Random Fate

Some on the right are beginning to notice...

...that they are not getting what they voted for.

In other words, the neoconservative agenda is not what it promised to be.

Warning - this one is long... with subheadings...

Anyone who thinks this is black and white has not read up on the subject...

Professor Bainbridge, at his eponymous weblog, has apparently stopped toeing the party line:

It's time for us conservatives to face facts. George W. Bush has pissed away the conservative moment by pursuing a war of choice via policies that border on the criminally incompetent. We control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and (more-or-less) the judiciary for one of the few times in my nearly 5 decades, but what have we really accomplished? Is government smaller? Have we hacked away at the nanny state? Are the unborn any more protected? Have we really set the stage for a durable conservative majority?

Meanwhile, Bush continues to insult our intelligence with tripe like this:

"Our troops know that they're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy," Bush said in his weekly radio address. {Ed: Full text here}

"They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war," he said.

I guess that's all he has left. After all, if Iraq's alleged WMD programs were the casus belli, why aren't we at war with Iran and North Korea? Not to mention Pakistan, which remains the odds-on favorite to supply the Islamofascists with a working nuke. If Saddam's cruelty to his own people was the casus belli, why aren't we taking out Kim Jong Il or any number of other nasty dictators? Indeed, what happened to the W of 2000, who correctly proclaimed nation building a failed cause and an inappropriate use of American military might? And why are we apparently going to allow the Islamists to write a more significant role for Islamic law into the new Iraqi constitution? If throwing a scare into the Saudis was the policy, so as to get them to rethink their deals with the jihadists, which has always struck me as the best rationale for the war, have things really improved on that front?

The trouble with Bush's justification for the war is that it uses American troops as fly paper. Send US troops over to Iraq, where they'll attract all the terrorists, who otherwise would have come here, and whom we'll then kill. This theory has proven fallacious. The first problem is that the American people are unwilling to let their soldiers be used as fly paper. If Iraq has proven anything, it has confirmed for me the validity of the Powell Doctrine.

---

While we remain bogged down in Iraq, of course, Osama bin Laden remains at large somewhere. Multi-tasking is all the rage these days, but whatever happened to finishing a job you started? It strikes me that catching Osama would have done a lot more to discourage the jihadists than anything we've done in Iraq.

These are points that if made by someone on the left side of the political spectrum, they would be immediately be dismissed as "partisan politics" by the right-wingers in blogworld.

With them coming from an avowedly and proudly self-proclaimed conservative from the old mold, if the discussion quoted above is any indication of his provenance, can the accusation of "partisan" continue to be leveled at any and every one who condemns the new-mint neoconservative policies that appear to have if not completely failed, have fallen far, far short of what was promised by the acolytes of the new faith?

It's hard to answer what is wrong, when nothing is right...

Meanwhile, political science professor Dr. Stephen Taylor (who from my reading at least appears to be right-leaning) at PoliBlog offers this concern regarding the current draft of the proposed Iraq constitution:

I have long wondered if the usage of “federalism” in the press is accurate, and have thought for a while that it was not (and Shugart’s post today confirms it). Indeed, what seems to be on the table is a form of confederalism or a strange hybrid of kinda-sorta-federalism with a unitary government–neither of which is a very good idea.

Indeed, this sounds like a potential disaster–but I will think some more on the topic and wait and see what is actually in the document.

In short: the confederal version (a Kurd zone, a Shiite zone and a Sunni zone) is a recipe for breakup, and a Kurd + the rest of Iraq version seems to equal a relatively quick exit for the Kurds, which would cause problems with the rest of Iraq, not to mention Turkey and Iran.

Did they not consult with anyone who knows something about constitution design and institution arrangements? It would appear not.

And at this point I am more prone to believe the negative assessment vis-a-vis getting a draft to parliament, rather than the optimistic one.

To say that his analysis and questions are troubling is an understatement.

Elsewhere in the world, since both Iran and Kim Jong Il, the dictator in charge of a North Korea that likely has the very nuclear weapons that Iraq was discovered to NOT have, a regime that desperately needs hard currency incidentally, has already been mentioned by Professor Bainbridge, perhaps we should discuss what I have often argued is the true medium to long-term existential threat to the United States, which is China, not terrorism (a tactic, not an ideology) or Islamofascism:

China today differs from Japan in 1980s
Country may be a far tougher force to reckon with going forward

Associated Press
Updated: 4:59 p.m. ET Aug. 21, 2005

NEW YORK - It sounds like history repeating itself: The United States faces a huge trade deficit with an Asian country, which is also under intense scrutiny for its interest in buying U.S. assets and having a currency many deem undervalued.

Today, that best describes how China is viewed. Two decades ago, Japan came under similar attack for its growing global presence, and that spurred all sorts of protectionist talk out of Washington.

The Japanese hysteria eventually died down as the country fell into a long recession. But don't look for that to happen with China, where its politics combined with its potential for growth may make it a far tougher force to reckon with going forward.

---

There are also significant political differences between the two. While the Chinese have been more open to foreign investment than Japan, there are some concerns that the communist political structure means that the Chinese won't embrace all kinds of foreign involvement such as an American company buying a big Chinese company.

In addition, Standard & Poor's chief economist David Wyss points out that China's huge population — which he estimates is 10 times as large as Japan's — means that China has the capability of taking over world production of just about everything.

So talking about China today as though it were Japan 20 years ago might not accurately size up the situation of this fast-growing empire. China's might just be beginning to build its power as an economic force.

To the dismay of many Americans, that will likely mean a bigger, bolder China to contend with for many years to come.

If we do not defeat ourselves through our over-reactions to perceived dangers by passing or making permanent laws such as the USA PATRIOT Act that arguably are unconstitutional (the requirement of judicial approval for search warrants, anyone?) and other ineffective but freedom-denying actions that degrade the very liberties we proclaim to be defending, then we may very well not be able to combat the economic threat posed by China.

Recall, we did not defeat the Soviet empire through a direct war. We won through other means.

In other words, "It's the economy, stupid."

Think of the Web as a big bathroom wall, and everyone has a marker...

Those bloggers and professional editorialists who repeat the current right-wing talking points blame the so-called "liberal media" for poisoning the atmosphere regarding Iraq by the insidious plan of the heinous MainStream Media (MSM) to only present the bad news out of Iraq while completely ignoring the good news.

An aside here, if I had to don body armor and only go out with an armed platoon of the US military to "report" on the situation outside the infamous Green Zone in Baghdad, I would question the efficacy of the occupation of Iraq, too.

However, returning to the substance of the accusation of a "biased media", it is interesting to observe that many of these same writers who are claiming that the supposedly biased media are turning the citizens of the United States against the policies of the administration in Iraq, implying that citizens are incapable of making their own judgments and instead swallow what they are fed by the MSM whole, are the very same writers who were proudly proclaiming that those very same average citizens are now miraculously smart enough to make their own choices regarding retirement planning and investing, so it is vital (according to the right-wing talking points) for both fairness and the future of the retirement system that we make Personal Accounts a key part of the Social Security system.

Do you sense an inconsistency here that is rather insulting to the "average Joe", just as insulting as is the arrogance of the left-wing?

At times I suspect that both extreme wings suffer from the same syndrome of hubris and smug certainty that they are the only ones who know what is right, but the right-wing is better able to come across as "folksy" while the left-wing doesn't hide their own version of the same elitist arrogance at all.

I wonder, which is truly more honest...

Anything can be put to use, even the dead...

