Random Fate

The only thing that matters

In a post that starts well but unfortunately gets a wee bit inchoate at the end, the author at Bloggledygook (sorry, I don't know the name of the blogger...) writes:

The Outcomes-Based War.

I must admit to a certain confusion as to the administration's strategy in Iraq at the current time. Even as more evidence mounts that the war--which I support-- has been a brilliant success in its initial execution and a qualified failure in its aftermath, a stay-the-course mentality appears to have gripped the White House.

There is still time for things to improve, and I am cautiously optimistic that the outcome will be worth the cost. But then again, so far my own personal cost has been nil. I have not fought, I have not seen the battlefield first-hand. I have not lost a friend or loved one. So that means that I have no stake in this fight, right? Well... wrong. The stakes are for all high and real, whether soldier, reporter, demonstrator or supporter.

The war itself has been thrown into the background as supporters and opponents each vie for position as to what would constitute victory or defeat. This war has become, in the parlance of mid-nineties education policy, an outcomes-based war. Simply put: the only thing that matters to many partisans is who ends up being right. If Iraq ends up democratic and at peace, the pro-war side will have their day. If the country descends into chaos, civil war and Shari'a, the anti-war crowd will bring out the I-told-you-sos.

I suggest you read the entire post to get all the messages intended to be conveyed, there is much more to it than the part I am commenting upon.

I am focusing on what I feel is the most important point made: "Simply put: the only thing that matters to many partisans is who ends up being right."

This is a topic I have addressed repeatedly here, but which bears emphasizing yet again.

Is "being right" more important than what is right for the country?

For far too many, it appears that "being right" or "winning" or "scoring points" is indeed the most important thing, beyond everything else, and I fear it will cost us all.

What is more important for you?

Technorati Tags: opinion, recommended reading

To boldly go...

...where no man has gone before.

That statement could only have come out of America in the 1960s.

The space shuttle could only have been developed in the wake of a successful Apollo program by a space agency that had achieved the impossible, and had nowhere to go.

The space shuttle is now regarded as a fragile wreck by many who not so long ago cheered it on as the great achievement it was and still is.

The tragedy of exhilarating achievements attained early is a curse unexpected, for individuals, for organizations, and for nations.

What do you do with the rest of your life when at the age of 38 you are the first human being to step onto another world?

What do you do when you manage to make possible the impossible, but when the cold hand of statistics makes itself inevitably felt, showing how dangerous exploration really is, how do you continue in the face of a public that demands a Hollywood Happy Ending, not understanding the risks that come with the rewards?

About 2% of the manned launch/reentry attempts have killed their crew, while both Soyuz and the Shuttle have approximately similar death rates.

To boldly go where no man has gone before.

That statement could not come out of America in the first decade of the twenty-first century.

While we cannot make reality in entirety, reality is still made up of the sum of our choices.

A subtle distinction, but one well worth noting.

What do you choose?

Technorati Tags: opinion

...on "rebranding", learning, cynicism, and loss

Joe Gandelman, of The Moderate Voice, has written of his opposition to the apparent rebranding by the current Administration of President George W. Bush of the so-called "Global War on Terror".

Gandelman writes:

The idea that this battle is more than just military, is a sound one.

But I thought that just a few months ago conservative commentators were up in arms about the BBC and Reuters refusing to use the word "terrorist." TMV isn't a conservative (OR a liberal) blogger and he thought it was silly too. But he knows Rush, and Sean and all the others (including bloggers) will now be falling all over themselves saying what a genius idea it is, but we must say:

It was dumb when the BBC didn't use the "t" word and it's dumb when the administration tries to recast this conflict now. The enemy is terrorism. Free and democratic societies may have to fight it on many levels — but the enemy is TERRORISTS and TERRORISM.

OH: We know it's a terrible sin to be consistent on these things, so we'll plead guilty. And we'll save you the trouble: "How can you call yourself a moderate if you don't accept the new definition of the global war on violent extremism?" Answer: EASILY.

While I recommend you read the entire post, I cannot comment on his position without quoting his ending statements:

People who want to blow up innocent men, women and children in sneak, sucker-punch like bomb attacks? Extremists.

People who want to group jump bound screaming captives and saw their heads off? Extremists.

People who want to use planes as missles, get nuclear materials and blow up U.S. cities? Extremists.

People who threaten and (if they) attack judges whose opinions they don't agree with? Extremists.

If you don't agree that "extremist" includes the last one, then I have a great idea:

Why don't we just call it the "global war on terrorism?"

While I don't dispute his definition of extremists, the general tone of Gandelman's comments is that he opposes the "rebranding".

Joe Gandelman is indeed a true moderate, and he is not trying to take some partisan advantage of the change of public strategy by the current Republican Administration.

There are others, however, who are not so generous, and I find myself forced to disagree with what Gandelman has written in this case.

For me, even though I have many reasons to oppose the current Administration, I welcome the change in nomenclature, if it is indeed a true recognition of the need for a change in strategy.

I commented many times in the run up to the last election in November of 2004 of how President George W. Bush could not acknowledge ANY mistakes, no matter how minor, and of how this was (and is) a huge issue, to the extent of being a personality defect, because recognizing mistakes is the first step in learning from those mistakes and changing behaviors.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
   -Albert Einstein, attributed

I would be completely remiss if I did not recognize and indeed, praise the Administration for actually recognizing a flaw in current "strategy" and at the least trying to change direction, even if they do not publicly acknowledge in the process the tremendous mistakes they made in reaching this point.

This is a change we need.

This is what is best for the nation as a whole.

Those on the Democrat side of the spectrum should NOT be playing this change for some kind of advantage, instead they should be applauding any change away from a stubborn adherence of former policies that have been shown to have failed and celebrating this change as the right thing for the country.

Why is this change needed?

From a book review of a history surrounding the Fauklands War, The Official History of the Falklands Campaign: The 1982 Falklands War and Its Aftermath, at The Economist magazine:

The French have a saying à la guerre comme à la guerre: when you're at war, act that way.

We have been fighting the wrong war.

As has been said countless times by many others far more eloquently than I can write now, terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
   -Sun-Tzu

From where I stand, we have failed in knowing both ourselves and the enemy.

Any change in that is to the good.

The only "leadership" we've gotten to date for the home-front in our so-called "War on Terror" is an exhortation to "keep shopping" while our best and brightest are sent to an abattoir of our own making to die, or if not to die, to lose limbs or something else almost as precious, in a cost we still do not count.

We like to say that we are in an "age of irony", but that is mere self-deception, a pleasant illusion presenting a fiction that is more desirable than the unattractive reality. Irony has complexity, whereas what is typically shown by those seeking to be ironic is instead a knee-jerk rejection of concepts without thinking, a simplicity that is both stark and stupid.

In my first draft of this post, I told a story of how in history, one nation attacked another nation based upon an analysis that the success of the first nation in its goals would be thwarted by the actions of the second nation, in other words, the second nation presented a "clear and present danger" to the long-term survival of the first nation. An ultimatum was to be delivered, but was delayed, and the attack undertaken turned into a "day that will live in infamy."

I had hoped to present the irony in contrasting the attack on Pearl Harbor, which even today from the point of view of history as taught in Japan was a pre-emptive attack because the United States had embargoed several key materials in an effort to force Japan to modify its behaviors, and many parts of the Japanese government felt a war with the United States was inevitable, so a pre-emptive attack was the only way to ensure national survival.

Sound familiar?

If not, read on, and perhaps it just might...

The Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq that have proven illusory, but there are many who stubbornly adhere to the WMD motivation for the war, despite the evidence to the contrary, even to the extent that many who proclaimed the existence of Iraqi WMD before the war still refuse all reason and claim the WMD were ported over the borders to Syria or Iran, both of which were mortal enemies of the overthrown regime of Saddam Hussein.

I deleted that long passage illustrating the irony inherent in the parallel motivations of "survival of the country" in the face of threats that existed only in the mind, and yes, what I had written was much longer. I chose to throw that work away because I suspect the irony will be lost on those who need to understand it the most, and will be merely preaching to the choir for those who already see it.

There are other, more recent, yet perhaps not fully recognized ironies at hand that may help in illustrating my point, however.

Ann Althouse has a post today titled, "Nothing we're doing is evil." According to what she wrote in the comments (the post itself is remarkably brief), the post title is something she heard "in a context."

