to impeach judges. I want to impale them." Haha- it's a funny joke- get it?)

Blumenthal's newest column continues to expose the dark side of Christian conservatives, demonstrating that they're still inextricably close to white supremacists.

Senate majority leader Bill Frist appeared through a telecast as a speaker at "Justice Sunday," at the invitation of the event's main sponsor, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. "Justice Sunday" was promoted as a rally to portray Democrats as being "against people of faith." Many of the speakers compared the plight of conservative Christians to the civil rights movement. But in sharing the stage with Perkins, who introduced him to the rally, Frist was associating himself with someone who has longstanding ties to racist organizations.

Four years ago, Perkins addressed the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), America's premier white supremacist organization, the successor to the White Citizens Councils, which battled integration in the South. In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,000 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the campaign Perkins ran $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke.

Read the rest of Blumenthal's terrific column, entitled "Justice Sunday Preachers," here.

Wow. So why would Tony Perkins address the CCC and want to get his hands on David Duke's mailing list?? Could it be that Perkins fully understands the racist views of many in the Republican base and is interested in using their racism for political gain??

No matter what they say, Republicans are still very much in touch with their Southern, racist base. While they try to move forward and make empty appeals for the black vote, they will always rely on gay-bashing white supremacists to carry key Southern states for them in national elections.

Dancing on the Corpses Ashes

2005-04-25T13:33:00.000-05:00

A little over a week ago, human-rights activist Marla Ruzicka was killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq. The head of an NGO called the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, she gave priceless aid to Iraqi civilians caught in the fighting while seeking to establish an accurate count of innocent Iraqis killed. Instead of praising her for her ultimate sacrifice while working to help needy people, conservatives decided to try to smear her and dance on her grave.

In a piece with a similarly ridiculous title ("Treasonatrix Barbie: Meet the Real Marla Ruzicka") written recently by Ann Coulter wanna-be and upcoming right-wing liar Debbie Schlussel, Ruzicka's life is shamelessly derided and mocked. Here are a few choice exceprts from the main points of Schlussel's column in Italics, with my comments in bold spliced in:

She formed the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC), the goal of which was anything but CIVIC during the War on Terror or ever. Ruzicka’s aim was to force the U.S. government to get an “accurate” count of “innocent civilian” deaths by U.S. troops and blackmail America into paying monetary settlements for each death.

Get an accurate count of dead civilians!? Oh my, what a horrible thing to do!! Will these liberals stop at nothing!?

And don't you just love how she puts the phrase 'innocent civilians' in quotes in order to subtly cast doubt on the fact that we've killed 100,000 innocent men, women, and children?

But many of those dead included assorted terrorists, jihadists, and other collaborators and uprisers against Americans. Ruzicka had the gall to insist that these Afghani and Iraqi dead, terrorists or not, get recognition and sympathy equal to victims of the 9/11 attacks.

Yeah, how could she possibly have the gall to consider brown-skinned foreign lives equal to ours?

More outrageous, Ruzicka got taxpayer money to fund her aiding-and-abetting pursuits. Where was Marla Ruzicka on 9/11? Hint: Not asking Al-Qaeda for money to count and compensate U.S. victims of terror.

Oh c'mon- the 9/11 had victims had enough people to speak for them, while our entire media just blatantly ignores the fact that innocent people are killed daily amidst the carnage of our oil wars. Also, let's not forget that the number of civilians killed by U.S. misadventures in the Middle East and Central Asia totals nearly 150,000. While the nearly 3,000 deaths on 9/11 were tragic and I don't mean to trivialize them, they are almost insignificant in comparision to what we've done in the aftermath.

Remember the Americans burnt to a crisp and hung from a bridge in the Fallujah uprising? Code Pink donated over $650,000 to those Fallujah terrorists (Code Pinkos call them “refugees.”)

Yeah- every Fallujah resident is a "terrorist." How is this not as bad as Ward Churchill saying everyone in the WTC was "a little Eichmann?" In both cases, a nutty radical labeled a bunch of innocent civilians guilty for their own deaths because they share a common nationality with violent groups like Iraqi insurgents or U.S. war criminals.

