Tags:
About Me
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Gonzales or Bin Laden: in 2006, Who's America's Biggest Threat?
Promoting torture, lying to Congress, initiating clandestine surveillance programs, setting up secret prisons, railroading potential revealing court cases, sifting through library records, lowering the bar for reasonable search and seizure, impinging on the powers of the legislature, and now pressuring ISPs to retain data in order to enable greater monitoring of American's online habits. I dunno, who's the greater threat to our liberty at this point? The jury is still out, but I don't see how Alito could be worse than this guy. Perhaps the fact he was passed over for the S.C. was a blessing in disguise. For me at least, mentally I was giving him a pass for a while because he's Latino. Fuck that. This guy's an asshole.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
The Tragedy of Dubya
There has been so much happening in recent days, it's been hard to keep up with, much less comment intelligently on. Today's story in the New York Times, "All the President's Books" brings to light the fundamental tragedy of George W. Bush's tenancy in the White House. Here is a guy who grew up watching major political events unfold before his eyes. His father was the head of the C.I.A., then Vice President to a beloved President, and then President himself. The halls of power were known to him. He must have seen his father agonize over major decisions, and heard him comment on how frustrating it was to deal with the Washington bureaucracy. It's not hard to imagine him saying to himself that if he had the chance, he would drown that bureaucracy, destroy it, so that America can go about the business of being great without all the headaches and bellyaching of pencil-pushing know-it-alls, who don't understand what it means to lead. Surely he shared many of my own sentiments, that politicians had become beholden to polls, making them followers of the followers rather than leaders who set the agenda. All of these ideas are commendable. They make sense "in your gut." So what went wrong?
I think George simply got mixed up in the wrong crowd. He mistook experience for wisdom. By all accounts, Dick Cheney is a nice guy when you sit down with him. Surely he comes across as knowledgeable and someone you can trust. George was the Presidential equivalent of Michael Brown. He was little more than a political appointee. He had no experience, and little intellectual knowledge of what was required to be President. He watched his dad and Reagan do it, but from the sidelines. I've watched my father do his job all my life. I have an idea of what's required, just by nature of hearing him and my Mom discuss various issues related to his work. But were I to actually sit in his chair and try to fashion a crown (he's a dental technician), I wouldn't know what to do. I've seen him do it, but I don't know how he does it. Similarly, George knew what the lifestyle entailed, but he was elected largely because of his name. He had no actual credentials. He had never been abroad. This was a man who knew nothing about the Middle East, nothing about Russia, nothing about South East Asia. He was suddenly thrust into a position, and he knew generally how he wanted to govern, but governing the entire US is a lot different from governing Texas. It's only natural that he would find kinship in older statesmen whom he respected growing up, and that he would rely on them to fill in his considerable gaps in knowledge. Even better, they shared his disdain for bureaucracy.
Herein lies the danger of electing someone you deem to be more 'likable' than the other candidate. George W. Bush had a broad outline of how he wanted to govern, but no specific strategy of how to go about it. He was planning to figure it out as he went along, but then came 9/11. He was completely unprepared for this event. With no knowledge of international relations, he had to rely on the people he had surrounded himself with, who commenced an operation to radically reshape America according to their own agendas. George didn't stand a chance. He was fundamentally, intellectually incapable of managing a crisis of this magnitude, so he had to rely wholly on the people in his cabinet. Those who spoke loudest and most forcefully, those who had most fully adopted his philosophy of leading via fiat were the ones who gained his trust. Colin Powell, who was advocating multilateral solutions, seemed to be steeped in "pre-9/11 thinking," a term implying that he wanted to give the terrorists the ability to tie America's hands behind its back with its own bureaucracy. The President wanted none of that, feeling that what was most needed was decisive action.
The lesson that we must all take away from this dramatically failed Presidency is that the Washington bureaucracy serves an important function. Our nation is strong because of its laws, not in-spite of them. We can never again allow ourselves the fantasy of thinking that a monarchy is preferable to our republic. While our democratic processes, our judicial processes, our legislative processes, are slow and cumbersome, they are so for a very good reason. Far from being an Achilles heel, they protect the rights that are the foundation of our country. Every single mistake this President has made has come with enormous costs to life, property, liberty, security, and happiness. Katrina, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Iraq, NSA wiretapping, secret overseas prisons, revenge on Joe Wilson, lying before the U.N., lying in the State of the Union Address, Administration officials lying before Congress while under oath (Alberto Gonzales), deliberately disobeying American laws, deliberately shirking the responsibilities of enforcing laws (EPA regulations), etc. etc. All these fiascoes have come with real price tags. They have hindered the cause of liberty and freedom, yet most of these crimes were perpetrated with the best of intentions. The intention was to "get things done," to "remove roadblocks to implementation," to "secure our nation." Now we're trapped by our own lack of foresight. We can't release Gitmo prisoners because that could be a worse human right's disaster than keeping them is. We can't get out of Iraq because we destroyed the entire country's infrastructure. We couldn't prevent torture because we didn't have adequately trained soldiers available to carry out their duties (including well-trained, well-prepared interrogation teams with respect for international law). This lack of respect for the laws of the land lead to the bypassing of Geneva Conventions regulations. It lead to creating a secret surveillance operation. It lead to poorly vetted intelligence, like the Nigerian documents and the oversimplification of Iraq's political situation.