Her entire post beneath that title:

How do you like that as a statement intended as reassuring? Does it hit you in an "I'm not a crook" way?

Although it may not have been her intention, nor the context in which she heard the statement, that simple sentence, "Nothing we're doing is evil," it does indeed sound remarkably like much heard from the right-wing in defense of the prison at Guantánamo, among the defenses of other questionable actions taken in our newly renamed "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, née the "Global War on Terror".

Before you start on your knee-jerk defense of torture perpetrated in the name of a "greater good", consider this statement:

Rear Adm. Michael F. Lohr, the Navy's chief lawyer, wrote on Feb. 6, 2003, that while detainees at Guantánamo Bay might not qualify for international protections, "Will the American people find we have missed the forest for the trees by condoning practices that, while technically legal, are inconsistent with our most fundamental values?"

What, a "bleeding-heart liberal who sides with the terrorists" is a Rear Admiral in our Navy?

TREASON!

This is the level we are reduced to now in a discourse dominated by the cheerleaders of Ann Coulter and Michael Moore.

The current defense mounted for Karl Rove is of a similar vein.

What is missing is this: The "leak" is NOT the issue, the issue is the nature of the "truth" from this Administration.

We were told the President had not firmly decided to go to war until "after all other avenues were exhausted."

They were apparently exhausted much sooner than the last statement that "the President has not yet decided to go to war" was issued, if we are to believe the evidence available to date.

So much for the "truth", especially as spun by the smear-meister, Karl Rove, who in a moving of goal posts unprecedented even in this post-Watergate era is not being held publicly responsible after the Administration publicly said that Rove did NOT discuss the Plame matter with reporters, and after the President himself said he would fire anyone responsible for leaks associated with the matter.

The "leak" is NOT the issue, despite the incredible amount of verbiage directed, the issue is the nature and reality of the "truth" from this Administration that claimed it would "restore honor and integrity" to the White House.

An Administration that at the least was not fully truthful about when the decision to go to war with Iraq was truly made.

An Administration that at the least tacitly accepted the results of an active smear campaign against a man opposing Administration policies if not outright approving of the smear publicly.

Apparently, this Administration has a different interpretation of "honor and integrity" than I do.

All of this, combined with Althouse post title, reminds me of something I heard in a movie, long ago:

When a man lies, he murders a part of the world.
   -Merlin (in the movie Excalibur)

We are reaching the point to where the cynics are right, we cannot trust anything from any "spokesman" representing any elected official.

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
   -George Bernard Shaw

Is this the reality we want to accept? For it is in our acceptance that any reality is created.

Twisting of facts...

Distortion of truth...

Cherry-picking the information and patterns in ways that are obvious to those willing to take a step outside their own perspective, but which satisfy the echoing crowds who don't want to take the time and energy to think...

There are those, such as John Cole, who are valiantly making an effort to confirm what is known and agreed upon in the Rove/leaking to the press matter.

I admire Cole for his perseverance, but ultimately it is pointless.

I try to not let my natural pessimism overwhelm me, but we are now to the point where it is no longer pessimism but instead realism.

The Afganistan War was necessary and justified.

The Iraq War was neither absolutely necessary beyond all dispute, and the justification was weak even at the time and is failing the smell test more often as time passes.

Otherwise, the irony of comparison with the attacks made by Japan in 1941 would not arise to those who read and take the time to understand history in the context of those experiencing it at the time it was occurring.

It is often said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. There is one large-scale event in recent history I think we could well do to repeat:

To conquer the enemy without resorting to war is the most desirable. The highest form of generalship is to conquer the enemy by strategy.
   -Sun Tzu

We defeated the Soviet Union without having to engage directly in a "hot war" that would have cost countless lives and possibly rendered significant portions of the planet unihabitable.

We defeated the Soviet Union without resorting to open war.

We conquered the enemy with strategy.

What are we doing now?

Is it the same path of victory?

Is it a path to victory that is truly worth the price paid?

Come to your own conclusions, and act upon your own conscience, but do not take a knee-jerk talking-points response as your answer.

Your conscience will remind you in the end.

Technorati Tags: commentary, opinion, patterns in the white noise, rants

It may sound not-so-important, but may make a bigger difference than the "War on Terror"

Contributor A, at Asymetrical Information, writes upon a topic that is often neglected, but I find truly important, even though it will make the eyes of most of you glaze over completely, the evils of farm subsidies as practiced by the United States, Japan, and (although mentioned only incidentally by Contributor A I must note it as the most egregious offender) the European Union.

Think in terms of demi-centuries and continents, not years and individuals.

Technorati Tags: opinion

Yet another commentary in cartoon form...

...on the imaginary Grand Theft Auto imbroglio can be found here.

Don't we have more important issues for GOVERNMENT to focus on, while our parents focus on PARENTING (gasp!!!).

What a concept...

Parents focused on PARENTING...

I know some single-mom parents who DO PAY ATTENTION.

What THE FUCK IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE REST OF YOU?

In other words, for those of you who do not get the message, if a single-mom parent can focus on this and pay attention, what the fucking Hell is your issue?

Other than your own irresponsibility, that is...

Technorati Tags: opinion

What is right for the nation?

In a recent post, I stated that President George W. Bush has not been showing leadership but instead has been playing politics at the expense of doing what is right for the nation, but he has an opportunity to do so by turning away from short-term political gain at any cost towards doing what is right for the nation, even if there is a political price to be paid.

The Democratic Party now has a similar opportunity to turn away from short-term political gain at any cost towards doing what is right for the nation.

No one in their right mind should have expected President Bush to nominate anyone less conservative than Judge John Roberts, and the Democrats in the Senate should recognize that unless Judge Roberts has committed some crime in the time since he was confirmed as a judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, he should be confirmed for the United States Supreme Court.

Will this change the "balance" of the Supreme Court?

Yes...

But ANY nomination would change that "balance", it is unrealistic to think that President Bush would nominate someone that would not reflect his often-stated views.

This is different than the nomination of John Bolton for United States Ambassador to the United Nations. I did not like the nomination of Bolton because of the contempt he had expressed towards that organization, along with the questionable behaviors he displayed towards matters of national security and accurate versus expedient intelligence in his prior career. Also, someone who mistreats subordinates has issues of character that I do not want in a person filling any diplomatic position, a job which is to advance the cause of my nation, not to ride roughshod over people at will.

It is difficult to perceive the nomination of someone who had made the statements Bolton had made regarding the UN to be perceived as anything other than Bush showing an upraised middle finger to the rest of the world. That is damaging to the interests of the United States and is NOT what is right for our nation.

Since Judge Roberts was found suitable for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, unless something has changed in the last two years, there should be no issue with him becoming a Supreme Court Associate Justice, regardless of his views on particular cases.

The Democrats in the Senate need to show leadership in this matter and not present obstructionist tactics for some self-perceived short-term political gain. They need to do what is right for the nation, expeditiously move forward on the nomination, ask appropriate questions (not softballs, but not idiotic unanswerable questions), and vote on the nomination based upon the qualifications of the nominee.

If the Democratic Party wants to nominate judges, they need to win back the Presidency by presenting true leaders, not idiots like John Kerry.

Technorati Tags: opinion, politics

Our government is no place for political games for gain at any cost

I have been trying for the last several hours to draw together several apparently disparate threads that are in reality closely aligned all into some kind of coherent message that I can convey here.

Unfortunately for me, although I can see the connections and the patterns within, they are far from easy to illustrate and describe effectively.

What Joe Gandelman wrote in response to the Karl Rove/CIA Operative outing imbroglio seems particularly apropos (including the quoting of Paul Krugman, included for easier comprehension, italics and boldface kept from the original post):

From Krugman:

But Mr. Rove understood that the facts were irrelevant. For one thing, he knew he could count on the administration's supporters to obediently accept a changing story line....Mr. Rove also understands, better than anyone else in American politics, the power of smear tactics. Attacks on someone who contradicts the official line don't have to be true, or even plausible, to undermine that person's effectiveness. All they have to do is get a lot of media play, and they'll create the sense that there must be something wrong with the guy....

If a Democrat had done that, Republicans would call it treason.

But what we're getting, instead, is yet another impressive demonstration that these days, truth is political. One after another, prominent Republicans and conservative pundits have declared their allegiance to the party line. They haven't just gone along with the diversionary tactics...They're now a chorus, praising Mr. Rove as a patriotic whistle-blower.

