Friday, April 30, 2004
When starting a new blog, it feels good to write a post one day and then see some similar thoughts in a widely read blog or on a website the next day. Kinda of like what I wrote yesterday about Bush/Cheney's meeting with the Sept. 11th Commission, here's salon.com...
Although they did do a bit more research.
(0) comments
Although they did do a bit more research.
Thursday, April 29, 2004
Here is the Post's summary of Bush's Q&A after his 3 hour session with the Sept 11th Commission.
He's quite smug, isn't he?
"[the 9/11 commission] had a lot of good questions, and I'm glad I did it; I'm glad I took the time,"
"It was a very cordial conversation. I was impressed with the questions"
What was it, a bumch of 4th graders asking him what he has for breakfast and how he decides which tie to wear?
And what do you expect he meant by this: "if we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place"?
Didn't he refuse to meet with the Commission at first and even now, isn't he refusing to let the public know what they talked about? The Post says, "Bush did not answer a reporter's question about why he did not permit a transcript to be made of the session."
(0) comments
He's quite smug, isn't he?
"[the 9/11 commission] had a lot of good questions, and I'm glad I did it; I'm glad I took the time,"
"It was a very cordial conversation. I was impressed with the questions"
What was it, a bumch of 4th graders asking him what he has for breakfast and how he decides which tie to wear?
And what do you expect he meant by this: "if we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place"?
Didn't he refuse to meet with the Commission at first and even now, isn't he refusing to let the public know what they talked about? The Post says, "Bush did not answer a reporter's question about why he did not permit a transcript to be made of the session."
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Happy Earth Day
Happy Earth Day, people. In true liberal, hippy, tree hugging fashion, my plan today is to say "Happy Earth Day" and then walk in a trail of exhaust behind a bus.
Check out this quote from a Heritage Foundation article entitled "Down to Earth Day", which argues that economic growth and progress have made the environment better, not worse.
First of all, a Ph.D. wrote that. Those pictures from the Prince William Sound in Alaska of the birds and fishies covered with MANURE were really heart wrenching. Jackass...
Next, he actually ALMOST gets the point. He says that subsistence farming and clear cutting were less efficient that coal. But coal is dirty, so we moved to natural gas. His argument is then that we should let the free-market make the improvements necessary to protect the environment. That may be true; consumer demand may ultimately drive fuel efficiency standards higher. But why wait? Why not increase fuel efficiency standards to a real, meaningful level? Why not encourage people to drive less? The article is silent on this point.
This post brought to you by ChevronTexaco Corp
(0) comments
Happy Earth Day, people. In true liberal, hippy, tree hugging fashion, my plan today is to say "Happy Earth Day" and then walk in a trail of exhaust behind a bus.
Check out this quote from a Heritage Foundation article entitled "Down to Earth Day", which argues that economic growth and progress have made the environment better, not worse.
And let’s not forget what autos replaced: horses. Back in the days when horse-drawn carriages were the main means of transportation, our streets were filled with manure. This waste was itself a dangerous form of pollution.
First of all, a Ph.D. wrote that. Those pictures from the Prince William Sound in Alaska of the birds and fishies covered with MANURE were really heart wrenching. Jackass...
Next, he actually ALMOST gets the point. He says that subsistence farming and clear cutting were less efficient that coal. But coal is dirty, so we moved to natural gas. His argument is then that we should let the free-market make the improvements necessary to protect the environment. That may be true; consumer demand may ultimately drive fuel efficiency standards higher. But why wait? Why not increase fuel efficiency standards to a real, meaningful level? Why not encourage people to drive less? The article is silent on this point.
This post brought to you by ChevronTexaco Corp
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Here's a question of governement, of procedure. If and when Bush and Cheney testify (holding hands) before the September 11th Commission, who, exactly, will be running the country? Seriously.
Also, is it really such a good idea to have both of them together like that, and then advertise when it will be for like a week ahead of time? I'm sure the Secret Service is just thrilled about this.
(0) comments
Also, is it really such a good idea to have both of them together like that, and then advertise when it will be for like a week ahead of time? I'm sure the Secret Service is just thrilled about this.
Mercenary, Ex-Apartheid Enforcer Killed in Iraq
In the past I have noted with sadness the loss of promising and accomplished lives to the war in Iraq. But I don't miss this asshole one bit: "Gray Branfield, 55, admitted to being part of a death squad which gunned down Joe Gqabi, the ANC's chief representative and Umkhonto weSizwe operational head in Zimbabwe on July 31 1981. Gqabi was shot 19 times when three assassins ambushed him as he reversed down the driveway of his Harare home." I mean, I'm sure his family and friends are grieving and all, but why exactly are racist assassins working fur us? What exactly was he "contracted" to do? We should be more selective about who we do business with.