In addition to the disgusting comments found above, Schlussel spends much of her column (which you should read here unless you've already had enough) taking typical jabs at the horribly pro-war U.S. media, trying to paint it as being left-wing. She also steretypes all liberals as "pot-smokers" and mentions that Ruzicka is a former AIDS activist in a tone that implies that there's something bad about that, as though AIDS activists just get in the way of God's retribution on the "fags."

Her basic thesis is that people should not go help the Iraqis caught in conflict, and that doing so is treasonous. Well, somebody's got to help the innocents hurt by the war that chickenhawks like her love so much.

Anyways, I was clearly pretty angry after I read that. For a better eulogy to Ruzicka, go here. Also, be sure to read this USA Today column she herself wrote before her death, discussing why an accurate body count in Iraq is important.

Family Research Council: Bigger Hypocrites Than the Pharisees

2005-04-22T19:15:00.000-05:00

Somewhere, Jesus is weeping at this blatant display of hypocrisy in his name...

Occasionally, when I have very little to do to keep myself occupied, my only amusement is right-wing websites. Since starting today Brandeis is on break and most of my friends are out of town, I had fun with the Family Research Council.

Today's FRC website was filled with hype about their big Justice Sunday telecast in two days as part of their continued selfless effort to keep Satan out of our judiciary. In addition to Bill Frist and whitehouse burglar Charles Colson, the FRC is now trotting out a new guest- country music star John Conlee.

Like other country stars such as Toby Keith and Clint Black, Conlee got himself wealthy and famous by penning jingoistic odes to our troops. Of course, these men could be over in Iraq fighting themselves if they really support the troops so much, but they all altruistically decided to make lots of money drumming up support for the war among our nation's right-wing rednecks. (Perhaps the best part about being a liberal is the music- you neo-cons can have Toby Keith and John Conlee- I'll gladly take Pearl Jam, Springsteen, James Taylor, Dave Matthews, and the Beastie Boys among many others.)

Anyway, now Conlee is coming out for ending the judicial nominee filibuster. In the news item the FRC proudly released today announcing Conlee's addition to the anti-filibuster lineup, Conlee is quoted as saying that he is:

"Pleased to be a small part of an event with hopes to educate people of faith and others in the country, about the importance of a judiciary which upholds the constitution instead of legislating from the bench. I think it's another key part of the battle to strengthen the family in America!"

Wow. The FRC not only welcomes the opinion of a music star (and I say "music" in the loosest sense- I mean, modern country is bad) but they also print it on their website and invite him to their self-indulgent Republican orgy.

That's really funny, because this October 2004 essay by FRC directorTony Perkins says this about musicians weighing in on politics:

"Some celebrities believe that, because they had a top ten song or won an Emmy, they are qualified to speak on issues ranging from stem cell research to the environment."

Moral of the story- musicians speaking on politics is OK if they have extreme right-wing opinions. The hypocrisy of the Family Research Council is truly astounding.

Tom DeLay, In His Own Words

2005-04-21T21:58:00.000-05:00

Submitted without comment, with a hat tip to Mr. Kossacks for the pick up.

"The time has come that the American people know exactly what their Representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special interest groups? Or are they working hard to represent their constituents? The people, the American people, have a right to know...I say the best disinfectant is full disclosure, not isolation."

-Tom DeLay, speaking in the U.S. House on November 16, 1995.

Not My Pope

2005-04-19T22:20:00.000-05:00

In the spirit of the "Not My President" t-shirts people wear comes this inevitable new slogan.

So we know that Cardinal Ratzinger has a Nazi past, questionable behavior in the child sex avuse scandals and an outspoken distaste for the rights of gays. Now, however, there's this:

Cardinal Ratzinger blatantly supported Bush in 2004 Election as he sought to make U.S. priests deny Kerry communion. Yep- he wrote to U.S. bishops telling them they "must refuse to distribute" communion to Kerry and other pro-gay, pro-choice politicians.

This new pope is going to force Catholics to choose between their faith and their political conscience. While it may swing some to the Republican Party at first, in the long run it will only further alienate European and American Catholics from a church they increasingly have to no use for. The Catholic Church's march to irrelevance in the West just took a few huge steps forward. It's going to take a Vatican III reform to dig them out of this hole they've made for themselves.