Ultimately, this isn't just about Mr. Rove. It's also about Mr. Bush, who has always known that his trusted political adviser - a disciple of the late Lee Atwater, whose smear tactics helped President Bush's father win the 1988 election - is a thug, and obviously made no attempt to find out if he was the leaker.

Most of all, it's about what has happened to America. How did our political system get to this point?

MOST TROUBLING: Now that we indeed ARE at "this point," how possible or unlikely is it that we can now UNGET to "this point"? Can we break out of this troubling era where people will change their political standards and values as they articulated them when it came to the opposition to allow their side leeway to do whatever they need to do to gain and stay in power?

Isn't this now the NORM — and don't the days when people such as Barry Goldwater held to firm, unyeilding principles in terms of big government and basic patriotic values kind of quaint, now?

And if there are no absolutes (just rip and read the talking points sent out by the RNC on the old talk show or incorporate them into your commentary to defend your side), what does it portend for the future?

As Don Henley wrote in the song "The Garden of Allah", written long before this current climate of "win at any and all costs":

There is no truth
There are no facts
Just data to be manipulated

The apologists for Karl Rove sound remarkably like the Clinton apologists these very same folks derided (correctly) for parsing "it depends upon what the meaning of 'is' is..."

It is amazing how the wheel turns and when it is "their man" under scrutiny tactics and statements that are deemed beyond the pale for their opponents to utter are completely valid arguments when it comes to "their main".

I am disgusted.

"Winning" in a political game is not the be all to end all, for it comes to naught if we allow our culture and society to be destroyed by these childish tactics.

As I wrote in an email discussion earlier today with John Donovan of Castle Argghhh!:

I'm talking about leadership and what is best for the country, not what is best for party advantage.

Regardless of whether Rove committed a crime or not (did Clinton when he got an intern to go down on him in the Oval Office?), Bush said that leaks were unacceptable and not to be a part of his administration.

Regardless of whether Rove leaked the name, indirectly said "that guy's wife" or whatever, Rove is the epitome of "party first and always" instead of "what is best for the country."

Yes, I do not like Rove, I don't like Howard Dean either.

I've never liked Bush, but I'm not calling for his resignation or impeachment, either.

The divisiveness in Washington is BAD for the country.

Regardless of "who started it" (and we can go back in history to the Civil War and the creation of the Republican party for "who did what first" until our fingers are bleeding from typing) *someone* has to take the lead and the first step to stop it.

The President says he's a leader.

Here is his chance to lead instead of to force things on everyone by fiat.

A leader recognizes when you are in a hole, and understands that the first step to getting out of that hole is to stop digging.

How is this related to Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghirab?

I'll do the math for you; this one is from another email exchange with John Donovan of Castle Argghhh!:

The connection is that appearances are important.

At the moment, it appears that personal loyalty to Bush is more important to the President than anything else, including the rule of law.

That is why Rove should be fired. He represents all the abuses and divisiveness that has been encouraged (yes encouraged) during the Presidency of George W. Bush.

Personal loyalty should not override the rule of law. That is the method of the tin-pot dictators we decry, including Sadaam.

The connection with the abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghirab?

Guantanamo Bay is a prison placed in that location to explicitly be outside the reach of US law (yes, I know several rulings subsequent to the set up of the prison have challenged if not overturned that contention, but it does not change the reason why the prison is located where it is).

If we say we are defending civilization and the rule of law, we then MUST be sure that we appear to be following the rule of law.

We must walk the walk that goes with talking the talk.

I had some responses to your post on Guantanamo this morning that I was going to put up at Random Fate:

Regarding psychological games on the prisoners/detainees/whatever, that must be undertaken on a case-by-case basis. A cab driver picked up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong fare shouldn't be subjected to the psychological "stresses" that a *known* high-level terrorist operative would be subject to.

Regarding any physical "stress", I rule that out completely because it is far to easy for it to get out of hand. Even starting down that path is wrong in my eyes. It appears the approval of physical "stress" in Guantanamo at least set up the climate for the abuses of Abu Ghirab.

You know better than I do that the key to winning any war is not to kill the enemy, because it is impossible to kill each and every one of the enemy. The key is to destroy their will to fight.

We are providing great tools for our enemy to motivate their troops and recruit more suicidal fanatics and give them all a *greater* will to fight.

Step 1: stop digging

While you are correct in saying the world opinion drivers will "find something else" to decry, do we really need to give them reasons on a silver platter?

This may be the last chance for President George W. Bush to show true leadership, to show he truly is a "uniter, not a divider", for all his actions to this point have been to push through his agenda with no consideration for the beliefs of those who think differently.

In other words, his actions have been those of a divider, not a uniter, in complete contrast to his promises of being a uniter, not a divider.

Which actions will you applaud, and which will you choose to heap improbation upon?

True leadership is not always easy or expedient, nor is it always on the path that will promote the interests of one's political allies, supporters, and fellow travelers.

However, the nation needs true leadership.

It is past time for President George W. Bush to show us all this kind of true leadership.

Will he step up to the challenge, or will his apologists continue to resort to the word-parsing they so rightfully condemned as a bad legacy of the Clinton years but which truly originated in the Nixon era?

It remains to be seen, but the question still remains:

Which will you push for?

Technorati Tags: opinion

Fixing the data to conform with the policy

Welcome to the era of radical right-wing "balance":

Welcome to a new era in the battle over public broadcasting. Instead of simply threatening to cut federal funding for PBS -- as Nixon, Reagan and Newt Gingrich did -- the Bush administration has taken a new approach. Far from standing as a firewall against outside political pressure, Tomlinson is trying to force PBS to toe the Republican line, turning the network into a taxpayer-funded facsimile of Fox News. The GOP coup scored a major victory in late June, when the CPB board quietly confirmed Patricia Harrison -- a former co-chair of the Republican National Committee -- as its new president.

Supporters of public broadcasting were appalled. "You get the sense," says Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., "that they want to turn NPR into the RNC."

A ruddy-faced and rolypoly man with a close-cropped white beard, Tomlinson looks a little bit like a Muppet himself. Since he was selected to represent Republicans on the CPB board in 2000, Tomlinson has been determined to stamp out what he sees as "liberal advocacy journalism" at PBS. The only problem with his theory of bias -- widespread among conservatives -- is that there is no proof it actually exists. So Tomlinson commissioned two polls in 2002 and 2003, hoping to confirm that viewers share his distaste for the political tenor of PBS.

Both polls revealed the opposite: Eighty percent of viewers hold a favorable opinion of public broadcasting, and only eight percent consider its coverage of the Iraq War biased. Focus groups in the red-state hotbeds of Louisville, Kentucky, and Salt Lake City proved similarly disappointing. But instead of releasing the results, Tomlinson kept them under wraps until he was required to release them to Congress. "He goes after research that can support his claims of bias," one executive familiar with the polls told Rolling Stone. "He's not able to find much -- so then he suppresses the research to be able to continue arguing that there really is a problem."

If the data do not fit the "facts" as propagated by the right-wing, hide and obfuscate and fabricate your own "facts" for your talking points, that if false never the less discredit those who don't "think right".

Facts no longer matter, only spin. There are no "facts", only ideologically based accusations and smear campaigns that while having no basis in reality have a sticking power none the less.

Public broadcasting is only the latest in a litany of irresponsibility displayed by the far right-wing, urged on by the so-called "religious right" which isn't really religious other than using religion to further their controlling agenda.

For those of you on the right-wing, do these actions and attitudes really, truly sit well with you?

Win at any and all costs, data and what is right for the nation as a whole be damned?

Is that truly what you want?

If your answer is "yes" then I suggest you read history and recall the fall of Rome, which was from within, not from external forces.

If no, then why did you vote for these people now in power?

Do your own math.

I cannot do it for you.

Technorati Tags: opinion

Buying Elections

I went through my e-mail today, and I came across a piece from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. On my own blog, I have remarked on the DCCC's penchant for filling my inbox with messages that ask me to "please send money."

A recent e-mail, dated June 23, came with this subject line:

Don't Let the GOP Buy Another Election!

And how can I prevent the GOP from buying another election? By ... ahem ... sending money. E-mails like this threaten to break the Irony-O-Meter.

I Changed My Mind About That Political Thing...