(0) comments
In the past I have noted with sadness the loss of promising and accomplished lives to the war in Iraq. But I don't miss this asshole one bit: "Gray Branfield, 55, admitted to being part of a death squad which gunned down Joe Gqabi, the ANC's chief representative and Umkhonto weSizwe operational head in Zimbabwe on July 31 1981. Gqabi was shot 19 times when three assassins ambushed him as he reversed down the driveway of his Harare home." I mean, I'm sure his family and friends are grieving and all, but why exactly are racist assassins working fur us? What exactly was he "contracted" to do? We should be more selective about who we do business with.
Monday, April 19, 2004
"Independent candidate Ralph Nader says he thinks the draft is coming back. He claims the federal government is secretly putting draft boards back together, and if you're between the ages of 18 and 36, you're eligible. President Bush immediately re-enlisted in the National Guard, just to be safe." —Jimmy Kimmel
(0) comments
Sunday, April 18, 2004
On a non-Iraq note: How do you guys, living as you do in territory once claimed by the Confederacy, feel about the funeral honoring the crew of the Hunley in South Carolina? To me, these guys died while blowing up a U.S. Navy vessel in a treasonous uprising against their duly elected legitimate government in order to preserve the institution of human slavery. How that makes them any better than the U.S.S. Cole bombers escapes me completely. Enlighten me.
It's for times like these that we need a comments section.
(0) comments
It's for times like these that we need a comments section.
IMPEACH BUSH!
Yet another Ex-Pentagon careerist on the Office of Special Plans: "Certainly, the neo-conservatives never bothered to sell the country on the real reasons for occupation of Iraq — more bases from which to flex U.S. muscle with Syria and Iran, and better positioning for the inevitable fall of the regional ruling sheikdoms. Maintaining OPEC on a dollar track rather than a euro standard and fulfilling a half-baked imperial vision also played a role."
Actually, I think this is the same person I posted before, but I don't want anyone forgetting who got is into this mess - Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams. America's "Gang of Four."
(0) comments
Yet another Ex-Pentagon careerist on the Office of Special Plans: "Certainly, the neo-conservatives never bothered to sell the country on the real reasons for occupation of Iraq — more bases from which to flex U.S. muscle with Syria and Iran, and better positioning for the inevitable fall of the regional ruling sheikdoms. Maintaining OPEC on a dollar track rather than a euro standard and fulfilling a half-baked imperial vision also played a role."
Actually, I think this is the same person I posted before, but I don't want anyone forgetting who got is into this mess - Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams. America's "Gang of Four."
Should We Stay or Should We Go?
The whole point of having a blog is to vent your opinion, so it's hard to know what to say when you are unsure of something. Last year, of course, I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq and even demonstrated against it a couple times, although I was well aware of how little good that would do. But as the bloodbath continues, it's hard to know what position to take. Hard core hippies, of course, demand an immediate withdrawal. But I have not been a pacifist since Srebrenicza and Rwanda - anyone who thinks we did the right thing by not invading Rwanda is a contemptible fool and probably an idiot as well. With 800,000 dead, probably any course of action was better than nothing. If we had any troops left after sending virtually the entire active duty Army to Iraq, I would say we should intervene in Sudan today. So while I opposed the invasion, I fear genocidal religious war (not to mention the construction of new Quaeda training camps etc) if we pull out now. So part of me sides with Colin Powell in the "You break it, you bought it" camp. But this stuff haunts me as well; while everyone in the US seems to be debating whether or not Iraq is "Vietnam," we are ignoring the real history of Iraq, which seems to be repeating itself. The Brits lost 3000 people before they cut and ran. Mr. Ferguson, in the NY Times, argues that it is necessary to defeat the insurgents to stave off civil war and theocracy; but after an illegal invasion, I don't think we have the right to use the kind of lethal force which would be necessary to quell the revolt. And anyway, by my count we have killed maybe 8,000-10,000 civilians, roughly 7,000 Iraqi troops in the invasion, 800 coalition troops dead, over a thousand civilians and Iraqi police killed in the suicide bombing campaign (can't find links for numbers anymore - some people work hard to keep the body count under wraps!). How many people does Ferguson think we should kill? If 200,000 makes Saddam Hussein a monster, should we stay until 50,000? 100,000? Is half a monster better than a whole one? Not if the monster is us, is how I see it. If civil war is inevitable, or at least inevitable without mass murder on the part of American troops, then I guess we should pull out an let them fight it out on their own . . . although I'm afraid we'd just have to invade again, if al Quaeda were to attack the US from a new base in Falluja . . . Christ, I just don't know!
One thing I'm pretty sure I do know, and I may be the first American to put this obvious heresy in print -
You bet your sweet ass we were better off with Saddam Hussein running Iraq!!!
There, I said it and I feel much better for it.