George W. Bush did not intend to become America's worst President. He set out to reform Washington, to tame its abuses. It was a noble goal. Those of us who were concerned with small details like experience and intelligence could recognize that he was not Presidential material, but his down-to-earth demeanor fooled many Americans. Looking to win power at all costs, the Republican Party nominated him over his obviously better-qualified rival John McCain, due to this perceived electability (the Democrats made a similar mistake). Thrust into a position he was inadequately prepared to handle, he had no choice but to follow the lead of those advisors who seemed most credible. Unable to discern credibility from aggressiveness, he found himself having to appear strong in order to mask his weaknesses. I think this is the position he continues to find himself in today. Any sane person would have fired their entire team, all of them, Rummy, Condi, and Cheney, a long time ago. The reality is that he has staked his legitimacy on their ideals. They steer this country. He couldn't do it by himself, and he feels that at this stage they're all in this ship together. It's going down, and they're all going to sink as one.
So I guess my point is that you can see this President as Jim Jones. World-Wide Suicide, indeed. That's the tragedy of George W. Bush.
I think George simply got mixed up in the wrong crowd. He mistook experience for wisdom. By all accounts, Dick Cheney is a nice guy when you sit down with him. Surely he comes across as knowledgeable and someone you can trust. George was the Presidential equivalent of Michael Brown. He was little more than a political appointee. He had no experience, and little intellectual knowledge of what was required to be President. He watched his dad and Reagan do it, but from the sidelines. I've watched my father do his job all my life. I have an idea of what's required, just by nature of hearing him and my Mom discuss various issues related to his work. But were I to actually sit in his chair and try to fashion a crown (he's a dental technician), I wouldn't know what to do. I've seen him do it, but I don't know how he does it. Similarly, George knew what the lifestyle entailed, but he was elected largely because of his name. He had no actual credentials. He had never been abroad. This was a man who knew nothing about the Middle East, nothing about Russia, nothing about South East Asia. He was suddenly thrust into a position, and he knew generally how he wanted to govern, but governing the entire US is a lot different from governing Texas. It's only natural that he would find kinship in older statesmen whom he respected growing up, and that he would rely on them to fill in his considerable gaps in knowledge. Even better, they shared his disdain for bureaucracy.
Herein lies the danger of electing someone you deem to be more 'likable' than the other candidate. George W. Bush had a broad outline of how he wanted to govern, but no specific strategy of how to go about it. He was planning to figure it out as he went along, but then came 9/11. He was completely unprepared for this event. With no knowledge of international relations, he had to rely on the people he had surrounded himself with, who commenced an operation to radically reshape America according to their own agendas. George didn't stand a chance. He was fundamentally, intellectually incapable of managing a crisis of this magnitude, so he had to rely wholly on the people in his cabinet. Those who spoke loudest and most forcefully, those who had most fully adopted his philosophy of leading via fiat were the ones who gained his trust. Colin Powell, who was advocating multilateral solutions, seemed to be steeped in "pre-9/11 thinking," a term implying that he wanted to give the terrorists the ability to tie America's hands behind its back with its own bureaucracy. The President wanted none of that, feeling that what was most needed was decisive action.
The lesson that we must all take away from this dramatically failed Presidency is that the Washington bureaucracy serves an important function. Our nation is strong because of its laws, not in-spite of them. We can never again allow ourselves the fantasy of thinking that a monarchy is preferable to our republic. While our democratic processes, our judicial processes, our legislative processes, are slow and cumbersome, they are so for a very good reason. Far from being an Achilles heel, they protect the rights that are the foundation of our country. Every single mistake this President has made has come with enormous costs to life, property, liberty, security, and happiness. Katrina, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Iraq, NSA wiretapping, secret overseas prisons, revenge on Joe Wilson, lying before the U.N., lying in the State of the Union Address, Administration officials lying before Congress while under oath (Alberto Gonzales), deliberately disobeying American laws, deliberately shirking the responsibilities of enforcing laws (EPA regulations), etc. etc. All these fiascoes have come with real price tags. They have hindered the cause of liberty and freedom, yet most of these crimes were perpetrated with the best of intentions. The intention was to "get things done," to "remove roadblocks to implementation," to "secure our nation." Now we're trapped by our own lack of foresight. We can't release Gitmo prisoners because that could be a worse human right's disaster than keeping them is. We can't get out of Iraq because we destroyed the entire country's infrastructure. We couldn't prevent torture because we didn't have adequately trained soldiers available to carry out their duties (including well-trained, well-prepared interrogation teams with respect for international law). This lack of respect for the laws of the land lead to the bypassing of Geneva Conventions regulations. It lead to creating a secret surveillance operation. It lead to poorly vetted intelligence, like the Nigerian documents and the oversimplification of Iraq's political situation.
George W. Bush did not intend to become America's worst President. He set out to reform Washington, to tame its abuses. It was a noble goal. Those of us who were concerned with small details like experience and intelligence could recognize that he was not Presidential material, but his down-to-earth demeanor fooled many Americans. Looking to win power at all costs, the Republican Party nominated him over his obviously better-qualified rival John McCain, due to this perceived electability (the Democrats made a similar mistake). Thrust into a position he was inadequately prepared to handle, he had no choice but to follow the lead of those advisors who seemed most credible. Unable to discern credibility from aggressiveness, he found himself having to appear strong in order to mask his weaknesses. I think this is the position he continues to find himself in today. Any sane person would have fired their entire team, all of them, Rummy, Condi, and Cheney, a long time ago. The reality is that he has staked his legitimacy on their ideals. They steer this country. He couldn't do it by himself, and he feels that at this stage they're all in this ship together. It's going down, and they're all going to sink as one.