Let's say--theoretically, of course--that your country is run by the dregs of society. Dregs who look out for number one, and don't actually give a fig about you and me. Dregs who waste our hard-earned money every chance they get, and spend most of their time and energy ensuring they get re-elected every 2, 4, or 6 years (as the case may be).

Now let's say some court decision is made...I don't know...giving them the right to take away the home your grandfather built. The home your father grew up in, and the home your dear, sweet, apple pie-baking grandmother lives in. She lives on a tight budget, but still manages to spoil her grandchildren when they come to visit her. Every 4th of July the whole family gathers at Grandma's house for a barbecue dinner after the parade. The flag waves on the flagpole your grandfather put up after your uncle died in Vietnam.

But one year, the government comes along and tells your grandmother to pack her things. Her house is standing in the way of progress. A company worth billions of dollars needs to build their new headquarters in the very spot your dad buried his pet dog when he was 12 years old. They can't build 20 miles away on the land a farmer is trying to sell because he can't make a living on his farm. Nope, they need Grandma's house.

Your grandmother packs her things, takes the market value settlement, and tries to find a new home for herself. Of course, it's hard to find an equivalent home, because her house was 50 years old and most new homes cost much more. So Grandma settles into a small apartment in a senior living community. Her grandkids can't visit as much, because there just isn't the room. Plus some of the seniors don't care for the noise kids make.

On the day the bulldozers move in to tear the old house down, your cousin puts a flag on Grandpa's flagpole and sets it on fire. It's his small way of protesting against a government that would rip an old lady out of her home...some old men and women in black robes let it happen...some politicians let it happen. No one stopped it. So the flag of the country burns in silent protest. And your cousin is arrested for it.

Fair, huh?

I'm mad as Hell...

...and I'm not going to take it any more.

I'm leaving for a two week vacation, away from everything. My job, my apartment here in France, everything.

Why?

I have similar feelings to those expressed by John Cole (although I'd have to be at the point of suicide to vote a Nader/Buchanan ticket):

Sick Of It All

I am sick of the state of American politics right now.

I am sick of the arrogance of the Republican party and the impotence of the Democrats.

I am sick of people calling people traitors or un-American or anti-military or anti-Christian because they disagree with them on issues.

I am sick of everyone distorting everyone elses positions.

I am sick of the knee-jerk Bush apologists and the knee-jerk Bush attackers.

I am sick of people calling people pussies because they think chaining someone to the floor and forcing them to lie in shit for 24 hours is over the line.

I am sick of the Supreme Court consistently ruling against the individual.

I am sick of Congress passing inane and pointless laws.

I am sick of the disgusting spending.

I am sick of the assholes in my party who think they have an absolute and perfect view of truth and morality.

Read the rest.

I won't add to his list.

Some self-labeled "conservatives" think that John Cole has "gone off the reservation" and is no longer someone who truly leans right.

Perhaps he (along with many others) hasn't drunk the kool-aid that is infecting the right-wing with the same idiotic tendencies formerly expressed mainly by the posters to the Democratic Underground.

Symmetry is an appealing virtue in Physics.

The symmetry we are now reaching in our political "philosophy" (if it can be dignified with such a term, instead of "idiocy") is beyond disgraceful.

A suitable follow-up to the passage of the anti-flag burning amendment...

...can be found here:

High court OKs personal property seizures
Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities

Thursday, June 23, 2005 Posted: 1450 GMT (2250 HKT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

In other words, eminent domain now trumps private property rights, even when the private property is being seized to give to a developer so the developer can make money.

So, those of you who wonder why I always complain about expanding the power of government and my loud cries of "foul" any time I believe the basis of our rights are being eroded, do you have any questions why I make such noise?

The preservation of property rights has been a foundation for our robust economy. Without certainty, you cannot plan for the future.

China (the mainland part) seizes what would be nominally private property at whim.

We are not to that point yet, but we have started down the same road.

Government apparently now ALWAYS triumphs over the individual, because government "knows better"...

Welcome to 1984 and Animal Farm. Just pray that you are one of the animals that is more equal than the other animals.

Benign labels do not make it right

I cannot recommend more highly reading this entire post by John Cole: Durbin Wrap Up. To provide an incentive, I give you a quote that encapsulates what I have been trying to convey about the prison at Guantanamo:

The fact of the matter is, we just don't know the whole story. And no matter what the blowhards and the administration apologists (and I used to be one) say, it isn't liberal ACLU pro-terrorist anti-military crazinesss to demand the facts and to demand that we behave better than we have in the past. It isn't anti-soldier to question policy and to demand that abuses and torture aren't being conducted under our flag, even if we benignly label them 'approved interrogation techniques.'

And one more thing- Dick Durbin didn't do anything wrong- he used some stupid rhetoric. He could have used a better example, and it was stupid to include regimes as murderous as the Khmer Rouge and the Nazis in that speech, even though he didn't compare our troops to those guys. But that doesn't give us any excuse to ignore his message.

And just because I have to say it given the idiotic political climate we currently have to live in- I think the severe allegations and the deaths are an aberration, not the norm. I don't think all of our soldiers are evil and sadistic torturers. I don't know what is true and what is not, and I don't know what is considered acceptable under international norms. I, in fact, love the military and think it is the best way that we as a society spend our money. But I don't think it is stupid or slanderous or unpatriotic to have the idea that everything isn't kosher.

I wish I had the time to comment both on what Cole has written and to elaborate on my earlier writings on this topic.

This is important, and Cole provides some much-needed perspective from someone who leans to the right on the political spectrum.

My head just might explode...

...I'm in the midst of the meeting-hell-week that I mentioned in some earlier posts, so I don't have much time to write here.

Then, Congress goes and does this:

House Backs Ban On Flag Burning

By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: June 23, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 22 - The House of Representatives passed a resolution on Wednesday proposing a constitutional amendment that would enable Congress to prohibit the destruction or debasement of the flag without violating free speech rights.

The vote was 286 to 130, more than the two-thirds of the members present and voting that is required to approve a proposed amendment.

I will not write the string of epithets that are running through my mind.

I only have time to write this one thing: This goes to show that at least 286 Congressmen do not understand the fundamental principles that motivated the First Amendment and the structure of Constitution itself, or if they do understand the principles, they abandon them to pander to the extremists.

This is beyond stupid.

This is beyond partisan politics.

This is attacking the foundation of our freedoms.

Guilty...

...after over four decades, the Mississippi court system worked and delivered a verdict: conviction on three counts of manslaughter.

It took far, far too long.

I agree...

...with the sentiment expressed in this post by John Cole at Balloon Juice.

Enough time has passed since the start of this damned war in Iraq, regardless of what you think of the origins or reasons, that we should have fully equipped with body armor each and every person we have asked to risk their lives in Iraq for us.

Excuse my blunt language, but what the fuck is the procurement problem here?

This IS NOT a partisan issue.

We are paying a HELL of a lot of money in taxes to provide our military with what they need.

Why the FUCK do they NOT HAVE IT without having to spend their own money?

Someone, somewhere, NEEDS to be held accountable for this.

And, as is usual, NO ONE will be.

Technorati Tags: opinion

A point of agreement

When ATC Joe writes this, I agree:

I'm not saying the evangelicals are bad, or that they have some sort of organized program to intimidate people into endorsing their views, but they do have a tendency to overreach when they meet with some success in their agenda. I'm convinced a large part of what the public sees as overreach on the part of the Bush administration is driven by the administration's own evangelicals, or the debt they feel they owe them for their support in last year's election.

This is a mistake, and it's one that's not going to be easy to fix. A public disavowal of the evangelical bloc at this time would hurt the administration severely.

Such a break needs to happen, though, and it's something that can't be done too quickly. The gradual nature of this distancing is one of the factors that leads me to believe the next administration will be led by a Democrat. That has ramifications I don't like, but it may be what's necessary to bring conservatism back to it's roots, which is something I'd certainly like to see.

I do believe that conservatism has lost its roots, and it sorely needs to move back towards them for the good of our nation.

Technorati Tags: opinion

It is time for you to decide the future you want

NOTE: Since this post has apparently been misunderstood by at least one, there appears to be a need for clarification. Consider this an FYI for those of you who think this is a commentary on the outcome of the Schiavo matter, for it is not.

For the record, I was opposed to those who pressured Congress to intervene in the matter, and I was opposed to those who said "life at any costs" even at the expense of the "sanctity of marriage" that those same folks proclaim when it suits them.