Back, Sort Of

2005-04-19T10:44:00.000-05:00

A good deal of my work is done, so posting should resume as normal. However, the possibility remains that I may still be MIA for a few days. I've found it's hard to stay away for long though :-)

Ten Years, Zero Lessons

2005-04-19T10:03:00.000-05:00

"Live and don't learn, that's us."
-Hobbes, talking to Calvin in the fabulous, although sadly defunct, Bill Watterson comic.

Exactly ten years ago today, April 19, 1995, Timothy McVeigh detonated a truck bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people. It was a senseless act of violence that few people outside of the conspirators will understand. Sadly, we a country have learned few lessons, if any, since this disastrous bombing.

Consider these four things that have happened since the attack:

1) Timothy McVeigh has been executed, so the cycle of violence has not been broken. We as a society lusted for vengeance and killed McVeigh when we could have upheld better morals, sparing his life and demonstrating the we do believe killing is wrong. And no, I'm not even going to bother qualifying this point by saying I know he was evil, etc. etc. Everyone knows that, and that's not the point- killing people doesn't stop people from killing, and capital punishment does not reflect the supposedly Christian moral values that Republicans shamelessly exploit to win elections.

2) Violent right-wing extremism is still alive and growing in the U.S., and the government is doing little about it. While vandals that burn SUV's are called "terrorists" and labeled our No. 1 domestic threat by the FBI, right-wing groups that actually do kill people are being given a free pass. The media wouldn't even call Eric Rudolph a terrorist even after he pled guilty to terrorist bombimgs, choosing to call him an "anti-abortion activist." Yeah, and Islamic Jihad is an "anti-Israeli activist" group. For more on this, check out this op-ed by Bill Berkowitz.

3) Arabs are still being scapegoated in the U.S. Americans falsely accused them of the Oklahoma City bombing before McVeigh was caught, and Americans still racially profile them and even commit violent attacks against random brown-skinned people following terrorist attacks.

4) Ann Coulter, the woman who said that her only regret about Tomothy McVeigh was that he didn't attack the New York Times building, is being featured on the cover of this week's Time Magazine- what an appropriate way to mark the anniversary. Very classy, Time, very classy. For more on that, go here.

Light Blogging this Week

2005-04-16T15:13:00.000-05:00

Between two finals and a long paper that I've barely started, this may not be the best week for posts. I'll try to post as often as I can, but until this coming Friday ends, it'll be tough. Until then, I'll encourage anyone reading this to check out a couple of the political blogs I like instead (I should just permanently link these sites once I get my stuff together).

http://www.americablog.org/

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

http://www.dailykos.com/

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

http://biasedreporter.blogspot.com/

http://karenas.typepad.com/my_weblog/

Christian and Islamic Fundamentalists: Separated at Birth?

2005-04-15T15:27:00.000-05:00

I've often said that radical Christians and Muslims need to stop fighting each other for a moment and begin to realize how much they have in common- they both hate gays, distrust Jews, seek to deny women's rights, want theocracy, draw inspiration from the 13th century, and hate the American secular culture that has prospered so much. In other words, if they would pause in their hatred of each other for a moment, they could unite in their mutual hatred of many other things- much like Christian, Jewish, and Islamic leaders have done to protest a gay pride event in Jerusalem this summer.

Anyway, I bring this up now because I'm in the process of writing a research paper on the rise of Islamic militantcy in Anwar Sadat's Egypt. During research, I stumbled upon these lines written by Egyptian democracy activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim in 1980:

Against this "moral relativism," the militants believe that it is their religious duty to see to it that a truly Muslim social order comes about. Such a belief sooner or later takes on an organizational form leading to confrontation.

Re-read the two sentences, replacing "Muslim" with "Christian" and thinking of recent right-wing death threats against judges in the context of the term "confrontation." Now you've got what Christian fundamentalists are doing in the U.S. today. In addition to al-Qaida, perhaps other groups were inspired by 1970's Egyptian religious radicalism. Christian Coalition and Focus on the Family, I'm looking at you...

Liberals in Academia, Part II

2005-04-14T15:04:00.000-05:00

My first post on this topic seemed to generate much debate, so I thought I'd have at it again.

The main argument of mine is that more liberals are in academia because it's a more natural choice for liberals, people who see shades of gray in issues and often like to study. Meanwhile, conservatives, with their black and white worldview and greedy inclinations, often find the scholarly life restrictive.