(0) comments
The whole point of having a blog is to vent your opinion, so it's hard to know what to say when you are unsure of something. Last year, of course, I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq and even demonstrated against it a couple times, although I was well aware of how little good that would do. But as the bloodbath continues, it's hard to know what position to take. Hard core hippies, of course, demand an immediate withdrawal. But I have not been a pacifist since Srebrenicza and Rwanda - anyone who thinks we did the right thing by not invading Rwanda is a contemptible fool and probably an idiot as well. With 800,000 dead, probably any course of action was better than nothing. If we had any troops left after sending virtually the entire active duty Army to Iraq, I would say we should intervene in Sudan today. So while I opposed the invasion, I fear genocidal religious war (not to mention the construction of new Quaeda training camps etc) if we pull out now. So part of me sides with Colin Powell in the "You break it, you bought it" camp. But this stuff haunts me as well; while everyone in the US seems to be debating whether or not Iraq is "Vietnam," we are ignoring the real history of Iraq, which seems to be repeating itself. The Brits lost 3000 people before they cut and ran. Mr. Ferguson, in the NY Times, argues that it is necessary to defeat the insurgents to stave off civil war and theocracy; but after an illegal invasion, I don't think we have the right to use the kind of lethal force which would be necessary to quell the revolt. And anyway, by my count we have killed maybe 8,000-10,000 civilians, roughly 7,000 Iraqi troops in the invasion, 800 coalition troops dead, over a thousand civilians and Iraqi police killed in the suicide bombing campaign (can't find links for numbers anymore - some people work hard to keep the body count under wraps!). How many people does Ferguson think we should kill? If 200,000 makes Saddam Hussein a monster, should we stay until 50,000? 100,000? Is half a monster better than a whole one? Not if the monster is us, is how I see it. If civil war is inevitable, or at least inevitable without mass murder on the part of American troops, then I guess we should pull out an let them fight it out on their own . . . although I'm afraid we'd just have to invade again, if al Quaeda were to attack the US from a new base in Falluja . . . Christ, I just don't know!
One thing I'm pretty sure I do know, and I may be the first American to put this obvious heresy in print -
You bet your sweet ass we were better off with Saddam Hussein running Iraq!!!
There, I said it and I feel much better for it.
Saturday, April 17, 2004
Activism Update
Hold on to your hats, people.
This morning, Jen and I and April and Clay walked over to one of the "Bake Back the White House" bake sales, organized nationally by the MoveOn PAC. It was only about a mile walk from April and Clay's place, and the weather was beautiful. I bought two chocolate cupcakes and a water, Jen bought a piece of chocolate cheesecake, while April and Clay bought a cookie and a plate of brownies. Total contributed to the MoveOn PAC: $20 Good times. Just wanted to offer some feedback that we went.
After we purchased our goodies and were continuing our walk through the evidently highly liberal neighborhoods of North Arlington, there was an exchange like this, "Is there a bake sale?" "Yes, at the corner. To beneift moveon.org!" "Cool!"
Crazy ass liberals with their bake sales.
(0) comments
Hold on to your hats, people.
This morning, Jen and I and April and Clay walked over to one of the "Bake Back the White House" bake sales, organized nationally by the MoveOn PAC. It was only about a mile walk from April and Clay's place, and the weather was beautiful. I bought two chocolate cupcakes and a water, Jen bought a piece of chocolate cheesecake, while April and Clay bought a cookie and a plate of brownies. Total contributed to the MoveOn PAC: $20 Good times. Just wanted to offer some feedback that we went.
After we purchased our goodies and were continuing our walk through the evidently highly liberal neighborhoods of North Arlington, there was an exchange like this, "Is there a bake sale?" "Yes, at the corner. To beneift moveon.org!" "Cool!"
Crazy ass liberals with their bake sales.
Thursday, April 15, 2004
Groupthink vs. Leviathan
A couple books that have been on my mind lately. I'm not sure most of what Bush does can be described as lying - because he believes it. Groupthink, which I haven't read since college, is a psychology text about how people in groups can act irrationally. It looks at some foreign policy disasters including the Bay of Pigs, to discover how smart people can get everything wrong. Basically, in tightly knit groups social norms take over, and the consensus interpretation of reality that takes hold can be very difficult for mere facts to shake. These guys in the White House are the most ideological bunch to hang out there in a long time. They were united in one neoconservative interpretation of the world, and this interpretation continues to guide their thinking even though past predictions based on this belief system - WMDs in Iraq, a welcoming population longing for Western style democracy, a Saddam-al Quaeda connection, the pacification of Iraq by simply removing a few "dead-enders", have proven false time and time again. It is easier to explain away the facts on the ground than to question core beliefs of the group. That's why these goons keep insisting "weapons may be found" and "it's not an uprising," etc. Admitting to a mistake would cause great psychic pain by calling core beliefs into question.
Something similar is happening among a lot of everyday Republicans. They know the Bush Administration is lost and incompetant, but they fervently believe in lower taxes and smaller government - by which they mean, they want to minimize the redistributon of income from the rich the poor through government programs and entitlements. So they keep supporting Bush no matter what he does because they got the tax cuts they wanted. What they don't understand is that in the modern industrialized world, the welfare state is part of the social contract. You pay off the people who otherwise suffer from the system to buy stability. It's like a rough approximation of Kaldor-Hicks compensation, to beat one of my favorite dead horses. In layman's terms, you pay your protection money so your throat doesn't get slit in your sleep. You really think that gated community can protect you from an angry mob? Starving people have every right to consume rich people as food. Private Charity is never going to pick up the tab. The people who offer this as a solution never seem to give much themselves. Illinois richest (and most Republican) county gives the least to charity. I keep hearing the argument that "private citizens can best decide what to do with their money," but that's crap. They will spend it all on private consumption, neglecting the common good, infrastructure, parks, etc. in hopes that someone else will pick up the tab. They call it "the tragedy of the commons." It's just the economic application of the war of all against all, and will quickly lead to the more literal kind of war. The solution is simple: Big Government now, Big Government forever. If you don't want Falls Church to look like Fallujah, shut up and fork over the cash.