In an ironic symmetry, recently John Donovan of Castle Argghhh!, a milblogger who leans right but is happy to engage in reasonable discussion, posted on his agreement with a Christopher Hitchens article in Slate decrying using the dead to make a political point, a condemnation that I agreed with if applied to both wings equally. Hitchens wrote:

Finally, I think one must deny to anyone the right to ventriloquize the dead. Casey Sheehan joined up as a responsible adult volunteer. Are we so sure that he would have wanted to see his mother acquiring "a knack for P.R." and announcing that he was killed in a war for a Jewish cabal? This is just as objectionable, on logical as well as moral grounds, as the old pro-war argument that the dead "must not have died in vain." I distrust anyone who claims to speak for the fallen, and I distrust even more the hysterical noncombatants who exploit the grief of those who have to bury them.

Yet today, Blackfive, a milblogger who also leans right but doesn't seem to drink the right-wing kool-aid wrote this at his eponymous weblog (NOTE - bolded italics added):

One point (and not critical of the above post by my pal Andi), I really do object to using the name "Sheehan" to identify the protests. I doubt very much that Army Specialist Casey Sheehan would appreciate that. Instead, let's call it Cindy-fest or something else. Cindy-land. Cindy-stock. Anything but Casey's name.

To put it bluntly, Blackfive has just ventriloquized the dead by stating that he knows better than what the mother of Army Specialist Casey Sheehan knows her son, the dead Casey Sheehan, would appreciate.

Ventriloquizing the dead? Everyone is doing it.

I know the irony was unintentional, but that is what makes it all the more cold and hard.

The only lesson history has taught us is that man has not yet learned anything from history...

Even though I did not like George W. Bush even before he became President of the United States, recent trends are not good for our nation (thanks to Jonathan Singer posting at The Moderate Voice for the link):

George W. Bush's overall job approval ratings have dropped from a month ago even as Americans who approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president are turning more optimistic about their personal financial situations according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 58% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 33% approve and 62% disapprove.

Among Americans registered to vote, 38% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 56% disapprove, and 36% approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 60% disapprove.

This is the second month in a row when improving economic ratings have not been matched by higher job approval ratings for Bush. A total of 24% of Americans now say their personal financial situations are getting better, up from 17% in July, and 27% say they believe that their personal financial situations will be better off a year from now, which is up from 21% in July.

(Full disclosure: I lived in Texas long before George W. Bush became President and observed his performance then... along with the very American tendency that I do not like sons of privilege who have never held a real job, or even any job that was not acquired through who your father is rather than what you have actually accomplished on your own... I ask the hyper-partisan among you to give me an example of where any business that George W. Bush was in charge of prospered under his leadership, or indeed any job he did not get through who he was related to but instead based upon his qualifications and what he had achieved)

How can any American who is interested in the success of his nation, regardless of his partisan leanings, take joy in this?

I take no joy in it, because it shows the failure we are undergoing despite the price we have paid in treasure and, far more importantly, lives both lost and damaged beyond any repair we can give them.

It only gets worse, however:

Militias wrest control across Iraq’s north, south
Newly empowered Shiite, Kurdish forces hold mixed allegiances

By Anthony Shadid and Steve Fainaru
The Washington Post
Updated: 6:19 a.m. ET Aug. 21, 2005

BASRA, Iraq - Shiite and Kurdish militias, often operating as part of Iraqi government security forces, have carried out a wave of abductions, assassinations and other acts of intimidation, consolidating their control over territory across northern and southern Iraq and deepening the country's divide along ethnic and sectarian lines, according to political leaders, families of the victims, human rights activists and Iraqi officials.

While Iraqi representatives wrangle over the drafting of a constitution in Baghdad, forces represented by the militias and the Shiite and Kurdish parties that control them are creating their own institutions of authority, unaccountable to elected governments, the activists and officials said. In Basra in the south, dominated by the Shiites, and Mosul in the north, ruled by the Kurds, as well as cities and villages around them, many residents say they are powerless before the growing sway of the militias, which instill a climate of fear that many see as redolent of the era of former president Saddam Hussein.

Militias gain power, but authority unclear

The parties and their armed wings are sometimes operating independently, and other times as part of Iraqi army and police units trained and equipped by the United States and Britain and controlled by the central government. Their growing authority has enabled them to seize territory, confront their perceived enemies and provide patronage to their followers. Their rise has come because of a power vacuum in Baghdad and their own success in the January elections.

Since the formation of a government this spring, Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, has witnessed dozens of assassinations, claiming members of the former ruling Baath Party, Sunni political leaders and officials of competing Shiite parties. Many have been carried out by uniformed men in police vehicles, according to political leaders and families of the victims, with some of the bullet-riddled bodies dumped at night in a trash-strewn parcel known as The Lot. The province's governor said in an interview that Shiite militias have penetrated the police force; an Iraqi official estimated that as many as 90 percent of officers were loyal to religious parties.

Across northern Iraq, Kurdish parties have employed a previously undisclosed network of at least five detention facilities to incarcerate hundreds of Sunni Arabs, Turkmens and other minorities abducted and secretly transferred from Mosul, Iraq's third-largest city, and from territories stretching to the Iranian border, according to political leaders and detainees' families. Nominally under the authority of the U.S.-backed Iraqi army, the militias have beaten up and threatened government officials and political leaders deemed to be working against Kurdish interests; one bloodied official was paraded through a town in a pickup truck, witnesses said.

Violence a black mark on U.S.?

"I don't see any difference between Saddam and the way the Kurds are running things here," said Nahrain Toma, who heads a human rights organization, Betnahrain, with offices in northern Iraq and has faced several death threats.

Toma said the tactics were eroding what remained of U.S. credibility as the militias operate under what many Iraqis view as the blessing of American and British forces. "Nobody wants anything to do with the Americans anymore," she said. "Why? Because they gave the power to the Kurds and to the Shiites. No one else has any rights."

There is more, and none of it promising.

In other words, if not a complete and utter failure of the administration's handling of the post-war situation in Iraq, the reality there is far, far from a ringing endorsement of the policies and leadership.

Yet, the warbloggers who chanted "weapons of mass destruction" for months and months before and after March of 2003 until ultimately they were proven completely and totally wrong continue their drone of unquestioning support despite the incompetence their revered leaders have shown.

Is it any wonder that this poem from almost a century ago, written in the wake of the First World War seems even more applicable now?

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
   -William Butler Yeats, January 1919

After pulling together all of these seemingly disparate threads and slogging through all of this text, one must ask what is the pattern?

The answer is simple.

We are being distracted by things that are not true threats, and neglecting the real perils to our nation.

Islamofascism?

Yes, it is dangerous, but will it ever overthrow our government unless we help it from within through ill-considered laws that are contrary to the liberties envisioned by our founders?

No.

China and other rising powers in Asia (including India, the largest democracy in the world)?

That is where the real confrontation to our current pre-eminent position of power technologically, economically, and militarily (for the three are linked far more profoundly than most realize) in the world lies.

How do cultures die?

When they are more concerned with internecine conflicts over ideologies that are more similar than the fundamental culture is to the external threats opposed to them.

We have to step outside our ideology, outside our partisan talking points, and deliberately choose to look at the world as it is.

The consequences if we do not?

I leave the rest of the math as an exercise to the reader.