So I guess my point is that you can see this President as Jim Jones. World-Wide Suicide, indeed. That's the tragedy of George W. Bush.
Tags:
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Fighting Against Themselves: Gay Republicans
I've read two interesting pieces today on gay republicans and the struggles they face. One was a report from a recent meeting of Log Cabin Republicans, the other discussed a new book by Mary Cheney, Dick and Lynn's daughter. I was fascinated to read about the exclusive clique that is the Log Cabin crowd: rich white men who use their credit limit as a pick-up line. Even more interesting was the account of the Cheney household. Apparently, Dick and Lynn have accepted their daughter and her partner as a couple, and they all function normally as a happy family. I'm looking at that last statement with some awe. I'll admit to not liking Lynn Cheney. I've never met the woman, but I attribute to her all the characteristics I despise about self-righteous Pharisee right-wing hate-mongers. Can you tell the very thought of her gets me riled up? But here is a story of her extending a loving gesture to someone you'd assume she'd otherwise hate...
People are obviously exceedingly complex creatures, and I'm not in any position to play armchair psychoanalyst to the Cheney family. What I will say, though, is that these stories highlight the fundamental evil at the heart of today's Republican Party. The policies being pursued by Karl Rove are motivated by a desire to exploit other's unbridled prejudice. The millions of people rallying behind the call to "protect marriage" are doing so out of hatred for people different than themselves. They've never sat down and broken bread with someone who has struggled to come to grips with their sexual identity. Today America is still in a battle over how to discuss sexuality. Christians are still trying to determine if they think contraception is OK! Shit, Brokeback Mountain got pulled from some theaters! We've gotten to the point where it seems only people who live in urban areas, who have had a chance to interact with actual gay people, have any idea about what they're actually like. The vast majority of middle America seem to be OK with denying these people access to basic legal rights like health care, parenthood, custody, or inheritance.
Like with contraception, the issue remains whether we ignore it or not. Young people have sex. Poor women get pregnant, and have abortions because they are unprepared/ill-equipped. Likewise, gay families exist. They love one another, children form bonds with their parents, and lives are torn apart when these families come up against legal barriers reinforced by hatred.
Why do Log Cabiners, why do the Cheneys, insist on fighting against their own families? Why do they help the people who hate them? Surely Lynn Cheney sees the reality of her daughter's life. Surely by now she understands that her daughter didn't choose to be gay, to undergo the trauma and pain that comes from being different from everyone around you, from having to 'disappoint' your family. Surely she must know that the issue that put her husband and his minion in power is the same issue that threatens her daughter's way of life. Likewise, for Log Cabiners, why do they fight for a party that doesn't want them?
I imagine that there is a hope among these groups that if people only knew how nice LGBT people can be, if James Dobson could just see how nice a family meal at the Cheney's can be, that they'd let go of their murderous hatred for anyone not a heterosexual. This line of thinking is downright preposterous. Republicans are in power specifically because their hatred of gay people got them there. Without gay people to hate, their agenda would be lost. Similarly, with birth control, they've tied the issue to abortion, their other ace-in-the-hole. The fact that decreasing access to birth control is increasing the rate of abortions is immaterial. Those dead fetuses of poor women are fueling their Caribbean golfing expeditions. Let's be frank: being a Log Cabin Republican is like being a Jewish Nazi. No matter how hard you try to fit in, at the end of the day you're still headed to the gas chamber, but before you go they're gonna come around and take the gold out of your mouth.
In the end, it appears that the Cheney's care more about power than they do about principle, or even their own family. Not a surprise, but disappointing just the same.
People are obviously exceedingly complex creatures, and I'm not in any position to play armchair psychoanalyst to the Cheney family. What I will say, though, is that these stories highlight the fundamental evil at the heart of today's Republican Party. The policies being pursued by Karl Rove are motivated by a desire to exploit other's unbridled prejudice. The millions of people rallying behind the call to "protect marriage" are doing so out of hatred for people different than themselves. They've never sat down and broken bread with someone who has struggled to come to grips with their sexual identity. Today America is still in a battle over how to discuss sexuality. Christians are still trying to determine if they think contraception is OK! Shit, Brokeback Mountain got pulled from some theaters! We've gotten to the point where it seems only people who live in urban areas, who have had a chance to interact with actual gay people, have any idea about what they're actually like. The vast majority of middle America seem to be OK with denying these people access to basic legal rights like health care, parenthood, custody, or inheritance.
Like with contraception, the issue remains whether we ignore it or not. Young people have sex. Poor women get pregnant, and have abortions because they are unprepared/ill-equipped. Likewise, gay families exist. They love one another, children form bonds with their parents, and lives are torn apart when these families come up against legal barriers reinforced by hatred.