(0) comments
A couple books that have been on my mind lately. I'm not sure most of what Bush does can be described as lying - because he believes it. Groupthink, which I haven't read since college, is a psychology text about how people in groups can act irrationally. It looks at some foreign policy disasters including the Bay of Pigs, to discover how smart people can get everything wrong. Basically, in tightly knit groups social norms take over, and the consensus interpretation of reality that takes hold can be very difficult for mere facts to shake. These guys in the White House are the most ideological bunch to hang out there in a long time. They were united in one neoconservative interpretation of the world, and this interpretation continues to guide their thinking even though past predictions based on this belief system - WMDs in Iraq, a welcoming population longing for Western style democracy, a Saddam-al Quaeda connection, the pacification of Iraq by simply removing a few "dead-enders", have proven false time and time again. It is easier to explain away the facts on the ground than to question core beliefs of the group. That's why these goons keep insisting "weapons may be found" and "it's not an uprising," etc. Admitting to a mistake would cause great psychic pain by calling core beliefs into question.
Something similar is happening among a lot of everyday Republicans. They know the Bush Administration is lost and incompetant, but they fervently believe in lower taxes and smaller government - by which they mean, they want to minimize the redistributon of income from the rich the poor through government programs and entitlements. So they keep supporting Bush no matter what he does because they got the tax cuts they wanted. What they don't understand is that in the modern industrialized world, the welfare state is part of the social contract. You pay off the people who otherwise suffer from the system to buy stability. It's like a rough approximation of Kaldor-Hicks compensation, to beat one of my favorite dead horses. In layman's terms, you pay your protection money so your throat doesn't get slit in your sleep. You really think that gated community can protect you from an angry mob? Starving people have every right to consume rich people as food. Private Charity is never going to pick up the tab. The people who offer this as a solution never seem to give much themselves. Illinois richest (and most Republican) county gives the least to charity. I keep hearing the argument that "private citizens can best decide what to do with their money," but that's crap. They will spend it all on private consumption, neglecting the common good, infrastructure, parks, etc. in hopes that someone else will pick up the tab. They call it "the tragedy of the commons." It's just the economic application of the war of all against all, and will quickly lead to the more literal kind of war. The solution is simple: Big Government now, Big Government forever. If you don't want Falls Church to look like Fallujah, shut up and fork over the cash.
Tony, your bassist's line of thinking just AMAZES. He offers some weak defense of W's remarks but then continues in with "one of his [Clinton's] lies". As if to characterize Clinton's presidency as The Lying Years. It was one lie and it was about a blowjob. GAWD, get over it! What kind of mind makes that more important than kidnapped and murdered Italians in Iraq?
One thing I wouldn't let him get away with, though, is to catagorize W as just another arrogant politician. This administration everyday redefines the height of dishonesty, arrogance and disrespect for us.
(0) comments
One thing I wouldn't let him get away with, though, is to catagorize W as just another arrogant politician. This administration everyday redefines the height of dishonesty, arrogance and disrespect for us.
Friday, April 09, 2004
They don't get it. More than 2 1/2 years after the attacks, they are still preoccupied with "rogue states" and think that terrorist groups can't accomplish much without state backing. They don't understand that in the age of globalization we have more to fear from non-state actors and failed states. They don't understand the way Al Queada works or its goals, and think they have weakend it even as the global jihad spreads to more and more countries. They underestimate the depth and breadth of Shiite opposition in Iraq, and don't understand the impact the assassination of Sheik Yassin has had on public attitudes there. Condi doesn't get it, Rummy doesn't get it, Cheney doesn't get it, Bush has never had a clue in his entire life. The are so used to spinning everything for political reasons they believe their own bullshit and don't even realize they are doing it anymore. The truly scary thing is they believe their own bullshit, every time. They just don't get it, and they need to go, now.
I think the Democrats are petrified, because they think they are going to win, and they don't know how to get out of this mess any more than anybody else does. But at least they know it's a mess.
My favorite exchange from the 9/11 commission:
"Q: What I asked was, what was the NAME of the PDB?
"A: I believe it was called, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States'"
"We had no warning," my ass. You just don't get it.
(0) comments
I think the Democrats are petrified, because they think they are going to win, and they don't know how to get out of this mess any more than anybody else does. But at least they know it's a mess.
My favorite exchange from the 9/11 commission:
"Q: What I asked was, what was the NAME of the PDB?
"A: I believe it was called, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States'"
"We had no warning," my ass. You just don't get it.