Technorati Tags: commentary, patterns in the white noise, politics, right-wing, right-wing politics, right-wing weblogs, some thoughts

...on using Newtonian Physics in an Einsteinian universe

Back when I was in high school and college, there was a BBC series that was rebroadcast on PBS called "Connections", and as has become the custom with most shows on public broadcasting in the US now, it had an accompanying book, Connections, nominally, and in this case likely, written by the presenter of the series, James Burke.

This series (and book) showed how seemingly disparate discoveries in science and technology were connected together, hence the title.

For example, did you know that restrictions on the ivory trade created a connection between billiard balls and the development of the atomic bomb?

The series and the book were filled with odd but relevant threads that run through the history of science and technology.

There were two subsequent series named (inevitably, sometimes with the numbers as superscripts to imply "squared" and "cubed"...) "Connections 2" and "Connections 3", along with yet another series that focused on connections between events that were a bit more momentous, called The Day the Universe Changed.

It was the first series and book (both sadly very hard to find now) that had the most profound effect upon the development of my thought.

Other things I have learned have also had significant effects on the patterns of my thinking.

For example, the thought-experiments, the gedankenexperiments of Einstein or Schrodinger that ultimately revealed the limitations of Newtonian Physics when it came to the realm of extremes, where in acceleration or size, and resulted in the formulation of the theories of Relativity (both Special and General Relativity) and Quantum Mechanics (with all of its permutations).

In other words, Newtonian Physics was sufficient to explain the vast majority of everyday phenomena, but the universe changed (or our perception of the universe changed) once the failure of Newtonian Physics was revealed in the extremes.

Our perceptions went from a clockwork system of Newtonian Physics to the relativities of an Einsteinian universe and the probabilities and uncertainties of Quantum Physics.

That change in perception created an upheaval that had not been seen before in the argumentative but ultimately sedate realm of science, and that kind of shock has not happened since.

Einstein provided many different insights into Physics, not just the Theory of Relativity. He also provided insights that helped lead to the development of Quantum Theory. The class that had the largest effect on my mode of thinking when I was in graduate school was in Statistical Mechanics, which provides a Quantum Mechanics foundation to Classical Thermodynamics, which is a field that causes most engineers to groan and proclaim, "I hated that class!!!"

Learning the quantum statistics that underlie the classical conceptions forced me to look for the hidden foundations behind the conventionally accepted "realities", and my world has never been the same.

A "quantum leap" in physics is a very small change in energy states, but in common parlance it has become slang for a huge change in fundamental beliefs and principles, in no small part because of the foundational shift in thinking required to change from Newtonian to Quantum realities that Physicists were forced to undergo at the beginning of the Twentieth Century.

We are in sore need of a "quantum leap" now.

Simple, linear thinking was fine for a bipolar Cold War world, but in our brave New World Order which is far more disorderly than those who boldly proclaimed an end to history imagined, linearity and bipolarity are both luxuries we can ill afford.

Our old model to understand the world and its threats is completely inadequate. The world has changed, yet we are like the Physicists at the turn of the Twentieth Century, still using Newtonian Physics to try to understand and make predictions in the complexities of an Einsteinian universe.

Classical Physics worked for many years, for centuries, and in many situations still provides results that are useful on a practical scale. When the situation changes because of scale of either relative velocity or size, or both, the Newtonian models break down and yield results that are completely wrong.

Simple, linear thinking worked for many years, for centuries, and in many situations still provides results that are useful on a practical scale. When the situation changes because of the scale of either relative populations or cultural collisions, or both, the linear models break down and yield results that are completely wrong.

Linear thinking in a complex, multifaceted, nonlinear world is simple-minded at best, and can lead to catastrophe.

Yet, most thinking on both the left and right in America is still linear, us-versus-them, whether "them" consists of the political opposition or "the terrorists", whatever that nebulous term really means.

For in the end, what does "terrorism" mean? In these days when we are about to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the first use of an atomic weapon in warfare, and where we recently commemorated the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the death camps created in Europe by the fascist regimes led by Nazi Germany the question has not been fully answered, and not the least because of the tactics used by the victors of six decades past.

Germany set up a deliberate mass-murder holocaust directed against a group because of their religion, and Japan practiced genocidal warfare on a scale still not fully recognized in the West. Both Germany and Japan were defeated by the United States and allies using tactics that today would be called "terrorist" by the bombing of cities in nominal aims of disrupting production of vital war materiel in campaigns that by even the standards of the day were indiscriminate. The fires of Dresden and Tokyo stand in accusation of the terrorist aspect of the assaults.

These tactics are defended as what was necessary to defeat evil.

In these days of the Global War on Terror, who has the privilege of defining what is "evil" so that terrorist tactics can be used to defeat it?

If "evil" is that which seeks to destroy your culture and way of life, then can we truly call the Islamofascists "evil" when in their eyes the West, led by the United States, is destroying what they believe to be the basis of Islamic culture and way of life, and they use terrorist tactics to defeat what they perceive as "evil"?

"Evil" and "good", the two sides of the edgeless coin of bipolar thinking.

One side or the other, impossible for the coin to land on a nonexistent edge that might bridge between the two sides.

Bipolar.

Simple.

Clean.

Easy.

The simple, bipolar-linear thinking of those who cry, "All Islam is evil" and "Kill the terrorists" and "If you're not 100% in agreement with me, you're against me!" leads to the kind of contradiction where a simple change of viewpoint makes what was once "good" become "evil", where the only difference between the Islamofascists and "us" is what and whom we choose to protect, and not how we define "evil" if "evil" is "that which is trying to destroy our culture and way of life".

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
   -William Shakespeare, "Hamlet", Act 1 scene 5

At small scales or high relative velocities, Newtonian Physics breaks down, and if actions are taken based upon the predictions of Newtonian Physics, disaster can follow. Even in the (comparatively) simple Physics involved with space shuttle and satellite operations, NASA takes Einsteinian factors into account.

Should we do any less when determining strategy for the survival and success of our nation?

What are the fundamentals?

What are the forces that underly the effects we see?

How can we blunt those forces and redirect them to paths that do not result in more enemies for us?

Do not merely label the opposition "evil".

To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
   -Sun-Tzu

While "torture them until they spill all" may be satisfying on a visceral level, does it really move us towards our real goals?

The best vengeance is living well.

We cannot live well if we create as many enemies as we kill or imprison.

What are the fundamentals?

What are the forces that underly the effects we see?

How can we blunt those forces and redirect them to paths that do not result in more enemies for us?

Even with a full toolbox to support him, for a simple-minded man holding a hammer every problem is a nail, and the results are disastrous, predictably so for those who see the toolbox, but sadly not for the simple-minded man who only sees the hammer in his hand.

We must stop using Newtonian Physics in our Einsteinian universe.

Yes, the math is harder now, but are our goals not worth the effort of thought necessary?

---

UPDATE: I have posted a follow-up to clarify some points entitled "Forest and trees".

Technorati Tags: patterns in the white noise, personal, some thoughts

For those who like to say "We're number one!"...

...here is an FYI for you:

U.S. burned in branding survey

Overseas Consumers Increasingly Shunning U.S. Brand Name Products

The decline and decline of Brand America

Read all of them, thoroughly, and then stop looking through the prism of your own beliefs to see how the rest of the world views America.

And think about how that just might affect us economically.

We won the Cold War through our economic strengths.

We sustain our powerful military through our world-leading economy.

What if the economy is no longer world-leading?

Do the math, in this case, both figuratively and literally.

Technorati Tags: commentary, patterns in the white noise

...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

A revealing choice

If this is the first use of the veto by President George W. Bush, his choice will speak volumes.