To make it explicit for those unable to get the gist, it is a commentary on the unyielding, unreasoning attitudes being shown by the extremists of all stripes.

If I need to be more plain-spoken, you need to go read elsewhere. I have neither the time nor the inclination to hold your hand any further.

---

The results of the Schiavo autopsy were released today.

I will not review them.

Why?

Because most have made up their minds, regardless of the facts, and will not change their views, regardless of the facts.

In other words, we have gone far beyond reasonable debate.

We refuse to acknowledge that those who do not think exactly as we do are human, just as we are, and in that refusal, we take the first steps upon a path all too well trodden.

What is left when reasonable debate is abandoned, opponents dehumanized and demonized, and passions allowed to reign free?

The answer given in 1861 in North America was organized murderous slaughter.

The answer given in 1941 in Germany was efficiently-organized murderous slaughter.

The answer given in 1991 in Bosnia-Hertzegovina was quasi-organized murderous slaughter.

The answer given in 1994 in Rwanda was barely-organised murderous slaughter.

The answer given in 2001 in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania was murderous slaughter.

The answer given in 2004 and continuing today in Darfur is murderous slaughter.

What is your answer to what is left after you choose to ignore facts and refuse reasonable debate?

Be honest, because the only one you are lying to is yourself.

Be sure you can look in the mirror into your own eyes with the answer you give, because your answer reflects upon you, not upon the one who asks the question...

Technorati Tags: opinion

Confusion regarding writing, and a concurrence upon the role of government in "marriage"

John Cole, at Balloon Juice, has had a similar problem as I believe I have had recently, where what I wrote was confused and misinterpreted to mean something different, and this applies to topics beyond that of "gay marriage" which John Cole refers to in his post.

Regarding the confusion, he writes:

I think you can chalk up part of the confusion to my rambling prose and my splenetic writing style (it has been said the written language here at Balloon Juice is 'high dudgeon,' and toss in the fact that I have written so many damn posts on these topics that it may seem like I think all those things. But it just ain't the case.

I cannot find a better way to express what I feel has happened in the case of my writing, especially in the cases where those I feel are good friends have not interpreted what I wrote in the spirit that the posts were written.

Regarding the topic (and confusion/misrepresentation/misquoting) that prompted the post by John Cole, his summary very well encapsulates what I believe regarding this "issue" which in my mind is a non-issue if we are to remain true to our fundamentals behind our Constitution:

And for the record, if I could have my way, I wouldn't have government legalizing gay marriages- I wouldn't have the government granting any marriages. I would like the government in the civil union business, and gays and straights would be treated just the same, with the same rights. Churches could then grant marriages, and be free to decide whether or not their sect wants to grant gay marriages.

All I can add is, "What he said."

Technorati Tags: fundamentals, opinion

Setting standards, and staying faithful to them

From the Dartmouth 2005 Spring Commencement address by Tom Brokaw:

I am humbled by the sacrifices that so many of you have made to help you to this promising place in your lives. Your family, your teachers, and some that you may not have considered, especially on a sunlit morning here in Hanover in early June. As we gather here today there are young men and women your age in uniform, in far-off places, in harm's way, dedicating their lives to your security and you must remember them on this occasion as well.

I am envious of what you will carry from here - more than the degree or honors, what you will come to treasure are the friendships and the fellowship, some of which will accompany you all the rest of your days. I envy you as well, of course, the thrill of exploring frontiers of knowledge while rediscovering and re-examining ancient truths.

Most of all, I envy you the road ahead on the 21st century, with its transformation technology, emerging democracies, developing economies, shifting power centers and yes, lethal cultural conflicts that demand attention and resolution.

These are the themes of commencement speeches across a broad spectrum of campuses this spring and I am fully prepared to expand on them momentarily. But first, I am compelled to offer somewhat lofty, but I hope useful, observations. You have been hearing all of your life about this moment - your first big step into what you have been called and told is the real world. What, you may be asking yourself this morning, is this real life all about? Ladies and gentlemen of the Class of 2005 at Dartmouth, it's not college - it's not high school. Real life is junior high.

The world you're about to enter is filled with adolescent pettiness, pubescent rivalries, the insecurities of 13-year-olds and the false bravado of 14-year-olds. Forty years from now, I guarantee it, you'll still be making silly mistakes, you'll have a temper tantrum, you'll have your feelings hurt for some trivial slight, you'll say something dumb and at least once a week you'll wonder, "Will I ever grow up?"

You can change that. In pursuit of passions, always be young. In your relationship with others, always be a grown-up. Set a standard and stay faithful to it.

I really like his comments about what they world they are about to enter is filled with... "adolescent pettiness, pubescent rivalries, the insecurities of 13-year-olds and the false bravado of 14-year-olds."

In my 40 trips around the sun, that's what I've seen far more often than not, only getting worse as time passes and society supposedly "progresses".

There is more to this, however.

I know I frustrate many people much of the time.

I have personal standards that I try my best to stay faithful towards, and I have standards I was taught when I was a child that my nation is supposed to hold, standards that when violated that I cry havoc.

Be careful what you teach the children, because some of them believe in ideals, and grow up into people like me who are willing to point out when the emperor has no clothes.

---

Thanks to Goemagog at Incite for the stimulation of thought by his(?) linking to the speech.

Technorati Tags: personal, recommended reading

It cannot be history until you stop living it... Part II

I hadn't planned to write upon this topic.

However, the Commissar at The Politburo Diktat has stimulated in my mind a few thoughts I feel need to be said.

First however, I present the topic that stimulated this writing, then some history.

The topic:

The resolution on lynching passed today is being used by some very prominent bloggers on the left-wing to attack Republicans who did not co-sponsor the bill, despite the fact that the passage was unanimous.

With his typical, honorable self-consistency, the Commissar condemns this invocation of lynching by the left to score political points just as he did a prior summons of this horrific imagery that was utilized by the right.

A personal aside here, there are times I get so disgusted with what I read in blogworld I am tempted to walk away from this strange yet enthralling occupation completely. Then I find someone as honorable and self-consistent as Stephen, aka the Commissar, and it reaffirms my faith that there are more than a few out there who are not blinded to the point of insanity by their point of view.

To return from the personal aside, using the "non-sponsorship" of a bill seems rather weak as a way of attacking a Senator of a particular party, especially when there were members of BOTH parties on the "non-sponsorship" list.

What about the history I mentioned?

The history is personal.

I have written about this long ago, I'm not even sure it remains in the archives of this weblog due to my changing hosts and configurations a few times, so it bears repeating here.

The name of the town I grew up in was Southaven, incorporated as an actual town the year I graduated high school, before that it was a mere development named by a group of builders seeking to attract buyers.

Why the name Southaven?

It was south of a development in Tennessee named Whitehaven, right at the state line between Tennessee and Mississippi, built in the mid to late 1960s; a development the nature of which was changing during the 1970s when Southaven was created.

I will not insult your intelligence by saying why Whitehaven was named as it was, just outside the city limits of Memphis, Tennessee, in that turbulent era.

Such was the environment in which I was raised.

The year before I graduated high school, signs appeared around town telling of a KKK meeting in the grounds behind the Jaycee building, an intense irony if you know of the mission of the Jaycees.

This isn't to condemn the Jaycees, however. I want to give an indication of the tenor of the times, even in 1980, in a supposedly more enlightened age that supposedly followed in the South upon the heels of the racist 1960s.

When I was a Boy Scout, I heard Scoutmasters routinely use a word once commonly used in the South of the United states to refer to people of dark skin color, the word that I find more offensive than any curse word in the English language. A word I cannot bring myself to type, and the thought of saying aloud brings to mind the taste of shit in my mouth. The only word that brings to mind such strong negative and offensive feelings in me.

What needs to be said?

It is this:

Now, as an adult in the early years of the 21st century, I see political hay being made utilizing the apologies for the absence of condemnation of atrocious behavior towards people, unforgivable acts performed solely because of the color of the skin of those people.

I hear people using the same atrocious word in a compound with "sand" to describe Arabs because a small number of Arabs have managed to perpetrate horrific acts that resulted in the deaths of over 4000 people, deaths of people who were not solely Americans.

I see people using the acts of a few to condemn the whole of a race, of a people, of a religion, as if the acts of individuals were sufficient to convict all. If that criterion were followed, then Western Civilization, the origin of those condemning others now, would have been eliminated half a millennium ago.