This is my favorite exerpt from Condi's testimony yesterday...
KERREY: You've used the phrase a number of times, and I'm hoping with my question to disabuse you of using it in the future.
You said the president was tired of swatting flies.
KERREY: Can you tell me one example where the president swatted a fly when it came to Al Qaida prior to 9/11?
RICE: I think what the president was speaking to was...
KERREY: No, no. What fly had he swatted?
RICE: Well, the disruptions abroad was what he was really focusing on...
KERREY: No, no...
RICE: ... when the CIA would go after Abu Zubaydah...
KERREY: He hadn't swatted...
RICE: ... or go after this guy...
KERREY: Dr. Rice, we didn't...
RICE: That was what was meant.
KERREY: We only swatted a fly once on the 20th of August 1998. We didn't swat any flies afterwards. How the hell could he be tired?
RICE: We swatted at _ I think he felt that what the agency was doing was going after individual terrorists here and there, and that's what he meant by swatting flies. It was simply a figure of speech.
Yeah, it is a figure of speech, no shit. Although, I suppose it is becoming clear that Bush is quite disengaged, so maybe he had actually changed the topic and was literally swatting flies when he said that.
(0) comments
KERREY: You've used the phrase a number of times, and I'm hoping with my question to disabuse you of using it in the future.
You said the president was tired of swatting flies.
KERREY: Can you tell me one example where the president swatted a fly when it came to Al Qaida prior to 9/11?
RICE: I think what the president was speaking to was...
KERREY: No, no. What fly had he swatted?
RICE: Well, the disruptions abroad was what he was really focusing on...
KERREY: No, no...
RICE: ... when the CIA would go after Abu Zubaydah...
KERREY: He hadn't swatted...
RICE: ... or go after this guy...
KERREY: Dr. Rice, we didn't...
RICE: That was what was meant.
KERREY: We only swatted a fly once on the 20th of August 1998. We didn't swat any flies afterwards. How the hell could he be tired?
RICE: We swatted at _ I think he felt that what the agency was doing was going after individual terrorists here and there, and that's what he meant by swatting flies. It was simply a figure of speech.
Yeah, it is a figure of speech, no shit. Although, I suppose it is becoming clear that Bush is quite disengaged, so maybe he had actually changed the topic and was literally swatting flies when he said that.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
The "lesser of two evils" argument always bothers me, too. It's like saying that I am good, the things I believe in are good, and everyone else is evil. How arrogant can you be? You are not the ultimate standard of good and evil, dude. You are one person. We have 300,000,000 people in this country. You do the math. The other argument I hate is that voters "deserve" candidates who reflect their views. "No one speaks for me! Waah waah waah!" That's because no one agrees with you, guy. If you think you can get elected, then you run. But if 85% of the people disagree with you, you ain't gonna win. The fact that most people, if they participate in public life at all, only do it at election time, is sad enough. And now people want to use election campaigns to try to sell their ideas and pursuade people, to "build a movement." By campaign time, it's too late to start selling your ideas. You have to do other things to pursuade people, and run for office only when you already have broad support. Write letters to the editor, write a book, write song lyrics, make art, protest, sue the goverment, start a web site, stage a sit in, run TV ads, whatever. There are a million options in modern society. But build support first, then run for office. Radical ideas never prevail in this country, until they become widely accepted and are no longer seen as radical. I read some over the top lefty drivel today, at counterpunch, because it had some great stuff by West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, a minor deity on the left for opposing the Iraq war, even if he is a homophobe. They desperately insist, and I'm not eggaggerating at all, that life on earth will end if we don't elect Nader President. I guess we're all fucked then! I mean, I care about the environment too, but their alarmist ranting is the left-wing version of Bush lying about Iraq. The truth isn't scary enough, so they just make stuff up to try to scare people into supporting them.
I've been preoccupied by the horrific events in Iraq the past few days but I just don't have much to say about them. We should never have gone in there, and damned if I know how to get out. It's clear that the Bush team seriously underestimated the depth of Sadr's support, and it still hasn't sunk in. Raed in the Middle is a blog by an Iraqi leftist, his April 7 entry presents a starkly different assessment of the situation than we get from Rumsfeld and McClellan. Speaking of Rummy, his transformation plans will cripple the Army in order to funnel vast sums of money to defense contracters. Want to know why Boeing moved from Seattle to Chicago? They couldn't bear to be so far away form Dennis Hastert's district . . .
Props to my brother Steve (West Side is the Best Side!) for finding these links, I've been too busy gasping in shock for rational thought. Speaking of which, I love Randi Rhodes! Didn't she used to play guitar for Ozzy?
(0) comments
I've been preoccupied by the horrific events in Iraq the past few days but I just don't have much to say about them. We should never have gone in there, and damned if I know how to get out. It's clear that the Bush team seriously underestimated the depth of Sadr's support, and it still hasn't sunk in. Raed in the Middle is a blog by an Iraqi leftist, his April 7 entry presents a starkly different assessment of the situation than we get from Rumsfeld and McClellan. Speaking of Rummy, his transformation plans will cripple the Army in order to funnel vast sums of money to defense contracters. Want to know why Boeing moved from Seattle to Chicago? They couldn't bear to be so far away form Dennis Hastert's district . . .