Why do Log Cabiners, why do the Cheneys, insist on fighting against their own families? Why do they help the people who hate them? Surely Lynn Cheney sees the reality of her daughter's life. Surely by now she understands that her daughter didn't choose to be gay, to undergo the trauma and pain that comes from being different from everyone around you, from having to 'disappoint' your family. Surely she must know that the issue that put her husband and his minion in power is the same issue that threatens her daughter's way of life. Likewise, for Log Cabiners, why do they fight for a party that doesn't want them?
I imagine that there is a hope among these groups that if people only knew how nice LGBT people can be, if James Dobson could just see how nice a family meal at the Cheney's can be, that they'd let go of their murderous hatred for anyone not a heterosexual. This line of thinking is downright preposterous. Republicans are in power specifically because their hatred of gay people got them there. Without gay people to hate, their agenda would be lost. Similarly, with birth control, they've tied the issue to abortion, their other ace-in-the-hole. The fact that decreasing access to birth control is increasing the rate of abortions is immaterial. Those dead fetuses of poor women are fueling their Caribbean golfing expeditions. Let's be frank: being a Log Cabin Republican is like being a Jewish Nazi. No matter how hard you try to fit in, at the end of the day you're still headed to the gas chamber, but before you go they're gonna come around and take the gold out of your mouth.
In the end, it appears that the Cheney's care more about power than they do about principle, or even their own family. Not a surprise, but disappointing just the same.
Tags:
Nuking Iran at Heart of Straw's Departure?
More disturbing news: this CBS News story indicates that British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw may have been sacked because of his resistance to America's plans to nuke Iran. Read it for yourself. These people are fucking lunatics.
Tags:, UK
Voters Still Have the Power
I wrote last week about my decision to cut off support for John Kerry. I'm writing now to advocate that all voters take it a step further. I don't know how many people remember Howard Dean's early campaign video, advocating everyone giving $20 in order to help defeat the large corporate-sponsored candidates. I've decided to cease any giving to the Democratic National Committee. There have been too many instances this year of them railroading candidates who had popular support but who they couldn't fit into their one-size-fits-all mold. Paul Hackett, my personal hero, had the rug viciously pulled out from under him in his bid for Ohio's open Senate seat earlier this year by the same people (Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid) who had encouraged him to run in the first place. They wanted him to enter the Congressional race instead, despite the fact that he had promised the people in those races that he would not interfere. Likewise, in the Florida race for Katherine Harris' old seat, the all-knowing Dems decided to back Christine Jennings instead of Jan Schneider, who in 2004 held incumbent Katherine Harris to the smallest margin of any House of Representatives election in the State of Florida. Jennings had a personal fortune to put behind her campaign, while Schneider has a large grassroots organization dedicated to hers. I'm not naive enough to think that you don't need money to run a successful campaign, or that the ability to raise money doesn't indicate a better organization, but knowing that in both these races there are pre-existing candidates with proven track records and large bases of support, and especially in Hackett an amazing candidate with a candor reminiscent of Howard Dean, it looks to me like the Democratic leadership is once again looking for the status-quo, and we all know how well that worked out last time.
Today the two most prominent leaders in the Democratic party are John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. They may be the party favorites for the 2008 presidential race, but as Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos explains in today's Washington Post Editorial, they are the two worst possible candidates we could have. If voters want to be able to vote for a candidate they believe in, now's the time to come out in support of the people WE want. A good start, IMHO, would be supporting PACs that have more than petty political favoritism as their criteria for candidate selection. I really like the goals of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America PAC, who are dedicated to supporting qualified candidates who are veterans of America's current wars. I firmly beleive that getting candidates who appeal only to big corporate sponsors is the real goal of the two major political parties. They don't care about supporting candidates who have the backing of regular Americans, because regular Americans can't offer them lucrative consulting contracts upon their exit from office. Regular Americans can't fly them to meetings where they'll discuss the trade imbalance over an 18 hole game of golf. The American people are no longer their core constituency, and I submit that's partially because we haven't understood our primary role to be financial donors. That's exactly where I think this political game is going, however. If Americans want to be taken seriously by the political machines, we need to start pony-ing up the cash. Don't just blindly give it to the powers that be, though. Find the races run by the mavericks (and I don't mean those mavericks famous for eating their salad with a spoon) and give them $25. If we all do our part, we become a powerful force for change. In today's world, the voters' primary role has moved from voter to financeer. That may seem like a bum rap, but if we suceed in electing people who care about America more than Carribean golfing trips, maybe we can get a public financing law to pass. That would restore the voter's role to voting, and strip corporations of their ability to run our country. We have the power, we just need to use it.
Today the two most prominent leaders in the Democratic party are John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. They may be the party favorites for the 2008 presidential race, but as Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos explains in today's Washington Post Editorial, they are the two worst possible candidates we could have. If voters want to be able to vote for a candidate they believe in, now's the time to come out in support of the people WE want. A good start, IMHO, would be supporting PACs that have more than petty political favoritism as their criteria for candidate selection. I really like the goals of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America PAC, who are dedicated to supporting qualified candidates who are veterans of America's current wars. I firmly beleive that getting candidates who appeal only to big corporate sponsors is the real goal of the two major political parties. They don't care about supporting candidates who have the backing of regular Americans, because regular Americans can't offer them lucrative consulting contracts upon their exit from office. Regular Americans can't fly them to meetings where they'll discuss the trade imbalance over an 18 hole game of golf. The American people are no longer their core constituency, and I submit that's partially because we haven't understood our primary role to be financial donors. That's exactly where I think this political game is going, however. If Americans want to be taken seriously by the political machines, we need to start pony-ing up the cash. Don't just blindly give it to the powers that be, though. Find the races run by the mavericks (and I don't mean those mavericks famous for eating their salad with a spoon) and give them $25. If we all do our part, we become a powerful force for change. In today's world, the voters' primary role has moved from voter to financeer. That may seem like a bum rap, but if we suceed in electing people who care about America more than Carribean golfing trips, maybe we can get a public financing law to pass. That would restore the voter's role to voting, and strip corporations of their ability to run our country. We have the power, we just need to use it.