I read people with a bare grasp of simple arithmetic trying to use complex, multi-layered data presented in the form of statistics to prove their cases of war, genocide, and annihilation.

I see people with less than a high school understanding of the scientific method trying to use the exaggerated statements of a press only interested in sensational headlines to disprove the assertions of scientists who have spent years studying problems and searching for solutions to those problems.

Everyone can now throw rocks at anyone, because everyone is now a self-appointed expert:

Today I made an appearance downtown
I am an expert witness because I say I am
And I said gentlemen, and I use that world loosely
I will testify for you, I'm a gun for hire, I'm a saint, I'm a liar
Because there are no facts, there is no truth
Just data to be manipulated
I can get you any result you like
What's it worth to you?
Because there is no wrong, there is no right
And I sleep very well at night
No shame, no solution, no remorse, no retribution
Just people selling t-shirts
Just opportunity to participate in the pathetic little circus
and winning, winning, winning
   -Don Henley, The Garden of Allah

And upon reading and hearing the chorus of apologists, those participating in the pathetic little circus, only interested in winning, winning, winning, I hear this song:

Big man, pig man,
ha ha, charade you are
You well heeled big wheel,
ha ha, charade you are
And when your hand is on your heart
You're nearly a good laugh
Almost a joker
With your head down in the pig bin
Saying "keep on digging"
Pig stain on your fat chin
What do you hope to find?
When you're down in the pig mine
You're nearly a laugh
You're nearly a laugh
But you're really a cry.
   -Pink Floyd, Pigs (Three Different Ones)

I have both witnessed and been subject to discrimination.

It is not a matter of politics. It is not a matter of winning.

It is merely a matter of mindless hate.

Just as are many of the issues being used by both sides, supposed fundamentals that are really peripherals, nonetheless suitable for hyping and using to sharpen their spears of their partisans.

I wish I could say "how pathetic" and move on to the adult discussions that need to occur.

Sadly, however, the truly necessary discussions are drowned out by those interested in winning, winning, winning, despite the charades they are.

Left-wing, right-wing, I don't give a fucking damn who "wins".

I just want my country to be successful.

I don't foresee success, or even survival, by following the path we are currently traveling.

Yet I do not foresee success by listening to the left-wing, because they offer no viable alternative.

It cannot be history until you stop living it.

We cannot refuse an opportunity to appear to "make points" by making hay over the atrocities we committed in the past over race.

We cannot even get over race issues even now, 30 years later.

We cannot even get over issues related to "church versus state", after over 215 years of nationhood based upon separation of the secular from the religious.

It cannot be history until you stop living it.

Race-based discrimination is not the only mindlessness I'm referring to here.

Do your own math.

When will we move on to address the real problems facing us, putting aside the "my side should win or else" mentality of internal politics that is blinding us to the external threats?

We are on the road to our own destruction, and that destruction will arise from within, just as it has done for every other seemingly strong civilization. The list is long: the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans... and those are just the ones familiar to us insufficiently educated in truly world history, those of us in the West.

Read your history, and heed the warnings you will find, if you choose to see beyond your own partisan short-term gain.

Technorati Tags: commentary, opinion, personal, politics

A correction to what Blackfive asserts I "seem to believe"

In his discussion of the recent arguments over Guantanamo, Matt at Blackfive links to me with the following sentence:

Jack at Random Fate seems to believe that we're not better than those that oppose us and wants Gitmo shut down.

Apparently, people have been misunderstanding my fundamental point on the holding facility/prison at Guantanamo. I responded in the comments to his post:

I want to make one thing crystal clear:

I have never said that the US is no better than the terrorists or other "detainees" at Guantanamo.

My fundamental point is directed towards those who defend the prison there by saying things like "well, the terrorists do this". By their very arguments, they are saying, "well, even if we had some bad actors, our behavoirs are not bad because what our enemies do is worse."

That sort of moral relativism is typically decried in the loudest terms by the very people who are now using it to defend what has happened in Guantanamo.

To make it perfectly clear, what I am saying is that our standards must be independent of how our enemies behave, and our standards should be that at the minimum we treat our imprisoned enemies (prisoners, detainees, whatever you want to term them) at least as well as we would have our own treated if captured.

Since the facility at Guantanamo is not open to review of prisoner treatment in a clear and open fashion, then all the accusations of mistreatment gain credibility.

Since the facility at Guantanamo was built at that location specifically to be outside of the jurisdiction of the US legal system, it gives it an air of "something is rotten in Denmark".

If there was a clear review process, and if the facility was open for inspection by anyone, then the accusations of mistreatment would have no credibility.

Is maintaining an oubliette-type holding facility truly the way that an honorable nation acts?

I begin to wonder if some read any criticism of US behavior as equating us with the enemy.

If we don't hold ourselves accountable to high standards of behavior, who will?

A man, or a nation, of honor does not set the standards of his behavior by being "not as bad" as the enemy.

A man, or a nation, of honor does not do the expedient, easy thing at the cost of honor.

At times, behaving honorably does have a cost, but what cost is higher than that of lost honor?

In the past, the answer to that question was obvious.

And now?

From some of the same sources who cried that Clinton dishonored the Presidency by his behavior come statements like "no matter what we've done, our enemies have done worse."

Like everything else in this sordid age, honor is sacrificed on the altar of expediency.

Technorati Tags: opinion, politics

From the father of the Constitution...

...comes a concise statement of the mistrust of government, any government, that I hold:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In forming a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
   -James Madison

More on this later, when I answer a question posed in response to my definition of "moderate" and how it is different from "centrist".

Technorati Tags: fundamentals, opinion, quotes

For those on the right-wing...

...who cannot understand my fundamental reason for wanting to close the extra-legal prison at Guantanamo, perhaps this will provide sufficient incentive.

If we closed that prison and kept our "enemy combatants" in prisons that were both open to inspection and judicial review, we could refute accusations such as this:

Bush Issues a New Warning to Syria

June 11th, 2005 : Filed by ~A!

In a display of his colossal arrogance yet again, “president” George W. Bush issued another warning to Damascus yesterday, warning them to pull intelligence personnel out of Lebanon.

Our message to Syria – and it’s not just the message of the US; the UN has said the same thing – is that in order for Lebanon to be free,” Syria needs to “not only remove their military, but to remove intelligence officers as well.”

I’m not sure about anyone else who might be reading this, but I was taught that people in glass houses weren’t supposed to throw stones.

Bush talks a good game on freedom, and likes to tell other countries how they should run their elections, their governments, and treat their people. Meanwhile, we have how many people locked up in our gulag in Cuba without being charged with a crime? How many people abused and tortured by a military acting out the whims of their superiors?

There should be some kind of common-sense law that says you can’t tell people how to treat others until you can illustrate some ability to treat them yourself. If we’re going to be a model of human rights in the world, don’t we need to have some record of decent human rights?

I know, I know, “America has spread more freedom and liberty… blah blah blah” I’m not disputing the fact that America has done many, many things to further the safety and security of the people of this world. Of course we have. That doesn’t mean Bush has done any of it, nor his administration.

What the Bush administration has said about human rights and what they have done to erode them are two completely different things.

When Amnesty International was calling Saddam Hussein’s Baathists an oppressive regime, The US government was all too happy to use them as a source:

We know that it’s a repressive regime…Anyone who has read Amnesty International or any of the human rights organizations about how the regime of Saddam Hussein treats his people…

   Secretary Rumsfeld, 3/27/2003

But when it’s the US they’re talking about…..

Free societies depend on oversight and they welcome informed criticism, particularly on human rights issues. But those who make such outlandish charges lose any claim to objectivity or seriousness

Yes, Donny, free societies depend on oversight and welcome informed criticism. Good point. The Bush administration welcomes NO criticism, and suppresses oversight at every opportunity.

Truthfully, the people who have lost any claim to objectivity or seriousness are the people running the United States of America.

~A!

As long as we keep the prison at Guantanamo, we will be open to these charges.

As was written in The Economist over a year ago:

This claim that America is free do whatever it wishes with the Guantanamo prisoners is unworthy of a nation which has cherished the rule of law from its very birth, and represents a more extreme approach than it has taken even during periods of all-out war. It has alienated many other governments at a time when the effort to defeat terrorism requires more international co-operation in law enforcement than ever before. America's casual brushing aside of the Geneva Conventions, which require at least a review of each prisoner's status by an independent tribunal, made America's invocation of these same conventions on behalf of its own soldiers during the recent Iraq conflict sound hypocritical.