Props to my brother Steve (West Side is the Best Side!) for finding these links, I've been too busy gasping in shock for rational thought. Speaking of which, I love Randi Rhodes! Didn't she used to play guitar for Ozzy?
No activity lately here, so I'll offer this thought that I had in the shower. If I ever hear anyone again tell me that they don't bother to vote because choosing a candidate is just picking the lesser of two evils, I will punch them in the head.
(0) comments
Monday, April 05, 2004
The Daily Factor is the blog for Al Franken's daily radio show on Air America Radio. Not much content yet, but as fired up as I am about the show, I wanted to post the link on our blog.
(0) comments
Saturday, April 03, 2004
Ethnic Cleansing in occupied Iraq; a sign of things to come?
In the harsh light of day, I feel like I should explain myself - the "cannibalism" comment (below) is sort of an in-joke with my fiancee. We were getting an obnoxious new kitten from the pound the other day, and discovered that our lease technically only allows one cat. E plans to feign ingnorance and just invite the landlord down to meet the new cat (Carlos lives right upstairs - his daughter loves our cat). I told her, "Civilization requires playing by the rules. One day, an extra cat, the next day, cannibalism!" Okay, so you had to be there.
We got the cat, of course, but I stand by my point. I believe Transparency Boy should be with me on this one. Political systems and economic markets are games people play. Games need rules, and referees.
Imagine March Madness without the refs. The tournament gives the nations best athletes the chance to show what they can do, but they couldn't do it without structure, otherwise, the dirtiest thugs, not the best teams, would win. They keep saying they've liberated Iraq, but lawlessness is not freedom. I'm not sure the neocons, who think the only way to win is to be the dirtiest thugs on the planet, can even tell the difference.
(0) comments
In the harsh light of day, I feel like I should explain myself - the "cannibalism" comment (below) is sort of an in-joke with my fiancee. We were getting an obnoxious new kitten from the pound the other day, and discovered that our lease technically only allows one cat. E plans to feign ingnorance and just invite the landlord down to meet the new cat (Carlos lives right upstairs - his daughter loves our cat). I told her, "Civilization requires playing by the rules. One day, an extra cat, the next day, cannibalism!" Okay, so you had to be there.
We got the cat, of course, but I stand by my point. I believe Transparency Boy should be with me on this one. Political systems and economic markets are games people play. Games need rules, and referees.
Imagine March Madness without the refs. The tournament gives the nations best athletes the chance to show what they can do, but they couldn't do it without structure, otherwise, the dirtiest thugs, not the best teams, would win. They keep saying they've liberated Iraq, but lawlessness is not freedom. I'm not sure the neocons, who think the only way to win is to be the dirtiest thugs on the planet, can even tell the difference.
Friday, April 02, 2004
Read Your Hobbes, George
On the front page of my paper today, the most disturbing news yet out of Iraq. The headline read, "General vows to hunt killers, retake Fallujah." Retake? The word implies that, for the time being, the territory in question has been lost. In the bloody murder and mutilation of civilian security personnel on Wednesday, no US forces were to be seen. The commanding officer in the region said he wasn't willing to risk his people to recover the bodies of people who were already dead by entering the city. Clearly, the situation in Iraq is far worse than our government would have us believe. Casualties tapered off in January and February, but it appears this is primarily the result of the withdrawal of US forces from populated areas to well-defended bases, rather than a sign that Bremer has established effective control of the country. To avoid politically damaging casualties, it appears US forces have abandoned large areas of the country to lawlessness.
This is a very bad sign. For one thing, it reveals that two and a half years after 9/11, the Bush Administration still doesn't get it. Administration officials have commented that the worst case scenarios for Iraq are the emergence of another Saddam style dictatorship, or the birth of an Iran-style Shia theocracy. Apparently these guys have very limited imaginations. To me, the worst case scenario is a failed state, like Somalia, Afghanistan, or Sudan. This scenario could end in a genocidal civil war, lawless territories in which terror groups are free to operate in the open, or both.
The reason the Bushies can't see this danger is basically ideological. As doctrinaire American Conservatives, they believe that the government is a burden, an inherently oppressive force that should be as small as possible. They truly belive that the best economic policy is low taxes and small government, that the world functions best if money is left in the hands of the (rich) people. Thus, with the invasion of Iraq, they thought that once the cancerous government was removed, a free society would emerge spontaneously and form a democracy. This is naive drivel. What you get when you remove the government from society is a thing called "the war of all against all." People just aren't that nice, George. And by allowing large areas of a previously highly-ordered country to go virtually ungoverned, we have created the very thing we got rid of in Afghanistan: a haven for terrorists.