To bring my point home, simply look at the differences between departed Democratic and Republican government officials. After leaving government, Republicans often get jobs on dirty corporate boards while Democrats go off to study and and teach, true to their more idealistic nature. Just look at my own Brandeis University- two of the popular courses being taught next semester are by former Clinton administration officilas. Prof. Robert Reich (you may remember him as Bill Clinton's Secretary of Labor) is teaching a course called Wealth and Poverty and Dennis Ross (Clinton's chief Middle East negotiator) is teaching a class called the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, which I am fortunate enough to be signed up for. Compare the career choices of these two with two former Republican officials- James Baker, the Secretary of State of Bush Sr.'s cabinet, got a job with the Carlyle Group, the disgusting corporate marriage between the bin Ladens and the Bushes. George Shultz, Reagan's Secretary of State, got a job with the war profiteering corporation Bechtel after lobbying for Bechtel contracts in Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the 1980's as a public official (remember when Saddam was Reagan's boy? No? Oh, sorry, I guess the media conveniently forgot to bring up that minor detail while Bush Jr. was criticizing Saddam for 1980's human rights violations in the lead-up to the war) .

I could go on and on with examples of Republicans that got corporate jobs and Democrats that got academic jobs, but that would take forever. The point is that corrupt Republicans spend their years in office doing corporations' biddings, and then conveniently get jobs with them after leaving office. Democrats, meanwhile, go off to academia to continue pursuing their genuine ideals.

Pot and Kettle

2005-04-13T15:37:00.000-05:00

From today's NY Times World Briefing section comes this bit of news:

IRAN: LAWMAKERS ALLOW ABORTION IN LIMITED CASES
Parliament approved a bill to allow abortion in the first four months of pregnancy if the life of the mother is in danger or if the fetus is malformed.

Yes, the Parliament of a a right-wing, fundamentalist Islamic country has decided that abortion should be legally acceptable in some cases. Doesn't that make them more moderate than the right-wing religious fundamentalists here at home (A.K.A. the base of the Republcan Party)!? In light of this, is it fair for Bush and other Americans to write the Iranians off as religious loonies? After all, their parliament seems to be controlled by people who have far more secular (not to mention reasonable) views on abortion than those of Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum, and Tom "death penalty for abortion doctors" Coburn.

"You Forgot Poland"

2005-04-12T14:12:00.000-05:00

Poland to withdraw troops from Iraq.

Call it the coalition of the crumbling.

Evangelicals: Just a Tad Creepy

2005-04-11T23:31:00.000-05:00

OK, OK, they're pretty creepy. Well, no, actually, they're not just pretty creepy- Evangelicals are really, really creepy. There- I said it.

Don't believe me? Then have a taste of this Rolling Stone article detailing right-wing fundamentalist efforts to execute gays- yes, I do mean execute, not just wimpy ol' persecuting and marginalizing- destroy public schools, and create full-blown theocracy. What was it David Brooks was saying about people just being misinformed about otherwise well-meaning fundamentalists?

Ick. I don't know what I hate more- fascist fundies or their pithy moderate right-wing apologists.

Wow- Who IS This Guy??

2005-04-11T09:29:00.000-05:00

For some reason, I'd never heard of Ron Paul, the Republican congressman from Texas' 14th district. He's always been something of a libertarian maverick apparently, constantly ruffling the feathers of the Republican establishment. Paul has been known as "Dr. No" for his vocal opposition to many routine House matters, and he has long held liberal/libertarian positions such as favoring the legalization of marijuana and stronger protection of civil liberties. Despite these good points, Paul has been known to be a conservative crazy on some issues, making some blatantly racist statements in the past and calling for U.S. withdrawal from the U.N. So he's clearly an interesting figure, to put it kindly.