It is unworthy of us.

I have recently written of honor besmirched, a concept that I thought was at least held by those in our Armed Forces, along with those who had served in that cause.

Do any of you now understand why I oppose the prison at Guantanamo?

A clarification for my readers

I recently posted on my own concept of honor, and how I feel the honor of my country has been soiled and continues to be soiled by the choice of our government to maintain the extra-legal prison an Guantanamo Bay.

In that post, I disagreed with an assertion made by another blogger, someone whom I respect immensely.

I want to make it very clear I was not saying that the Average Tobacco Chewing Joe of Cadillac Tight has no sense of honor.

ATCJoe and I have had a relative long (in blogworld time) history of tussles and disagreements that have never degenerated to name-calling or a loss of respect for each other.

I want to make clear, unequivocally, that ATCJoe is at least as honorable as I am, perhaps more so.

For my regular readers, those that I have, I fully expect you to read what ATCJoe has to say with an open mind, and if you disagree with him, you can post comments in his weblog, but be sure to have both logic and facts upon your side, because he is a smart cookie, and tolerates fools no better than I do.

I tolerate those who do not respect my friends even less than I do fools.

Technorati Tags: opinion, personal, weblogs

Us versus the-rest-of-the-world

In an article discussing the move of Apple from PowerPC to Intel based processors I read this of all things:

(The Macintosh sycophancy) ...reminds me of another self-justifying group of Americans that will approve anything their party does, no matter what (apparently its leadership believes it's reasonable to frame all discourse as us versus the-rest-of-the-world; the rest of the world now including all dissenting Americans).

It seems you cannot get away from politics these days.

However, some others have noticed the same tendencies of "us versus the-rest-of-the-world, with the rest of the world now including all dissenting Americans". For example, the Commissar at The Politburo Diktat takes to task a prominent right-wing blog for using rhetoric that the Commissar feels is hateful:

Recently, here and here, I harshly criticized Captain Ed and other Main Stream Floggers. As far as this post today of Captain Ed's, a post whose tone matches the worst of Charlie Rangel, Howard Dean, and dKos, I regret what I said the other day. I regret that I did not denounce this hateful rhetoric in strong enough terms.

Another blogger asked me recently, "Do you still consider yourself a Republican? Yes, I do. And I ask in return, "Is Captain Ed's post Republican?" Is that what the GOP stands for? Waving the bloody shirt? Tarring anyone who disagrees with intransigence as a lyncher?

I suggest you read the entire post by the Commissar and the links he refers to, but please take his remarks in context. He does not necessarily agree with what follows.

Here is where I ask about fundamentals:

As I ask repeatedly, is this how we really want things to work?

Can we not frame things in any way other than "us versus the-rest-of-the-world , with the rest of the world now including all dissenting Americans"?

This seems to be the fundamental tactic of the current administration, with deliberate nominations of controversial figures for the purposes of both explicitly demonstrating the power of the administration in getting what it wants, and in rewarding those who have been personally loyal to the man who is currently President.

In other words, personal loyalty to George W. Bush is apparently perceived to be a more relevant qualification than any experience or other factors for any position.

Excuse me, but isn't this how any two-bit dictator, including the late yet unlamented regime in Iraq, operates?

Loyalty to an individual, NOT to the system.

Take a step outside of your partisan prejudices for a moment and look at the bigger picture.

Look at history, look at where we have been, and in light of that, look at where we appear to be going.

The current administration is pushing for making the USA PATRIOT Act permanent, and Congress is attempting to even expand the ability of the FBI and other government agencies to conduct searches with no judicial review. The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee holding hearings on the renewal isn't even willing to hear dissenting voices.

The current administration has signed the RealID Act, a bill passed without any kind of public hearing or input, which provides an easy way for large corporations to gather information on and track any individual along with increasing government surveillance of individuals, not to mention what the identity thieves will be able to do in terms of invading privacy (oh, and by they way, this ill-thought out bill was sponsored and pushed by the very same man who refused to listen to any dissenting voices on renewal and extension of the USA PATRIOT Act).

How long before I, a patriotic American, am regarded as a "person of interest" because I am an expatriate in France?

Will I have to give up any semblance of privacy in order for me to return to my country of birth?

How long before you, who posts on a weblog, is regarded as a "person of interest" because you wrote something that didn't conform with the government line?

The preamble to our Constitution states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This was written by men who had not so long before fought and risked death for treason to establish their liberties.

What are the Blessings of Liberty?

Do those Blessings include establishing an extra-legal prison?

Do those Blessings include establishing the precedent that the President can declare anyone, US citizen or not, an enemy combatant with no recourse to any review, and no right to counsel?

Do those Blessings include establishing a mandatory national ID card that is machine readable, as outlined by the RealID Act?

Do those Blessings include establishing a system where dissenting voices are ignored and cut off?

Men fought and died to give us the Blessings of Liberty that we have enjoyed.

Men fought and died to defend the honor of our nation.

Are we honoring their legacy?

My answer: No, we are not, instead we are throwing it away and most don't even notice, while others who claim to be patriots cheer.

Technorati Tags: commentary, opinion, politics, weblogs

So much for democracy, then

I'm still busy downloading and installing software for my resurrected Mac, but here is some news courtesy of Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice that shows the true commitment of the Republican Party to democracy.

Since many are willing to use the actions of a few to condemn the whole, I will follow their example, especially since those who are providing the said example voted Republican in the last election.

Any questions?

Is this how you want your government run?

Is it now "my party, my wing, my side, right or wrong" even when it damages our democracy and our country?

For some, that appears to be the case. Is it for you?

Technorati Tags: commentary, opinion, politics

A deeply held belief in the concept of "honor"

UPDATE: For those coming here from Blackfive, I have a correction to his assertion, "Jack at Random Fate seems to believe that we're not better than those that oppose us and wants Gitmo shut down." After you read my original post below, please be sure to see my response to the incorrect statement that I place a moral equivalence between the US and the terrorists:

A correction to what Blackfive asserts I "seem to believe"

---

This has been a very difficult post to write.

It is not intended as a simple partisan screed but instead tries to describe something that strikes to the heart of my beliefs.

Those who will understand need no elaboration by the time they finish reading. Those who do not understand need far more explanation than I can give by mere text in less than a book-length dissertation on the concepts and emotions that are the foundation of what I am writing.

Let me start with the foundations before I get to the heart of the matter.

I have written recently on what it means to be a moderate, and how what I mean when I use the word "moderate" is not the same as "centrist".

In my definition of "moderate" I did not outline what they might believe other than this:

A moderate can be of any political stripe or agglomeration of beliefs. The defining characteristic of a moderate is a willingness to acknowledge that beliefs other than those held by the moderate cannot and should not be dismissed out of hand.

I did not choose to define a centrist because of lack of time. I did admit the need for additional discussion, however.

I am both a centrist and a moderate in many matters, using the definition of a centrist as someone who does not adhere to the extreme views of either the left or right wings in many issues.

However, there are some concepts upon which I could reasonably be described as extreme.

The one that lies behind the origin of this post is the concept of honor.

I was raised in the South of the United States, specifically the region around Memphis, Tennessee. I visited the battlefield of Shiloh as a Boy Scout before I was a teenager, exposed both to the rugged landscape upon which that terrible battle was fought and initiated into the tragedies that accompany any war that prompts brother to fight against brother.

Even now, the concept of honor still exists in the South of the United States, perhaps more than in the rest of our great nation, at least in my experience.

However, it is not taught formally, or even informally.

I can never recall my father ever saying the word "honor" to me.

I can never recall my father ever saying to me that I had to uphold some kind of ideal that he held.

Yet, I saw him uphold what he held as honorable.

I saw him do things that were directed towards larger ideals than his immediate gratification, or to the immediate benefit to his wife and children.

I have seen my father's pain, while not expressed in words but instead shown in other, more subtle ways, a pain of the soul caused by the betrayal of his younger brother to the honor of our family when that man disappeared, abandoning his wife and children for a secret life he had constructed.

From these lessons I have learned of a concept of honor that I cannot deny or reject, all the more so because it was taught by actions and not words.

So to me, what is honor?

It is difficult to describe in mere words, but I will try because it is truly important to get to the final point that I wish to show; the entire reason I am writing this.