Tags:
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Seanez + Tavarez != Arroyo
Am I imagining things, or do opposing teams hit home runs everytime Seanez and Tavarez come in to pitch an inning? I'll concede that Wily Mo Pena is looking a hell of a lot better than he did earlier, but it still seems to me that Theo's spreadsheets have betrayed the Nation bigtime. These two clowns suck. I know Schilling thinks they're "a pitch away from being great," but you know, so are most pitchers who suck. Couldn't we give them both to Cincinatti and get our boy back?
Tags:
Reflections on Genocide
There has been a lot of talk on my campus about the situation in Sudan and the role America should be playing. It's nice to hear that peace talks are progressing, but many will remain skeptical until there's evidence that the situation is actually changing. So discussion continues, and my desire for America to solve the situation with military action remains, but I'm pretty sure that desire is borne of a peculiarly American mix of fantasy and ignorance of how the world works. Let me explain.
I know I'm not alone in the pride I feel for America's Armed Forces. I know they did their best in Somalia, despite having their mission handicapped by Washington (Rumsfeld isn't the first to deploy our troops ill-equipped). It's therefore natural for a civilian to feel that saving hundreds of thousands of lives from brutality is a reasonable mission to give our military. However, that knee-jerk reaction, the desire to bring justice to evil-doers, despite being motivated by the best of intentions, could very well create an even greater disaster than the one already underway in Sudan. What are American troops going to do when they arrive in Darfur? What will the militia groups do? Might it be possible that the militias will ratchet up the violence to show their strength? Are we going to ask our soldiers to simply defend civilians or will they hunt the militia groups? What effect will invading an African nation have on the rest of the world? Are we ready to officially be the world's police force? Are we going to topple the government of Sudan? If not, how do we know the violence won't resume once we leave? Are we going to replace the government? With what? Where will we get the troops to send to Sudan? Will they come from our force in Iraq? Would that undermine the work we've already accomplished there?
I think Americans want desparately to believe the lie continually perpetrated by President Bush, that America is in the business of bringing freedom to the oppressed. We want to beleive that we were justified in invading Iraq because we were taking out a brutal dictator. But what gives us the right to invade another nation? Why do we think we have the right to take an action like that?
I think the answer is that we understand what it is to be free, and we assume that others share a desire for the freedom democracy can bring. I think that belief is one Americans need to recognize as fundamentally flawed. For example, when given the opportunity to vote, who did Iraq's Sunnis overwhelmingly vote for? A cleric-led government! Bush and all of America have been deluded by a FANTASY. Islam is not JUST a religion. The Koran depicts the ideal government as being an Islamic one. It's true that there are many different variations on what that means, but even at its most benign, it involves the repression of women. Allow me to put it bluntly: Muslims do not want to be free. Not in the way Americans understand the word. Any attempt to bring "freedom" to a foreign country that doesn't share a liberal Western heritage is doomed to fail.
Sudan brings a whole other set of issues into the equation. In Africa, we have to deal with post-colonial governments. Americans do not understand how much the legacy of colonialism has warped the cultures it's come into contact with. The evils done by the European powers on the continent of Africa are still reverbarating today. The nations responsible for the situation in Darfur need to be held accountable for their pasts. As Americans, we'd like to believe that we have the power to go in and make things better, but there is no evidence that our military could effect any positive change. If it were as simple as going in, killing the militias, and getting out, there's no doubt that we should do it immediately. I'm afraid that's not an accurate assessment of the scope of the mission necessary, however.
A friend mentioned an idea to directly engage China. His plan is to ask China to enforce sanctions against Sudan. We would offer to replace whatever amount of oil they usually buy from the Sudanese with our own supplies. The theory is that the sanctions would starve the government of funds, making it impossible for them to afford any more Russian kalashnikovs. While an imaginative idea, I find it difficult to imagine being politically viable. Americans are already spending a ridiculous amount to fund a war that was intended to supply us with more oil, but instead are dealing with all time high prices for petroleum. Sharing our already constrained supply with the Chinese in order to save some Africans doesn't sound like something many politicians could get behind.
I'm beginning to believe that the ethical issues Americans are faced with regarding this current genocide need to be part of a larger discussion Americans should be having. There are millions of innocent men, women, and children around the world living in fear. Many do desire freedom, but have no chance at ever tasting it. Every American directly supports the regimes responsible for this oppression through our lifestyle. We buy goods from China and the Middle East. We are culpable. Add to that our country's previous transgressions, having installed and supported dictatorships in order to protect our own interests, and you have an international situation that is complex and misunderstood.