White House threatens veto on detainee policies

By Vicki Allen
Thu Jul 21, 7:45 PM ET

The White House on Thursday threatened to veto a massive Senate bill for $442 billion in next year's defense programs if it moves to regulate the Pentagon's treatment of detainees or sets up a commission to investigate operations at Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere.

The Bush administration, under fire for the indefinite detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and questions over whether its policies led to horrendous abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, put lawmakers on notice it did not want them legislating on the matter.

In a statement, the White House said such amendments would "interfere with the protection of Americans from terrorism by diverting resources from the war."

"If legislation is presented that would restrict the president's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice," the bill could be vetoed, the statement said.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), who endured torture as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said after meeting at the Capitol with Vice President Dick Cheney that he still intended to offer amendments next week "on the standard of treatment of prisoners."

He has called himself a "war President". It appears to me he is a "no accountability for the executive branch President".

There is so much more I could say, none of which would change the minds of anyone who is not willing to think beyond their own already settled conclusions.

Those who are willing to think will come to their own conclusions with no prompting from me.

In other words: Do the math, it's easy if you try.

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

The road to Hell...

...is paved with good intentions, the ancient proverb states.

So what are we to make of this:

Interrogators at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, forced a stubborn detainee to wear women's underwear on his head, confronted him with snarling military working dogs and attached a leash to his chains, according to a newly released military investigation that shows the tactics were employed there months before military police used them on detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The techniques, approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for use in interrogating Mohamed Qahtani -- the alleged "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- were used at Guantanamo Bay in late 2002 as part of a special interrogation plan aimed at breaking down the silent detainee.

Military investigators who briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday on the three-month probe, called the tactics "creative" and "aggressive" but said they did not cross the line into torture.

The report's findings are the strongest indication yet that the abusive practices seen in photographs at Abu Ghraib were not the invention of a small group of thrill-seeking military police officers. The report shows that they were used on Qahtani several months before the United States invaded Iraq.

The investigation also supports the idea that soldiers believed that placing hoods on detainees, forcing them to appear nude in front of women and sexually humiliating them were approved interrogation techniques for use on detainees.

As Pennywit states with the eloquence of brevity, "The thing, as they say, speaks for itself."

Next, what are we to make of this:

Washington, meanwhile, is an echo chamber of Rove's agents. His lawyer, Robert Luskin, has trashed Cooper: "By any definition, he burned Karl Rove." RNC chairman Ken Mehlman has appeared on talk shows, given newspaper interviews and circulated a three-page memo of talking points to Republican surrogates. In one brief statement, for example, Mehlman said: "The fact is Karl Rove did not leak classified information. He did not, according to what we learned this past weekend, reveal the name of anybody. He didn't even know the name ... He tried to discourage a reporter from writing a story that was false."

Mehlman's farrago of lies and distortions may be a fair representation of Rove's fears. Is it "the fact" that Rove didn't leak classified information? Plame's identity of course was classified. That is why the CIA referred the matter to the Department of Justice for investigation. But is Mehlman disclosing yet another Rove worry? The prosecutor can indict under any statute, including simply leaking classified information. Is Rove afraid of being indicted under that law, not just the one that makes it a crime to identify Plame? Mehlman raises a further Rove anxiety. No, Rove didn't "reveal the name." But the law doesn't cite that as a felony; it only specifies revealing the "identity" as a crime. It says nothing about a "name." Rove revealed "Joe Wilson's wife." That qualifies as an "identity." By the way, Plame did not go by the name of Plame, but Wilson -- in other words, Mrs. Wilson, or "Joe Wilson's wife." Rove seemed to know that much -- her identity.

Helpfully guiding a reporter to the truth and away from "a story that was false"? Indeed, Rove was planting two false stories, not just one. The first was that "Joe Wilson's wife" had sent him on his mission; the second was to suggest that Wilson was wrong and that there would be new information to support the original Bush falsehood. In fact, the White House admitted that Wilson was correct and that Bush's 16 words were wrong. Yet Rove attempted to insinuate doubt in the mind of the reporter to discourage him from writing a story that was true.

At one point, on CNN, Wolf Blitzer asked Mehlman if he had attended meetings at the White House on how to deal with Wilson. Suddenly, the voluble Mehlman constricted. "I don't recall those meetings occurring," he said. Has the prosecutor inquired about such meetings and their participants?

The sound and fury of Rove's defenders will soon subside. The last word, the only word that matters, will belong to the prosecutor. So far, he has said very, very little. Unlike the unprofessional, inexperienced and weak Ken Starr, he does not leak illegally to the press. But he has commented publicly on his understanding of the case. "This case," he said, "is not about a whistle-blower. It's about a potential retaliation against a whistle-blower."

In light of this:

Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, came to Rove’s defense during a press briefing Tuesday by saying, “Any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president. They wouldn’t be working here at the White House if they didn’t.” What is the likelihood that Bush would ever actually fire Rove, a close confidant and the architect of his re-election campaign?

I think, were Karl Rove to be indicted for any crime, it would be impossible for the president to keep him on. Short of that, I don’t think that he will go anywhere. I think the president will stand behind him.

If you look, the president’s past comments were pretty clear: that anyone who is responsible for leaking classified information, which is a crime, would be fired. Until and unless that’s proven in this case, I don’t think that Karl Rove will go anywhere.

As to the question of whether what Karl Rove did was a smear campaign, or politically sleazy, it’s pretty clear to me that everyone in White House — from the president, to the vice president, to other officials — shared Rove’s interest in discrediting former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was critical of the administration’s case for going to war in Iraq.

Other than standing by Rove, how much longer can the White House remain silent and dodge this issue?

The president spoke out this morning to say it’s an ongoing investigation and that they should get to the bottom of it. But, beyond that, he’ll try to make it clear that Karl Rove continues to do his job as normal, that it’s business as usual, and that he retains the president’s confidence. It’s pretty clear that’s the case.

The White House has a political problem because they have made statements that are wrong and that are no longer accurate. That’s brought the heat on them.

And this:

Take my word, there has been a lot of soul searching in the so-called Main Stream Media (MSM) over its performance, or lack of performance, in the months leading up to the American-led ouster of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. Specifically, did we replace what should have been professional skepticism with a certain mindless credulousness in assessing the reality of the Bush administration’s claims of imminent danger to the country and the world from Saddam’s supposedly vast stash of weapons of mass destruction, including — only months away, it was said — the nuclear kind?

If we failed, was it out of a misplaced sense of patriotic duty, or political cowardice or sheer incompetence — or all three? The press corps was spring-loaded with self-doubt over the WMD issue, and ready to snap over any story that would allow it to revisit what now looks to have been a massive — and embarrassingly successful, from the press’ point of view — propaganda campaign.

So Rove was a spinner on the WMD front? After him!

George Bush’s theory of press relations is pretty straightforward: Control the message with military precision, and never waver. Authorized leaks are OK under certain circumstances, although this crowd doesn’t like them very much under any circumstances. Unauthorized leaks are punishable by instant excommunication. The Bush White House is the tightest-run ship in modern times, which means probably ever.

The deliberately colorless Ari Fleischer raised the content-free “briefing” to a dismal high art; Scott McClellan, who studied at the brogans of the Master is, if anything, even less communicative and, unlike Fleischer, who once worked on the more media friendly Hill, never betrays the slightest sense of guilt about saying nothing. So, in human terms, and, yes, reporters are humans, you can imagine the reaction when McClellan was caught in what looks pretty clearly to be a series of lies about Rove’s role in dishing dirt on Mr. and Mrs. Wilson.