This is why the "Conservative Revolution" will fail - some of their core beliefs are demonstrably false. Big Government is a necessity for an advanced society, meaning everyone on earth today. The economy and social life needs to be regulated and managed. They know this on some level, it's just that the impulse is diverted into trying to regulate people's sexual and reproductive behavior. If everyone will just adopt the same beliefs, the argument goes, we won't need government. But that's just not possible anymore. The solution is not religious and "moral" conformity - it's a free society, with limits. Your freedom to throw a punch ends at my face. You can burn your own flag, but you better not touch mine.
I suppose I'd describe my position as Law and Order Liberal. I do not believe society is served best if everyone pursues their own self-interest. I believe that kind of thinking leads to exploitation, gang warfare, and eventually cannibalism. I believe society is best served by patriotism, service, duty, self-sacrifice, and concern for the well-being of one's fellow citizens. I believe the whole is more important than its parts. As a nation, we are unstoppable. But if we choose not to be a nation, but instead to be a bunch of "radical individualists," then the terrorists needn't bother attacking us. We'll be eating each other soon enough.
(0) comments
On the front page of my paper today, the most disturbing news yet out of Iraq. The headline read, "General vows to hunt killers, retake Fallujah." Retake? The word implies that, for the time being, the territory in question has been lost. In the bloody murder and mutilation of civilian security personnel on Wednesday, no US forces were to be seen. The commanding officer in the region said he wasn't willing to risk his people to recover the bodies of people who were already dead by entering the city. Clearly, the situation in Iraq is far worse than our government would have us believe. Casualties tapered off in January and February, but it appears this is primarily the result of the withdrawal of US forces from populated areas to well-defended bases, rather than a sign that Bremer has established effective control of the country. To avoid politically damaging casualties, it appears US forces have abandoned large areas of the country to lawlessness.
This is a very bad sign. For one thing, it reveals that two and a half years after 9/11, the Bush Administration still doesn't get it. Administration officials have commented that the worst case scenarios for Iraq are the emergence of another Saddam style dictatorship, or the birth of an Iran-style Shia theocracy. Apparently these guys have very limited imaginations. To me, the worst case scenario is a failed state, like Somalia, Afghanistan, or Sudan. This scenario could end in a genocidal civil war, lawless territories in which terror groups are free to operate in the open, or both.
The reason the Bushies can't see this danger is basically ideological. As doctrinaire American Conservatives, they believe that the government is a burden, an inherently oppressive force that should be as small as possible. They truly belive that the best economic policy is low taxes and small government, that the world functions best if money is left in the hands of the (rich) people. Thus, with the invasion of Iraq, they thought that once the cancerous government was removed, a free society would emerge spontaneously and form a democracy. This is naive drivel. What you get when you remove the government from society is a thing called "the war of all against all." People just aren't that nice, George. And by allowing large areas of a previously highly-ordered country to go virtually ungoverned, we have created the very thing we got rid of in Afghanistan: a haven for terrorists.
This is why the "Conservative Revolution" will fail - some of their core beliefs are demonstrably false. Big Government is a necessity for an advanced society, meaning everyone on earth today. The economy and social life needs to be regulated and managed. They know this on some level, it's just that the impulse is diverted into trying to regulate people's sexual and reproductive behavior. If everyone will just adopt the same beliefs, the argument goes, we won't need government. But that's just not possible anymore. The solution is not religious and "moral" conformity - it's a free society, with limits. Your freedom to throw a punch ends at my face. You can burn your own flag, but you better not touch mine.
I suppose I'd describe my position as Law and Order Liberal. I do not believe society is served best if everyone pursues their own self-interest. I believe that kind of thinking leads to exploitation, gang warfare, and eventually cannibalism. I believe society is best served by patriotism, service, duty, self-sacrifice, and concern for the well-being of one's fellow citizens. I believe the whole is more important than its parts. As a nation, we are unstoppable. But if we choose not to be a nation, but instead to be a bunch of "radical individualists," then the terrorists needn't bother attacking us. We'll be eating each other soon enough.
Here's the drunk thoughts I promised: Johnny Knoxville is on The Daily Show in an awesome sweatshirt. I asked for and received that SAME blue, hooded, with pockets, zippered sweatshirt about 8 years ago. I still have it and I still wear it a lot. It is still SO METAL and once you see me on stage in it, you'll know it's the stuff.
(0) comments
Thursday, April 01, 2004
Hey, a good article at the New Republic, about the Pledge of Allegience controversy. Rare these days to see good writing at the House of Andrew.