Americans treasure our freedom, so we find it difficult to fathom how it could be possible others don't share our enthusiasm. The simple answer is that our freedoms are not free. Others pay a cost for the way we live our lives. Many Americans espouse personal responsibility as a core American virtue. Before we attempt to take the spec out of our neighbor's eye, perhaps we should take the plank out of our own so we can see what the fuck we're doing.
I know I'm not alone in the pride I feel for America's Armed Forces. I know they did their best in Somalia, despite having their mission handicapped by Washington (Rumsfeld isn't the first to deploy our troops ill-equipped). It's therefore natural for a civilian to feel that saving hundreds of thousands of lives from brutality is a reasonable mission to give our military. However, that knee-jerk reaction, the desire to bring justice to evil-doers, despite being motivated by the best of intentions, could very well create an even greater disaster than the one already underway in Sudan. What are American troops going to do when they arrive in Darfur? What will the militia groups do? Might it be possible that the militias will ratchet up the violence to show their strength? Are we going to ask our soldiers to simply defend civilians or will they hunt the militia groups? What effect will invading an African nation have on the rest of the world? Are we ready to officially be the world's police force? Are we going to topple the government of Sudan? If not, how do we know the violence won't resume once we leave? Are we going to replace the government? With what? Where will we get the troops to send to Sudan? Will they come from our force in Iraq? Would that undermine the work we've already accomplished there?
I think Americans want desparately to believe the lie continually perpetrated by President Bush, that America is in the business of bringing freedom to the oppressed. We want to beleive that we were justified in invading Iraq because we were taking out a brutal dictator. But what gives us the right to invade another nation? Why do we think we have the right to take an action like that?
I think the answer is that we understand what it is to be free, and we assume that others share a desire for the freedom democracy can bring. I think that belief is one Americans need to recognize as fundamentally flawed. For example, when given the opportunity to vote, who did Iraq's Sunnis overwhelmingly vote for? A cleric-led government! Bush and all of America have been deluded by a FANTASY. Islam is not JUST a religion. The Koran depicts the ideal government as being an Islamic one. It's true that there are many different variations on what that means, but even at its most benign, it involves the repression of women. Allow me to put it bluntly: Muslims do not want to be free. Not in the way Americans understand the word. Any attempt to bring "freedom" to a foreign country that doesn't share a liberal Western heritage is doomed to fail.
Sudan brings a whole other set of issues into the equation. In Africa, we have to deal with post-colonial governments. Americans do not understand how much the legacy of colonialism has warped the cultures it's come into contact with. The evils done by the European powers on the continent of Africa are still reverbarating today. The nations responsible for the situation in Darfur need to be held accountable for their pasts. As Americans, we'd like to believe that we have the power to go in and make things better, but there is no evidence that our military could effect any positive change. If it were as simple as going in, killing the militias, and getting out, there's no doubt that we should do it immediately. I'm afraid that's not an accurate assessment of the scope of the mission necessary, however.
A friend mentioned an idea to directly engage China. His plan is to ask China to enforce sanctions against Sudan. We would offer to replace whatever amount of oil they usually buy from the Sudanese with our own supplies. The theory is that the sanctions would starve the government of funds, making it impossible for them to afford any more Russian kalashnikovs. While an imaginative idea, I find it difficult to imagine being politically viable. Americans are already spending a ridiculous amount to fund a war that was intended to supply us with more oil, but instead are dealing with all time high prices for petroleum. Sharing our already constrained supply with the Chinese in order to save some Africans doesn't sound like something many politicians could get behind.
I'm beginning to believe that the ethical issues Americans are faced with regarding this current genocide need to be part of a larger discussion Americans should be having. There are millions of innocent men, women, and children around the world living in fear. Many do desire freedom, but have no chance at ever tasting it. Every American directly supports the regimes responsible for this oppression through our lifestyle. We buy goods from China and the Middle East. We are culpable. Add to that our country's previous transgressions, having installed and supported dictatorships in order to protect our own interests, and you have an international situation that is complex and misunderstood.
Americans treasure our freedom, so we find it difficult to fathom how it could be possible others don't share our enthusiasm. The simple answer is that our freedoms are not free. Others pay a cost for the way we live our lives. Many Americans espouse personal responsibility as a core American virtue. Before we attempt to take the spec out of our neighbor's eye, perhaps we should take the plank out of our own so we can see what the fuck we're doing.
Tags:
Cheney the Diplomat?
Hey check it out: Cheney managed to give a speech with substance every American can be proud of. He specifically called out Russia for its moves away from Democracy. Russia increasingly seems to be descending into chaos. Amnesty International just issued a report saying that racial slayings are "out of control" in the country. Apparently non-whites have been slain in the street in broad daylight in cities like St. Petersburg, within close proximity of police stations. I've known people who've had to take precautions while visiting Russia because of the rampant racial violence. I'm no fan of this Vice President, but it was refreshing to hear him doing something other than scaring Americans into supporting his agenda. The coverage I've read made his speech sound statesmanlike, which I honestly didn't think the guy was capable of. Hats off Dick. Thanks for not being an ass.
Tags:
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Finally! A Democrat Takes A Stand!