Paul has long opposed the Iraq War on anti-intervetionalist conservative principles (I forget sometimes that these kinds of conservatives exist in this era of neo-con fascists), and he has called Bush a "warmonger." This morning, I came across a speech that Paul made on the floor of the House of Representatives very recently. For lack of a better description, it's absolutely STUNNING. It's a fiercely passionate speech of the sort that nearly all Democrats have been too cowardly to make. In the speech, Paul indicts the moral abyss that we know as the Iraq war from all the angles- human toll, costs, lies of administration, decreased liberties, and the daily lies about the situation on the ground in Iraq. Normally, I would just link to such a speech, which in this case I got from FreeLiberal.com, but it's so mind-blowingly good that I'm just posting it verbatim below. It's a bit long, but you won't get bored. His indictment of the war is not only brilliant, but also shocking considering it's coming from a Texas Republican. So without further adieu, here is Rep. Ron Paul's speech on April 8th before the U.S. House:

Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the Iraq war, or regarding the false information used to justify the war, the retort is: “Aren’t the people of Iraq better off?” The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations about supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every ruthless act he ever committed. The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are better off is that it’s too early to declare, “Mission Accomplished.” But more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was ever justified or legitimate. Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim yielded good results, if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate? Do the ends justify the means?

The information Congress was given prior to the war was false. There were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not participate in the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and did not conspire against the United States; our security was not threatened; we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi oil has not paid any of the bills. Congress failed to declare war, but instead passed a wishy-washy resolution citing UN resolutions as justification for our invasion. After the fact we’re now told the real reason for the Iraq invasion was to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off.

Anyone who questions the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam Hussein, disapproving of democracy, or “supporting terrorists.” It’s implied that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and doesn’t support the troops. In other words, one must march lock-step with the consensus or be ostracized.

However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own government that led to the regime change. In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself.

The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than the purported benefits of Saddam Hussein’s removal from power. The real question ought to be: “Are we better off with a foreign policy that promotes regime change while justifying war with false information?” Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those who believe war must be a last resort used only when our national security is threatened.

How much better off are the Iraqi people? Hundreds of thousands of former inhabitants of Fallujah are not better off with their city flattened and their homes destroyed. Hundreds of thousands are not better off living with foreign soldiers patrolling their street, curfews, and the loss of basic utilities. One hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet Medical Journal, certainly are not better off. Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold grave.

Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon. Why is it that what is good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander?

Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the consequence of freedom, and that an artificial election does not create freedom. In our own history we note that freedom was achieved first and elections followed-- not the other way around.

One news report claimed that the Shiites actually received 56% of the vote, but such an outcome couldn’t be allowed for it would preclude a coalition of the Kurds and Shiites from controlling the Sunnis and preventing a theocracy from forming. This reminds us of the statement made months ago by Secretary Rumsfeld when asked about a Shiite theocracy emerging from a majority democratic vote, and he assured us that would not happen. Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we don’t like the results.

Some have described Baghdad and especially the green zone, as being surrounded by unmanageable territory. The highways in and out of Baghdad are not yet secured. Many anticipate a civil war will break out sometime soon in Iraq; some claim it’s already underway.
We have seen none of the promised oil production that was supposed to provide grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for the hundreds of billions that American taxpayers have spent on the war. Some have justified our continuous presence in the Persian Gulf since 1990 because of a need to protect “our” oil. Yet now that Saddam Hussein is gone, and the occupation supposedly is a great success, gasoline at the pumps is reaching record highs approaching $3 per gallon.

Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no government in place and the next election-- supposedly the real one-- is not likely to take place on time. Do the American people have any idea who really won the dubious election at all?

The oil-for-food scandal under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by corruption in the distribution of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq. Already there is an admitted $9 billion discrepancy in the accounting of these funds. The over-billing by Halliburton is no secret, but the process has not changed.

The whole process is corrupt. It just doesn’t make sense to most Americans to see their tax dollars used to fight an unnecessary and unjustified war. First they see American bombs destroying a country, and then American taxpayers are required to rebuild it. Today it’s easier to get funding to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq than to build a bridge in the United States. Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget and operate on the cheap with our veterans as the expenditures in Iraq skyrocket.

One question the war promoters don’t want to hear asked, because they don’t want to face up to the answer, is this: “Are Christian Iraqis better off today since we decided to build a new Iraq through force of arms?” The answer is plainly no.

Sure, there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under Saddam Hussein they were free to practice their religion. Tariq Aziz, a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein’s cabinet as Foreign Minister-- something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other Middle Eastern country. Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under attack and Christians are no longer safe. Many Christians have been forced to flee Iraq and migrate to Syria. It’s strange that the human rights advocates in the U.S. Congress have expressed no concern for the persecution now going on against Christians in Iraq. Both the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims support the attacks on Christians. In fact, persecuting Christians is one of the few areas in which they agree-- the other being the removal of all foreign forces from Iraqi soil.