Karl “not involved”? PULEASE — scenes of McClellan as piñata at 11.

The physics of unaccountable power

As in physics, every action in Washington eventually has an equal and opposite reaction. A subset of that rule: Anyone with an excess of unaccountable power eventually has to pay. Karl Rove has gathered within his hands a whole LOT of unaccountable power — by which I mean that he has several jobs and the direct ear of the president, but has never faced a confirmation hearing or, for that matter, much by way of an internal rivalry in the White House.

He is The Architect, at least according to George Bush. He talks to reporters only if and when he pleases, and under the conditions he demands. How to call him on a carpet, ANY carpet?

This is how.

And in our focus on American deaths, where is the perspective on this:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi civilians and police officers died at a rate of more than 800 a month between August and May, according to figures released in June by the Interior Ministry.

In response to questions from The New York Times, the ministry said that 8,175 Iraqis were killed by insurgents in the 10 months that ended May 31. The ministry did not give detailed figures for the months before August 2004, nor did it provide a breakdown of the figures, which do not include either Iraqi soldiers or civilians killed during American military operations.

While the figures were not broken down month by month, it has been clear since the government of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari took over after the Jan. 30 election that the insurgency is taking an increasing toll, killing Iraqi civilians and security workers at a faster rate.

In June the interior minister, Bayan Jabr, told reporters that insurgents had killed about 12,000 Iraqis since the start of the American occupation - a figure officials have emphasized is approximate - an average monthly toll of about 500.

I was taught the most fundamental Christian value is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Do your own math.

Death, destruction... and not solely from external sources.

We have willingly, even in some cases eagerly, walked down this path.

Are you content with the results?

Find the patterns in the white noise yourself, if you are willing to think instead of react.

Draw your own conclusions.

This ain't no technological breakdown
Oh no, this is the road to hell

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

Forgetting fundamentals amidst the uproar from the partisan noise machines

A reporter at Newsweek makes an error in trusting sources, the editors make another error in underestimating the fallout of reporting the anonymously-sourced story that has implications for the overly-sensitive Muslim community in world hot spots who have many members looking for an excuse to rouse the crowds in anti-US riots, and yet again out come the tired applications of "liberal bias" and the even more overworked cries of "traitors" by some bloggers.

Sadly enough, at least one of the criers of havoc regarding the motives of those at Newsweek is someone who claims to despise "motive-based" arguments.

Given how readily the media bought the line that the Democrats supposedly made up the term "nuclear option" to describe the attempt to end the filibuster of judicial nominations when the term had been coined by a Republican gives lie to many of the bias accusations and instead brings to my mind a question of competence.

Did Newsweek screw up?

Yes, in a big way, and that should not be overlooked.

However (and you knew, reading me, there was going to be a "however").

Let's look at two fundamentals.

First, the news media itself.

There are cries from both the right AND the left about bias in the media. I have read from big bloggers on both sides of the spectrum call CNN a shill for their opposites.

Odd, that. I don't see the right calling Fox News biased towards the left, but then, I can't read everything.

This is beside the point. The extremists on both sides are prepared to see any inaccuracies, poor wording, or thoughtless headlines as "proof" of bias.

Sorry, folks, that ain't the case.

Let's take a subject that I can reasonably say I am an expert in, science.

Reporting on science is frequently inaccurate, with poor wording, thoughtless headlines, and conclusions in stories that do not represent at all what the sources told the reporters.

I know this from personal experience, in more than one case.

Does this mean the news media has an agenda?

Nope.

It means they add "drama" to the stories by giving screaming headlines and the most extreme conclusions that they pressed out of the people they interviewed who gave huge hedges against drawing any firm conclusions. You could say there is an agenda, but it is driven by getting eyeballs to read the stories, not based on ideology or philosophy other than what will get the public to read.

Does this mean the news media is biased against science?

Nope.

It means that reporters make mistakes. Often. Even when they are trying to get it right and work hard to report accurately.

Does this mean we should give them a free pass when they make mistakes?

Nope.

It DOES mean that we should be careful in crying havoc and screaming "traitors!" or making motivation-based arguments.

One of my favorite "laws" of nature, akin to Murphy's Law, is Hanlon's Razor:

Do not attribute to malevolence what can be ascribed to simple incompetence.

There is a lot of truth in that statement.

The second, more important point about this whole matter is one that is not pleasant, but must be addressed.

I have written often on the dangers of having an extra-legal prison set up at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay. The dangers I spoke of were mainly internal, as in a precedent of secrecy with respect to incarceration that is a very bad precedent for a democratic society that depends on both governmental openness along with free discussion by the citizens for its lifeblood.

It is now apparent that this secret prison also has implications outside of our nation beyond the black eye given to a nation that preaches freedom and democracy abroad while holding prisoners in a location deliberately chosen to be outside the reach of the judicial system. The implications have been shown by the reaction to the report of supposed desecration of the Koran.

If the prison was truly open, then the reports would not be as credible, and neither would the reports of torture perpetrated there which continue to trickle out.

In other words, the veil of secrecy over this extra-legal prison is doing more harm than good, to our foreign policy, to our reputation in the world, and in the end, to our democracy itself.

We have established the President can declare a citizen an "enemy combatant" with no judicial review.

We have established an extra-legal prison beyond the reach of judicial review.

We have passed the Real ID act, a law that has provisions enabling the Secretary of Homeland Security to make decisions that are exempt from judicial review.

Are actions taken out under a dark cloak of secrecy really good for democracy, which depends upon examination of governmental actions in the light of day?

Are exemptions of decisions and actions by one branch of government from review by another branch of government really in the spirit of the separation of powers and associated, vital checks and balances that the founders incorporated to prevent tyranny?

Don't react, think about this for a while.

There are broader implications than the partisan politics of the day. Unfortunately, our so-called "leaders" can't see beyond their next election, beyond the next opportunity to increase their own power.

Is this the path we really want to be traveling?

Writing the judges out

Mog pointed out this section of the Real ID Act today:

(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary’s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction–

(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.

As Mog asked:

Think about that for a minute, when in the history of the U.S. have we given one person, in this case the Secretary of Homeland Security, the authority to waive all laws with no judicial review?

This is part of a larger, very troubling trend where Congress (namely, Republicans) are inserting into bills exclusions from judicial review, and where the President has proclaimed he has the power to declare even US citizens "enemy combatants" and hold them incommunicado with no review process and no appeal.

It seems to me that both of these actions are in and of themselves unconstitutional.

Are we starting to run off the rails because the extremists have no respect for our system, and insist upon their way, 100%, no compromises, and those who crave power pander to the extreme?

Remember, folks, these are the people you elected to represent you. Was your mandate to destroy a system that has worked for over 200 years?

Somehow, I don't think it was.

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

Regarding the issue of national ID cards...

...consider this:

May 03, 2005 The Right of Movement

The Washington Post reports that cops are using sobriety checkpoints for purposes that have nothing to do with drunken driving.

Lisa Davis had done nothing wrong. She was wearing a seat belt, was obeying the speed limit and produced a valid driver's license when D.C. police pulled her over one recent night at a traffic safety checkpoint in a crime-plagued neighborhood.

Even so, an officer jotted down some basic information before letting her go, including her name, address and the time and location of the stop for a police database used for crime solving.

[...]