Well thank God it turns out my previous fears were completely unfounded. There is still one Democrat who is not ashamed to stand up for principal. So tonight's "Tip of the Hat" goes to House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, who had the courage to defend our President from the classless Stephen Colbert. In the midst of one presidential scandal after another, at a time when a genocide is under way, and as the American death toll in Iraq approaches 2500, this man has the good common sense to ignore these vital issues and save his indignation for that scurrilous nuisance that is Stephen Colbert. Way to go, Congressman. About time someone did something about one man being allowed to ruin the President's night with unabashed candor. Just look at the guy:
Who does he think he is, George Clooney?
Here's Stephen with The Decider eyeballing him (from the new NYT article):
Who does he think he is, George Clooney?
Here's Stephen with The Decider eyeballing him (from the new NYT article):
Tags:
Breakin' the Law! Breakin' the Law!
So... I've been waiting all day for someone to react to yesterday's Boston Globe article detailing the Executive branch's usurpation of our Constitution by institutionalizing the blatant disregard of any law or portion thereof the President decides he doesn't like. So far, this is all I've come up with: three Democrats. Three. WTF? I scanned the websites of my Senators and Congressman, plus those of Schumer, Clinton, and Kerry. No press releases of any kind mentioning this issue. Republicans seem to have completely ignored this latest indictment of their party leader. Am I outrageous to deem these charges as worthy of impeachment? I know Rolling Stone is nothing more than a Michael Moore sympathizing far-left moonbat media outlet, but their article about the Bush presidency accurately highlights the differences between Bush's flaunting of the Constitution and Lincoln's. Lincoln did not take drastic action under a cloak of secrecy. This is in stark contrast to Cheney's office, which thinks it's exempt from rules designed to increase government transparency. Heck, these guys have even created a new classification for documents that aren't classified but that they don't want Americans to have access to. They're called "Sensitive but Unclassified".
Bah, don't listen to me. I drank too much Michael Moore/Susan Sarandon kool aid. I must be so full of blind, irrational hatred for this President that I'm unable to make any argument against him without resorting to ad hominem attacks bereft of any substance or merit. Remember, the press is working full time to spread lies, making Iraq look much worse than it truly is. The left has refused to acknowledge that there were legitimate reasons for this war because their blind, irrational hatred of the Administration doesn't allow them to let go of ridiculous, unsupportable claims that Americans were lied to by their government. That's what the post-modern politically correct shackles of communist theory have done to the Democratic party, turned them into America-hating wimps who should all be rounded up and tried for treason for not supporting our Commander-in-Chief in this time of war, right? So go ahead, call the DHS and let them know there's yet another commie blowhard who needs to be given a one-way ticket to Guantanimo Bay. That's the American Way, right?
Bah, don't listen to me. I drank too much Michael Moore/Susan Sarandon kool aid. I must be so full of blind, irrational hatred for this President that I'm unable to make any argument against him without resorting to ad hominem attacks bereft of any substance or merit. Remember, the press is working full time to spread lies, making Iraq look much worse than it truly is. The left has refused to acknowledge that there were legitimate reasons for this war because their blind, irrational hatred of the Administration doesn't allow them to let go of ridiculous, unsupportable claims that Americans were lied to by their government. That's what the post-modern politically correct shackles of communist theory have done to the Democratic party, turned them into America-hating wimps who should all be rounded up and tried for treason for not supporting our Commander-in-Chief in this time of war, right? So go ahead, call the DHS and let them know there's yet another commie blowhard who needs to be given a one-way ticket to Guantanimo Bay. That's the American Way, right?
Tags:
Monday, May 01, 2006
Once Again, Comedy Central Pundit Comes to the Rescue
You gotta love these guys. Everyone remembers CNN's Crossfire program's swan song: The Daily Show's John Stewart comes on and gives Tucker and Begala an earful of something they're not used to: candor. Everyone, including, I think, the show's hosts, agree with his assessment: arguing polarizing partisan talking points endlessly on television is bad for the soul.
Today, we have reports that Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert killed at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Dude, I wish I had those balls. Way to go, man. You continue to perform an essential function for your country in its most desperate hour: speaking truth to power (and yes, I know it's a much bandied cliche. Ripping the leader of the "free" world a new asshole FACE TO FACE fits the description, however). Hats off, and thanks Stephen.
Today, we have reports that Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert killed at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Dude, I wish I had those balls. Way to go, man. You continue to perform an essential function for your country in its most desperate hour: speaking truth to power (and yes, I know it's a much bandied cliche. Ripping the leader of the "free" world a new asshole FACE TO FACE fits the description, however). Hats off, and thanks Stephen.
Tags:
You're booing the wrong guy.
Anyone going to Fenway Park tonight to boo Johnny Damon is an idiot with a small 'i'. If fans are looking for someone to boo, it's pretty obvious who the target should be: Theo Epstein. With his Baseball Prospectus membership and infamous stats spreadsheets, Theo has been at the forefront of tossing aside common sense for the gospel of mathematical calculations. The end result? Kicking out every member of our championship team, with entirely predictable results. We can start with Doug Mirabelli. Talk about clutch hitting. The guy was practically a part-timer, but every time he came up to bat you knew anything could happen. You can forget about Bard's passed balls, the real issue is that when Wake pitched, you'd lose Varitek's bat, which meant we now had only six capable bats working. If we were facing a lefty, we'd lose Nixon, bringing our hitters down to five. Who had the bright idea to remake an American League Championship team into a National League clone? What is this kid smoking?!?!