Considering the death, destruction, and continual chaos in Iraq, it’s difficult to accept the blanket statement that the Iraqis all feel much better off with the U.S. in control rather than Saddam Hussein. Security in the streets and criminal violence are not anywhere near being under control.

But there’s another question that is equally important: “Are the American people better off because of the Iraq war?”

One thing for sure, the 1,500 plus dead American soldiers aren’t better off. The nearly 20,000 severely injured or sickened American troops are not better off. The families, the wives, the husbands, children, parents, and friends of those who lost so much are not better off.

The families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to re-enlist against their will-- a de facto draft-- are not feeling better off. They believe they have been deceived by their enlistment agreements.

The American taxpayers are not better off having spent over 200 billion dollars to pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent. The victims of the inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-butter policy are already getting a dose of what will become much worse.

Are our relationships with the rest of the world better off? I’d say no. Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are weaker than ever. The anti-American hatred among a growing number of Muslims around the world is greater than ever. This makes terrorist attacks more likely than they were before the invasion. Al Qaeda recruiting has accelerated. Iraq is being used as a training ground for al Qaeda terrorists, which it never was under Hussein’s rule. So as our military recruitment efforts suffer, Osama bin Laden benefits by attracting more terrorist volunteers.

Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war, now it’s more than twice that. I wonder who benefits from this?

Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national security and defense of this country. Military spending is up, but the way the money is spent distracts from true national defense and further undermines our credibility around the world.

The ongoing war’s lack of success has played a key role in diminishing morale in our military services. Recruitment is sharply down, and most branches face shortages of troops. Many young Americans rightly fear a coming draft-- which will be required if we do not reassess and change the unrealistic goals of our foreign policy.

The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and obscured, but contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and increase in the national debt. If these trends persist, inflation with economic stagnation will be the inevitable consequences of a misdirected policy.

One of the most significant consequences in times of war that we ought to be concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal liberty. Too often in the patriotic nationalism that accompanies armed conflict, regardless of the cause, there is a willingness to sacrifice personal freedoms in pursuit of victory. The real irony is that we are told we go hither and yon to fight for freedom and our Constitution, while carelessly sacrificing the very freedoms here at home we’re supposed to be fighting for. It makes no sense.

This willingness to give up hard-fought personal liberties has been especially noticeable in the atmosphere of the post-September 11th war on terrorism. Security has replaced liberty as our main political goal, damaging the American spirit. Sadly, the whole process is done in the name of patriotism and in a spirit of growing militant nationalism.

These attitudes and fears surrounding the 9-11 tragedy, and our eagerness to go to war in the Middle East against countries not responsible for the attacks, have allowed a callousness to develop in our national psyche that justifies torture and rejects due process of law for those who are suspects and not convicted criminals.

We have come to accept pre-emptive war as necessary, constitutional, and morally justifiable. Starting a war without a proper declaration is now of no concern to most Americans or the U.S. Congress. Let’s hope and pray the rumors of an attack on Iran in June by U.S. Armed Forces are wrong.

A large segment of the Christian community and its leadership think nothing of rationalizing war in the name of a religion that prides itself on the teachings of the Prince of Peace, who instructed us that blessed are the peacemakers-- not the warmongers.

We casually accept our role as world policeman, and believe we have a moral obligation to practice nation building in our image regardless of the number of people who die in the process.

We have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made our country great. We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace, the Constitution, and the principle of neutrality while avoiding entangling alliances with the rest of the world. Spreading the message of hope and freedom by setting an example for the world has been replaced by a belief that use of armed might is the only practical tool to influence the world-- and we have accepted, as the only superpower, the principle of initiating war against others.

In the process, Congress and the people have endorsed a usurpation of their own authority, generously delivered to the executive and judicial branches-- not to mention international government bodies. The concept of national sovereignty is now seen as an issue that concerns only the fringe in our society.

Protection of life and liberty must once again become the issue that drives political thought in this country. If this goal is replaced by an effort to promote world government, use force to plan the economy, regulate the people, and police the world, against the voluntary desires of the people, it can be done only with the establishment of a totalitarian state. There’s no need for that. It’s up to Congress and the American people to decide our fate, and there is still time to correct our mistakes.

Whew. I hope you're as blown away as I am.