The details about Davis and the stop will be fed into the database, which is linked to a computer that includes arrest records and mug shots of criminals. The database allows a detective, for example, to enter into the computer the description of a car that fled a crime scene in hopes of finding a match from a traffic checkpoint.

The city's practice of recording information at traffic safety checkpoints on violators and law-abiding motorists alike -- and sometimes their passengers -- has garnered little attention since police began entering such data into a computer in 2002. Few, if any, of the more than 100 people pulled over almost nightly at the five or six checkpoints in high-crime areas realize that their names and whereabouts will end up in the database.

As Lawrence Taylor points out, in Michigan vs. Sitz, the case that said checkpoints passed constitutional muster, the Supreme Court conceded that such stops constituted a "search" as defined by the Fourth Amendment, but okayed them anyway because of the threat to public safety posed by drunken driving (a threat that was overblown by inflated statistics, BTW).

Seems to me that randomly stopping motorists, collecting personal information from them even if they've done nothing wrong, entering that information into a database, then sending them on their way would fail to satisfy Sitz.

But given the way the Supreme Court has ruled on freedom of movement and search issues lately, I'm guessing that should the DC police tactics be challenged, Rhenquist and company would find a way to approve them.

Despite leaning to the left of many of those who are on the right-wing, I share with the founders of our current Constitution the distrust in the power of any government, no matter how supposedly well-intentioned.

It should be obvious to any thinking citizen that those in power inevitably see things in a different light than those with little power, to the detriment of those who do not hold the upper hand.

Is this truly the road we want to be traveling?

Technorati Tags: commentary, freedoms, opinion, patterns in the white noise, privacy

Apparently, we're not even a truly capitalist society any more

From The Washington Post via MSNBC.com:

Law puts brakes on fleeting gas price war
Maryland regulators step in to boost prices
By Justin Blum Updated: 12:51 a.m. ET May 6, 2005

A gasoline price war erupted in St. Mary's County last week after one station slashed its price for regular to $1.999 a gallon and spurred three others to follow suit, giving drivers some hope of relief at the pump.

But the price dip proved fleeting.

Maryland regulators quickly stepped in and told the stations that their prices were too low. They needed to go up by 5 cents.

In as much time as it takes to fill the tank of an SUV, prices at BJ's Wholesale Club, Sheetz and two Wawa outlets bounced to $2.049 a gallon.

The sudden fluctuation in the Lexington Park area was the result of a little-noticed Maryland law that took effect in 2001. The General Assembly mandated that stations cannot charge less than what they pay for gas -- unless they're lowering prices to compete with a nearby station.

Independent service station owners pressed lawmakers for the measure as a way to protect themselves from big retailers selling gas below cost to drive them out of business and limit competition. Maryland is one of at least 13 states to adopt similar laws, which are not in effect in the District or Virginia.

Given that I currently live in France and pay the equivalent of roughly $5 per gallon for diesel to fuel my VW Golf (a HUGE letdown from the BMW 328i I had in the US), my concern over this does not arise from MY wallet being directly impacted.

However, this is yet another example of how our laws and our government are being distorted to serve the interests of corporations and companies over being a true capitalist system where there is competition that promotes both innovation and the lowest prices.

Think about this a moment.

So...

Do we really have the system we think we do?

Did democracy really, truly defeat communism, or do we have a system that is more for the benefit of corporations than for the people?

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

So much for "Judge not, lest ye be judged"...

This merits further investigation, but on the face of it, the event described is sadly both plausible and not inconsistent with what I have seen from the supposedly "Christian" religious right lately:

East Waynesville Baptist asked nine members to leave. Now 40 more have left the church in protest. Former members say Pastor Chan Chandler gave them the ultimatum, saying if they didn't support George Bush, they should resign or repent. The minister declined an interview with News 13. But he did say "the actions were not politically motivated." There are questions about whether the bi-laws were followed when the members were thrown out.

This is not the love that I was told we should have for ALL, the love for even those who have sinned that Jesus taught, the love for them that I was lectured that I should have when I was very young.

I do not recall support of George W. Bush being mentioned anywhere in the Bible as a prerequisite of salvation, or of being a member of a church.

Despite the years, I'm fairly sure that wasn't part of the teachings of Jesus.

Sadly, this action seems to be representative of the loudest voices of those who claim to follow Jesus now.

---

Thanks to The Reality Stick for the link.

Technorati Tags: Christianity, opinion, patterns in the white noise

Another reason to question exactly who the government serves

I considered posting an extended commentary about the recent introduction of a bill aimed at stopping the publicly funded National Weather Service from publishing in easily accessible and understandable form their data and forecasts, but burnout slowed me down.

Instead, I recommend you read this post at Centerfield: And the Winner,...

Perhaps more later on this, because it is an unintentional metaphor for the Republican Party and how it caters to the interests of those who have money over those who do not.

Is that freedom?

Is that liberty?

The public has already PAID for this data, for the analysis, for the predictions.

Yet... It is proposed that the data, the analysis, and the predictions should NOT be made publicly available in an easily accessible form so that private corporations can make more money by using this data (the companies in question are already profitable).

Think about it a while.

Is the government still "of the people, by the people, and for the people"?

Technorati Tags: opinion, patterns in the white noise

Can I see your papers?

When I was young, I remember watching movies about World War II and not understanding the meaning in scenes set in Germany when some official said, "Papers, please," in a smug voice.

It is no longer paper, so they now will ask "ID, please," and it is no longer in fascist Germany:

FAQ: How Real ID will affect you

Published: May 6, 2005, 4:00 AM PDT By Declan McCullagh Staff Writer, CNET News.com

What's all the fuss with the Real ID Act about?
President Bush is expected to sign an $82 billion military spending bill soon that will, in part, create electronically readable federal ID cards for Americans. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the package--which includes the Real ID Act--on Thursday.

What does that mean for me?
If you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service starting three years from now. Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards.

The Real ID Act hands the Department of Homeland Security the power to set these standards and determine whether state drivers' licenses and other ID cards pass muster. Only ID cards approved by Homeland Security can be accepted "for any official purpose" by the Feds.

---

Who were the three Republicans who voted against it?
Reps. Howard Coble of North Carolina, John Duncan of Tennessee, and Ron Paul of Texas.

Paul has warned that the Real ID Act "establishes a national ID card" and "gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to unilaterally add requirements as he sees fit."

Is this a national ID card?
It depends on whom you ask. Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's technology and liberty program, says: "It's going to result in everyone, from the 7-Eleven store to the bank and airlines, demanding to see the ID card. They're going to scan it in. They're going to have all the data on it from the front of the card...It's going to be not just a national ID card but a national database."

At the moment, state driver's licenses aren't easy for bars, banks, airlines and so on to swipe through card readers because they're not uniform; some may have barcodes but no magnetic stripes, for instance, and some may lack both. Steinhardt predicts the federalized IDs will be a gold mine for government agencies and marketers. Also, he notes that the Supreme Court ruled last year that police can demand to see ID from law-abiding U.S. citizens.

Note that last sentence, police can demand to see ID from law-abiding US citizens without probable cause.

"Papers, please."

I'm not really comfortable with 7-Eleven having access to the kind of information about me that will be embedded in the ID, either.

If the ID includes an embedded RFID chip, I'll also be buying a wallet with metal fabric so that it cannot be read remotely without my knowledge and permission.

People, this is serious.