Honor is the adherence to higher ideals than those of everyday life.

Honor is the adherence to higher ideals than is convenient for the moment.

Honor is the adherence to higher ideals than might be beneficial even in the long run.

Honor is the adherence to higher ideals...

If you haven't gotten the message yet, honor is the adherence to ideals beyond the self, beyond immediate gratification, beyond retribution upon those who offend us, beyond the exigencies of the moment.

So, to those of you who claim that moderates or centrists have no deeply held beliefs or ideals and only sway with the prevailing breeze, I completely and utterly refute you, because I do indeed have ideals that go beyond what is popular and what is current, and yet I am still a moderate and in many ways a centrist.

As a consequence, I am about to call out someone whom I list as a brother even though he and I have never met, because I feel he has gone against one of the ideals I thought we had in common, the ideal of honor.

Again this raises the question, what is honor?

What are these so-called "higher ideals"?

I can only describe what they are to me, but mere words cannot convey the concepts nor the deep feelings I have about them.

Honor.

There are certain lines that are not to be crossed.

There are certain actions that are unacceptable.

There are certain attitudes that cannot be held.

What are these lines, what are these actions, what are these attitudes?

Here is what they are to me:

You should always act in a way that is honorable, regardless of how others behave or act.

You should always try to respect other people, because they are human, just as you are.

You should always try to understand others, because they are human, and just as alone in the world as you are.

You should always try to avoid passing judgment independent of a jury-based court system, because you are as fallible as anyone else.

You should always remember that you are human, and you have no more and no less insight into the mind of God than anyone else.

As a consequence, a post by the Average Tobacco-Chewing Joe at Cadillac Tight disturbed me, because I had always thought that he and I shared a similar concept of honor.

The post: one called "Ditto" where in the comments I asked:

I want to be entirely clear on this:

Are you saying you don't care or not if we hold ourselves to higher standards than those (or lack thereof, rather) that we see in our enemies?

I want to be very clear if that is what you are saying, because upon first, second, and third reads it appears this is exactly what you are saying.

If so, expect a response with both barrels.

If not, I'll listen to what you ARE saying.

The reply to my query:

Go ahead and blow a gasket, Jack.

If you can look at that little girl's picture over at Dean's World, and still worry about our standards in relation to theirs, when the question involved is mishandling a fucking BOOK, and you still want to blow a gasket, be my guest.

Especially in light of this report:

All the headlines about "Abuse of the Koran at Gitmo" are absolutely accurate. Brig. Gen. Jay Hood's internal investigation has uncovered some shocking incidents. On at least six occasions, Korans were ripped up. They were urinated on three times, and attempts were made to flush them down the toilet at least three other times.

Why aren't millions of Muslims rioting in response to these defilements? Because the perpetrators were prisoners, not guards. As John Hinderaker notes on weeklystandard.com, the most serious desecrations of the Koran at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility were committed by the Muslim inmates themselves.

So they rip up, piss on, and attempt to flush their own book, then they want to piss and moan when a couple of incidents involving guards who are supervising TERRORISTS occur?

And in the meantime, they're blowing up children and flying planes into buildings.

No, I don't care about Koran "desecration". Not one damn bit.

From my reading (and Joe is free to correct me if my reading is wrong), because a few self-proclaimed Muslims have chosen to desecrate their own holy book, and because a few self-proclaimed Muslims have chosen to commit atrocities, we should feel free to act however we please towards that which is held sacred by millions of other Muslims who have not committed these acts?

This is coming from a man who appears to equate desecration of the American flag, which by NO MEANS WHATSOEVER is regarded as a religious symbol, to desecration of the Qur'an?

This is coming from a man who posted a link from Donald Sensing where it is explained how the Qur'an is the literal word of God to Muslims?

This is coming from a man who speaks out for the honor of our armed forces upon every occasion on which they are impinged?

I am sorry, Joe, but your statement of:

So they rip up, piss on, and attempt to flush their own book, then they want to piss and moan when a couple of incidents involving guards who are supervising TERRORISTS occur?

And in the meantime, they're blowing up children and flying planes into buildings.

No, I don't care about Koran "desecration". Not one damn bit.

speaks of a moral relativism that I see decried repeatedly by those on the right-wing, and is completely opposite of my concept of honor.

It does not matter how others react to these actions.

We must behave honorably regardless of how those in our custody behave, including respecting the religion held in deep faith by millions who do NOT behave as those in custody do.

Otherwise, why should they not hate us, for if we are to take the acts of individuals as condemning the entire society, then our actions at Abu Ghirab are more than enough to condemn the entire West according to the eyes of Muslims...

According to those millions of devout, non-offending Muslims the Qur'an itself and any printed versions of it are the literal Word of God...

...and you say it is OK to piss on it because a few bad actors in our custody do so.

Is that the zero-sum game you want to play?

Is a "tit for tat" mentality truly your idea of behaving honorably?

I cannot believe that it is, Joe, and I can only hope that you were speaking out of anger, for if that truly your method of thinking, then we are not the brothers I thought we were.

I may strive to be a moderate, and I may endeavor to be a centrist, but in matters of honor, I readily admit to being an extremist.

We MUST behave honorably regardless of how dishonorably our foes may act.

In this case, I am an extremist, and if we diverge on this, I truly regret it, for this is a matter upon which I will not budge.


UPDATE: Joe has responded on his own blog, and I recommend you read his response in full.

My reply in the comments to his response:

So you say it is OK to desecrate the Qur'an because a few people who call themselves Muslim desecrate it?

That is the gist of your post here and the one I linked to.

Therefore, it is OK to say that *all Christians* are evil based upon the acts of a few who call themselves "Christian".

Therefore, it is OK to say the *entire* US Army are torturers based upon the acts of a few who have been convicted in Courts Martial.

THIS is the stance you are defending.

No straw men here, none other than the ones YOU YOURSELF are presenting.

So, defend away the actions of the US Army and the Christians since you are so ready to condemn *ALL Muslims* and accept desecrations of what THEY hold holy based upon the acts of a few, but use the SAME standards as you do for the Muslims, otherwise, you can draw your own conclusions regarding YOUR honor and honesty...

Otherwise, your condemnations of desecrations of the American flag ring rather hollow...

I normally try my best to find a middle ground, but in this case, I cannot because it involves what I see to be the honor of my country.

The honor of my country does not allow for accounting of how badly our enemies behave, otherwise using any standard of equal behavior we would be beheading those in Guantanamo by now.

We must BE better than those who oppose us.

Since shooting the messenger is now the national sport...

...how long before this man is branded a traitor by those who don't want to hear his message?

Good Intentions Gone Bad
NEWSWEEK's Baghdad bureau chief, departing after two years of war and American occupation, has a few final thoughts.

By Rod Nordland
Newsweek

June 13 issue - Two years ago I went to Iraq as an unabashed believer in toppling Saddam Hussein. I knew his regime well from previous visits; WMDs or no, ridding the world of Saddam would surely be for the best, and America's good intentions would carry the day. What went wrong? A lot, but the biggest turning point was the Abu Ghraib scandal. Since April 2004 the liberation of Iraq has become a desperate exercise in damage control. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib alienated a broad swath of the Iraqi public. On top of that, it didn't work. There is no evidence that all the mistreatment and humiliation saved a single American life or led to the capture of any major terrorist, despite claims by the military that the prison produced "actionable intelligence."

---

The most powerful army in human history can't even protect a two-mile stretch of road. The Airport Highway connects both the international airport and Baghdad's main American military base, Camp Victory, to the city center. At night U.S. troops secure the road for the use of dignitaries; they close it to traffic and shoot at any unauthorized vehicles. More troops and more helicopters could help make the whole country safer. Instead the Pentagon has been drawing down the number of helicopters. And America never deployed nearly enough soldiers. They couldn't stop the orgy of looting that followed Saddam's fall. Now their primary mission is self-defense at any cost -- which only deepens Iraqis' resentment.

The four-square-mile Green Zone, the one place in Baghdad where foreigners are reasonably safe, could be a showcase of American values and abilities. Instead the American enclave is a trash-strewn wasteland of Mad Max-style fortifications. The traffic lights don't work because no one has bothered to fix them. The garbage rarely gets collected. Some of the worst ambassadors in U.S. history are the GIs at the Green Zone's checkpoints. They've repeatedly punched Iraqi mini