But hold on, stop the presses! DOUG'S BACK!!! Literally as I'm typing this post, it looks like our snotty manager managed to actually manage. Obviously an acknowledgment that numbers DO lie sometimes, we've got our ace knuckleball catcher back in the lineup.
Well, maybe Epstein had a bit of a premonition that his by-the-numbers style wasn't working. But bringing Doug back isn't going to cure all our woes. Anyone take a look at Pedro's and Arroyo's records lately? Two pitchers from our Championship team, both let go, both excelling in their careers. Willy Mo has one more homer this season than Arroyo. When that deal was made, everyone, including Wells, knew it was STUPID. And I want to say something about loyalty. It matters. Not in a Bush, "it doesn't matter how much you suck I'm going to keep you around" way, but in a "hey you're a valuable contributor to our team and we're going to do right by you unless you really fuck up" kinda way. The Nation remembers how Arroyo got us into the playoffs last year by getting us wins early in the season when everyone else in our lineup was SUCKING. Why on earth would you give up a guy like that? For what? A guy who throws a better right hook than a change-up? A guy so fat his knees can't hold him up? Ridiculous.
I can sympathize with those upset by all the whining from Damon over the season's first couple of weeks, but the reality is, he wanted to stay, but just like with Pedro, Epstein insulted him. It was Theo's intransigence that made Damon go over to the dark side. We needed his bat, and the worse possible thing Theo could've done was to let it fall into the hands of The Enemy.
I could go on, after all, where is Orlando Cabrera now? And how did the Angels do against the Yankees? Why does our young wunderkind insist on playing the short-stop shuffle? Why hasn't anyone called him on that?
Look, I'm all for the ability to play short ball, but this isn't the National League. I understand we got our asses handed to us last year by an over-reliance on the long-ball, but fer Chissakes we didn't have to go throw the baby out with the bathwater. We needed better pitching, and we had it with current lineup + Arroyo + Pedro (we prolly coulda made it last year if we still had Martinez). If we had Orlando and Damon with us, we'd be unstoppable. This isn't 20/20 hindsight, this is COMMON SENSE. Our GM needs to get with the program. If this season goes the way it looks like it's going, I hope the fans start to realize what I'm saying. He might be largely responsible for getting us the Championship, but he's on track for being on the hook for two consecutive failed seasons. Cheer Johnny. Every time he's up. If you wanna boo someone, save it for Theo Epstein. But you can let him off the hook tonight. Thanks for bringing Doug back, and giving us a fighting chance after your disastrous Excel-heavy off-season performance, Theo. But seriously, man, get your shit together.
But hold on, stop the presses! DOUG'S BACK!!! Literally as I'm typing this post, it looks like our snotty manager managed to actually manage. Obviously an acknowledgment that numbers DO lie sometimes, we've got our ace knuckleball catcher back in the lineup.
Well, maybe Epstein had a bit of a premonition that his by-the-numbers style wasn't working. But bringing Doug back isn't going to cure all our woes. Anyone take a look at Pedro's and Arroyo's records lately? Two pitchers from our Championship team, both let go, both excelling in their careers. Willy Mo has one more homer this season than Arroyo. When that deal was made, everyone, including Wells, knew it was STUPID. And I want to say something about loyalty. It matters. Not in a Bush, "it doesn't matter how much you suck I'm going to keep you around" way, but in a "hey you're a valuable contributor to our team and we're going to do right by you unless you really fuck up" kinda way. The Nation remembers how Arroyo got us into the playoffs last year by getting us wins early in the season when everyone else in our lineup was SUCKING. Why on earth would you give up a guy like that? For what? A guy who throws a better right hook than a change-up? A guy so fat his knees can't hold him up? Ridiculous.
I can sympathize with those upset by all the whining from Damon over the season's first couple of weeks, but the reality is, he wanted to stay, but just like with Pedro, Epstein insulted him. It was Theo's intransigence that made Damon go over to the dark side. We needed his bat, and the worse possible thing Theo could've done was to let it fall into the hands of The Enemy.
I could go on, after all, where is Orlando Cabrera now? And how did the Angels do against the Yankees? Why does our young wunderkind insist on playing the short-stop shuffle? Why hasn't anyone called him on that?
Look, I'm all for the ability to play short ball, but this isn't the National League. I understand we got our asses handed to us last year by an over-reliance on the long-ball, but fer Chissakes we didn't have to go throw the baby out with the bathwater. We needed better pitching, and we had it with current lineup + Arroyo + Pedro (we prolly coulda made it last year if we still had Martinez). If we had Orlando and Damon with us, we'd be unstoppable. This isn't 20/20 hindsight, this is COMMON SENSE. Our GM needs to get with the program. If this season goes the way it looks like it's going, I hope the fans start to realize what I'm saying. He might be largely responsible for getting us the Championship, but he's on track for being on the hook for two consecutive failed seasons. Cheer Johnny. Every time he's up. If you wanna boo someone, save it for Theo Epstein. But you can let him off the hook tonight. Thanks for bringing Doug back, and giving us a fighting chance after your disastrous Excel-heavy off-season performance, Theo. But seriously, man, get your shit together.
Tags:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)