From an earlier article at CNet News.com on the Real ID Act:

National ID cards on the way?
Published: February 14, 2005, 4:00 AM PST By Declan McCullagh Staff Writer, CNET News.com

A recent vote in Congress endorsing standardized, electronically readable driver's licenses has raised fears about whether the proposal would usher in what amounts to a national ID card.

In a vote that largely divided along party lines, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a Republican-backed measure that would compel states to design their driver's licenses by 2008 to comply with federal antiterrorist standards. Federal employees would reject licenses or identity cards that don't comply, which could curb Americans' access to everything from airplanes to national parks and some courthouses.

The congressional maneuvering takes place as governments are growing more interested in implanting technology in ID cards to make them smarter and more secure. The U.S. State Department soon will begin issuing passports with radio frequency identification, or RFID, chips embedded in them, and Virginia may become the first state to glue RFID tags into all its driver's licenses.

"Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary," Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of the eight Republicans to object to the measure, said during the floor debate this week. "However, any state that opts out will automatically make nonpersons out of its citizens. They will not be able to fly or to take a train."

Paul warned that the legislation, called the Real ID Act, gives unfettered authority to the Department of Homeland Security to design state ID cards and driver's licenses. Among the possibilities: biometric information such as retinal scans, fingerprints, DNA data and RFID tracking technology.

---

"In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse," said Paul, the Republican congressman. "It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty."

Unlike last year's measure, the Real ID Act "doesn't even mention the word 'privacy,'" said Marv Johnson, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union.

"What I think the House is planning on doing is attaching this bill to tsunami relief or money to the troops," Johnson says. "When they send it to the Senate, the Senate will have to either fish or cut bait. They can approve it or ask for a conference committee, at which point the House can say 'they're playing games with national security.'"

Which is exactly what they did.

I can still recall how during the height of the Cold War the right-wing decried the control that the government of the Soviet Union had over its citizens.

Many will say, "What's the problem? If it helps stop terrorism and illegal immigration, I'm all for it!"

The best response is one that was made two centuries ago, and is quoted in the sidebar of this site:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
   -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Consider the nature of liberty for a moment.

Then, consider how much we are already tracked and how little privacy we have now.

Finally, consider how easy it will become with a government mandated ID system to track us all.

Do we want government to have yet another tool to easily track us (not even discussing how corporations track us, another ChoicePoint fiasco, anyone?).

Government has enough power over us all as it is.

The IRS still has the power to seize all assets if they claim we are behind on our taxes.

We can be arrested and held as "material witnesses" for indefinite times, and if we are declared an "enemy combatant" (which only requires an executive order, no hearing or other process), then we can be held completely incommunicado with no habeas corpus allowed.

Is that liberty?

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

Finite time, infinite issues

Some days, especially after I write a post that required a lot of work, there are just too many things to write about.

So instead today I will post a list of links to things I would post about if I had infinite time and energy. You can draw what conclusions you will, but there is indeed a common thread to these.

Moussaoui: a window on terror trials
Suspect is scheduled to plead guilty Friday in a bizarre case raising questions about how justice system handles terrorism.

Soft vs. hard energy path: the political lines harden
House was set to pass a bill Thursday that supporters say will boost supplies, but critics worry about smog and ANWR.

The flat-tax revolution
Fine in theory, but it will never happen. Oh really?

Santorum reads nuke polls, applies the brakes
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a leading advocate of the "nuclear option" to end the Democrats' filibuster of judicial nominees, is privately arguing for a delay in the face of adverse internal party polls.

Taxing Experience
While the Moose is not an economist nor does he play one on the Internet, you don't need to be a Nobel Laureate to realize that there may be some hard times ahead

How Germans Fell for the 'Feel-Good' Fuehrer
Hitler not only fattened his adoring "Volk" with jobs and low taxes, he also fed his war machine through robbery and murder, says a German historian in a stunning new book. Far from considering Nazism oppressive, most Germans thought of it as warm-hearted, asserts Goetz Aly. The book is generating significant buzz in Germany and it may mark the beginning of a new level of Holocaust discourse.

War memories blur 60 years after
The 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe is being marked not just with commemorations - in Russia there are moves to rehabilitate Stalin and in Germany a debate has developed about how far Germans were victims as well as perpetrators.

Diebold Misled State Voting Officials
Formerly secret documents obtained by EPIC from Ohio reveal that Diebold misled state officials about the capability of its voting machines. Diebold claimed that its machines would last at least 20 years.

Smile. You're on candid cop camera.
In that most representative of public assemblies - the bustling House chamber of the New Hampshire State House - there's an old rebellious notion: In matters of personal responsibility, don't always err on the side of safety. After all, it's the only state not to require that adults wear seat belts.

Rove's Reading: Not So Liberal as Leery
Similarly, Rove attested that "most people I know on both sides of the aisle actually believe in the positions they take," and he proposed a rule: "Unless you have clear evidence to the contrary, commentators should answer arguments instead of impugning the motives of those with whom they disagree." But he did not square that with a White House that routinely challenges the motives of those who question Bush, calling them "partisan" and "petty.

Panel Delays Vote on Bolton Nomination to U.N.
"You have some Democrats who continue to raise unfounded allegations," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "Bolton testified for more than eight hours before the committee, responded to many follow-up questions in writing. . . . And we are happy to address any [other] questions the committee members might have. We look forward to him being confirmed and believe he will be."

I will leave it to the reader to find the common pattern in the white noise here.

Feel free to comment on what you see as the pattern.

Hubris?

Time to take a step back and breathe.

A lot has happened in the last few weeks, emotionally charged occurrences that do not lend themselves to the vital necessity of connecting events to extract the order underlying the chaos, to seeing patterns in the white noise.

Please bear with me. This is long, but I do have a point.

Via the desk of Jane Galt at Asymetrical Information, I start with this from The Buck Stops Here (NOTE-emphasis and links that of the original author):

One of the odd things about the Schiavo affair is the argument that "if you care about federalism, you wouldn't favor Congress's involvement in granting federal jurisdiction for Schiavo's parents to have one more day in federal court." One sees this argument in many contexts: "If you really opposed abortion, you'd support the death penalty for women who have abortions," or "if you really wanted to clean up the environment, you'd agree to ban all automobiles," or "if you really supported bringing democracy to Iraq, you'd support war in about 100 other countries," or "if you really supported free speech, you wouldn't be in favor of hate crimes laws." In short, "If you really believed in Principle X, you'd follow that principle to all extremes without ever letting another principle override it."

But that sort of reasoning is often wrong. People often accuse their opponents of being hypocrites when, in fact, they may simply have been balancing competing principles. We all do this constantly. And the mere fact that someone reaches a different balance than you, or that they decline to treat one principle alone as being absolute, does not prove that they are being hypocritical.

In other words, those who don't think exactly the same as you do are not evil (this emphasis is mine, since I have said this many times before...).

Next is from a commentary from the Los Angeles Times:

I once worked in a philosophy department in which one of the professors was active in NAMBLA, the controversial North American Man/Boy Love Assn. The secretary, a deeply religious woman named Judy, was assigned the task of typing up his man-boy love book manuscript and sending it off to the publishers.

She came close to quitting, but she was the sole provider for three children. Finally, she held her nose and typed one-handed.

I think of Judy when I think about the issue of whether pharmacists should be permitted to refuse to fill prescriptions at which their conscience balks. The conscience of some pharmacists balks at birth control and morning-after pills.

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich on April 1 issued a 150-day emergency order requiring pharmacists to fill contraceptive prescriptions after a Chicago druggist refused to dispense birth control pills. Elsewhere, reproductive-rights groups are pressuring lawmakers to establish professional-duty laws for pharmacists.

I personally am no opponent of birth control of any sort or, for that matter, of abortion rights. But people whose jobs require them to violate their own deeply held convictions ought to refuse to do the job, and any politician who upholds freedom or dignity must uphold their right to do so.

What you should ask yourself in this case is not whether you think people should have access to birth control, but whether you should be required to do things that violate your deepest convictions. Should a soldier be required to torture prisoners, for example? Should he refuse to do so if ordered? Should a liberal corporate peon be required to contribute to the Republican Party? Should a Christian secretary have to assist in the advocacy of man-boy love?

Sadly, these sorts of questions cannot be answered according to whether the act involved is objectively right or wrong because, in every case, that's the heart of the dispute and irresolvable by organizational policy, legislation or court proceeding. They are questions that are answerable only for you as you face the decision, as you face yourself.

---

If you claim the right to behave in accordance with your conscience, then you also must accord that right to all others, even pharmacists.

Nothing else is compatible with human dignity, decency, individuality and truth.

The key statement: If you claim the right to behave in accordance with your conscience, then you also must accord that right to all others...

Think upon that concept for a moment.

Then, think about this series of events.

First, from The Washington Times asked, before certain information became available, "Was the Schiavo memo a fake?":

All 55 Republican senators say they have never seen the Terri Schiavo political talking-points memo that Democrats say was circulated among Republicans during the floor debate over whether the federal government should intervene to prolong her life.

A survey by The Washington Times found that every Republican said the memo was not crafted or distributed by him or her. Every one of them said he or she had not seen it until the memo was the subject of speculation in major news organs, particularly ABC News and The Washington Post.

---

Sen. Bill Nelson, Florida Democrat, who is up for re-election next year, is specified in the memo as someone who could suffer political damage if he opposed saving Mrs. Schiavo.

Asked whether he'd seen the memo, Mr. Nelson said to talk to Mr. Harkin.

"Ask Senator Harkin. He saw it, and he told me about it because my name was on it," Mr. Nelson said.

Mr. Nelson's fellow Florida senator, Mel Martinez, a Republican, also has been the focus of some scrutiny in press accounts because passages of the disputed memo appear to have been lifted from a press release posted on his Senate Web site.

He denied any involvement.

"Senator Martinez has never seen the memo and condemns its sentiments," spokeswoman Kerry Feehery said. "No one in our office has seen it, nor had anything to do with its creation."

In the furor, one of the most honorable conservative-leaning bloggers chided a liberal blogger on jumping to conclusions about the infamous piece of paper. IMPORTANT NOTE-The Commissar has been more than open with admitting he was mistaken in his original, chiding post, and in a later post to his fellow travelers on the conservative side he urges them to face the facts. I would like to repeat here I have a lot of respect for The Commissar, even before his most recent admission to making a mistake in this particular instance. His honesty and forthrightness gives me hope that I often lose sight of.

However, his original post was made and is a part of the white noise. From the original post by The Commissar:

I have a neologism, "sollience," which is defined as "the silence of Oliver Willis when one of his favorite topics has blown up in his face."

Remember how hard he was pushing the so-called "GOP Schiavo Talking Points Memo?" As the story has started to unravel, nothing but silence from the "original liberal bomb thrower."

Then, the story unravelled in a fashion not pleasing to the far-right-wing. From Yahoo News:

The legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted yesterday that he was the author of a memo citing the political advantage to Republicans of intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, the senator said in an interview last night.

I don't need to insult your intelligence and explicitly do the math here.

Apparently though, because The Commissar felt the need for his second post, some bloggers do need help with the math:

"You got to know when to hold 'em; know when to fold 'em,
"Know when to walk away; know when to run."

C'mon guys. The infamous memo came from GOP Senator Mel Martinez' legal counsel, now 'discredited' and fired.

The deal is done.

Trying the desperate rear-guard action of "Mel Martinez is a freshman, not a party leader." is just embarrassing. The operative words in the WaPo story that we had seized on: "distributed to Republican senators by party leaders." Fine. Martinez is not a party leader. He sure isn't Bill Burkett, either.

There is more fallout, however, especially when looking at the opinion polls from before the news on the origin the infamous supposed Republican "talking points" on this tragedy became public. From USA Today:

The controversy over Terri Schiavo has raised concerns among many Americans about the moral agenda of the Republican Party and the political power of conservative Christians, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds. (Related: Poll results)

In the survey, most Americans disapprove of the efforts by President Bush and Congress to draw federal courts into the dispute over treatment of the brain-damaged Florida woman. She died last week.

Some old stereotypes about the two parties have been reversed:

• By 55%-40%, respondents say Republicans, traditionally the party of limited government, are "trying to use the federal government to interfere with the private lives of most Americans" on moral values.

• By 53%-40%, they say Democrats, who sharply expanded government since the Depression, aren't trying to interfere on moral issues.

The debate over Schiavo has spotlighted the central role "values" issues — abortion, stem-cell research, same-sex marriage and the right to live or die — now play in politics.

Mark Rozell, a professor at George Mason University in Virginia who studies religion and politics, says the case has created a "clear backlash."

"It's one thing to look at religious conservatives as part of a broad coalition that makes up the Republican Party," he says. "It's entirely another if people think that religious conservatives are calling the shots in the Bush administration for what was a deeply personal situation."

But Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition says a poll his group commissioned shows wide support for those who sought to preserve Schiavo's life when the issue is placed "in the broader context of protecting the rights of the disabled."

As the last sentence in the above quote indicates, there is more complexity here than a simple headline or single sentence "talking points" can encapsulate, or the attention-deficit media can comprehend.

Ultimately, though, there was strong disapproval indicated by the public towards the intervention of both the Congress and the President in a family matter that had been handled by the state courts in Florida.

What ties this all together into a pattern that can be extracted from the cacophony of white noise?

Focusing on a single issue, especially when voting.

How exactly?

This is how.

Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice (a weblog where I am privileged to guest-post) has commented several times upon what he (and Glenn Reynolds, incidentally) calls the hubris of power that is being exhibited by Tom DeLay and the Republican Party in general, most recently and most visibly in the Shiavo matter, but also in the rallying cries to defend Tom DeLay at all costs against questions regarding his arguably flexible ethics.

I disagree with Joe in this, I do not think this is the hubris of power. Instead, my conclusion is that these politicians gained power to advance this very agenda.

This behavior is not because of their power, but why they sought that power.

In other words, they are doing exactly as they said they would do, but most took what they said as rhetoric rather than their intended reality.

Why did those who believe in this agenda (including their leader, George W. Bush) gain so much power through the 2004 election?

Because people were voting on a single issue, fear of terrorism.

I cannot count the numbers who have confided in me they do not agree with much of the agenda of the Bush administration, but they voted for him anyway because they felt he would "better conduct the War on Terror."

It is apparent that most citizens of the US oppose how the Congress (as led by DeLay) and President Bush intervened in the Shiavo affair.

Yet, these politicians are acting in a manner exactly as they had campaigned they would act if elected.

I have to give the radical-wing of the Republican Party credit for that consistency, at least.

No one, I repeat, NO ONE, should be surprised.

If the citizens do not like it, then they need to do some soul-searching for why they did not listen to the entirety of the positions of those they were choosing to form our government.

This is not the hubris of power, it is the peril of single-issue voting.

That is the pattern.

Do the math.