I believe the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created to ensure fuel supply in the case of war, but Clinton released some when oil prices got too high in an election year. Personally, I think our energy dependence is a result of the inefficiency of our basic infrastructure - the result of suburban sprawl. Sprawl happened because of a number of bad policies, cheap oil being only one of them. Basically much of our basic infrastructure, like roads, serve too few people to be cost-effective because people are living at a density too low to be efficient. It isn't just about energy, this is why America is falling behind when it comes to broadband. "The complex problem starts with the wide-open spaces which dominate the American landscape. Expanding broadband capabilities is largely a physical task, with telephone or cable companies required to add new hardware neighborhood by neighborhood. In dense urban areas, there can be an economic return. But expansion into rural, or even some suburban areas, just isn't economically viable. . .only neighborhoods with about 1,000 homes near a so-called phone company "central office," are worth the bother." A large barrier to economic progress in America is our inefficient use of land, water, energy etc. Why do Americans insist on living so far apart? We could be more secure internationally and stronger economically if we could live with each other. Unfortunately, the geography of our country has been dramatically altered over the last 50 years to reflect white people's desire to avoid sending their children to school with black children . . . Late period suburbia with its strip malls and gated communities was enabled by the automobile, but everyone has cars and no one else lives like this. This pattern of development emerged as a direct response to Brown v Board of Education. If white people couldn't keep their schools, segregated, then they were just going to have to go start their own districts. And while sprawls inefficiency may make us poorer and less secure, it does keep us segregated - more so today than before Brown, by most measures. America's economic, political, social and cultural problems are all leaves on the same tree. The root is racism.
(0) comments
I believe the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created to ensure fuel supply in the case of war, but Clinton released some when oil prices got too high in an election year. Personally, I think our energy dependence is a result of the inefficiency of our basic infrastructure - the result of suburban sprawl. Sprawl happened because of a number of bad policies, cheap oil being only one of them. Basically much of our basic infrastructure, like roads, serve too few people to be cost-effective because people are living at a density too low to be efficient. It isn't just about energy, this is why America is falling behind when it comes to broadband. "The complex problem starts with the wide-open spaces which dominate the American landscape. Expanding broadband capabilities is largely a physical task, with telephone or cable companies required to add new hardware neighborhood by neighborhood. In dense urban areas, there can be an economic return. But expansion into rural, or even some suburban areas, just isn't economically viable. . .only neighborhoods with about 1,000 homes near a so-called phone company "central office," are worth the bother." A large barrier to economic progress in America is our inefficient use of land, water, energy etc. Why do Americans insist on living so far apart? We could be more secure internationally and stronger economically if we could live with each other. Unfortunately, the geography of our country has been dramatically altered over the last 50 years to reflect white people's desire to avoid sending their children to school with black children . . . Late period suburbia with its strip malls and gated communities was enabled by the automobile, but everyone has cars and no one else lives like this. This pattern of development emerged as a direct response to Brown v Board of Education. If white people couldn't keep their schools, segregated, then they were just going to have to go start their own districts. And while sprawls inefficiency may make us poorer and less secure, it does keep us segregated - more so today than before Brown, by most measures. America's economic, political, social and cultural problems are all leaves on the same tree. The root is racism.
So the US government maintains something called the Strategic Petroluem Reserve - it has been in the news lately. I don't know a lot about it, but shouldn't its existence, the purpose of which is make sure that, god forbid, gas prices never reach the level of, I don't know, a gallon of milk, scare the crap out of us and our fellow citizens? I mean, if we have to spend a lot of money and effort to ferret away oil, which only amounts to about 1% of our daily consumption by the way, shouldn't we a lot more alarmed about our dependency on foreign oil? Is this the BEST idea we have about protecting ourselves from shortages?
(0) comments
This paragraph comes from one of my favorite features on MSN's Slate, Diary.
I love it.
(0) comments
If liberal is such a bad word, why don't liberals start labeling conservatives as reactionaries. According to dictionary.com, reactionary is defined as "characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative." "George W. Bush is just a Texas reactionary," could be Kerry's retort to Bush's "Massachusetts liberal" smear campaign.
I love it.
The middle panel of this Tom the Dancing Bug strip is hilarious. Give it a look.
(0) comments
Some of GWB's ads about Kerry are confusing me. Two ads now have cited something about Kerry or his policies but then immediately explained the rational for those differing ideas. Examples:
Most recently, in "Wacky", the ad narrator says that Kerry wants to "tax gas more so that people drive less". Even if you were afraid that you couldn't afford a gas tax and might lose your job and your house because of it, couldn't you at least see, in an ideal sense, that people driving less would be good on so many levels? And there's the ad, explaining Kerry's rational (10 years ago) to you.
And you might remember one of the earliest ads, "100 Days" which explained that Kerry "wanted to delay defending America until the UN approved". Again with the explanations. Sure the "waiting to defend America" part is different than Kerry might have explained it, but if someone got in Kerry's face and said, "You wanted to delay defending America, you rat-bastard!" He would probably come back with, "Yes, because I thought that the UN needed to be involved as well."
Thank you, RNC.
(0) comments
Most recently, in "Wacky", the ad narrator says that Kerry wants to "tax gas more so that people drive less". Even if you were afraid that you couldn't afford a gas tax and might lose your job and your house because of it, couldn't you at least see, in an ideal sense, that people driving less would be good on so many levels? And there's the ad, explaining Kerry's rational (10 years ago) to you.
And you might remember one of the earliest ads, "100 Days" which explained that Kerry "wanted to delay defending America until the UN approved". Again with the explanations. Sure the "waiting to defend America" part is different than Kerry might have explained it, but if someone got in Kerry's face and said, "You wanted to delay defending America, you rat-bastard!" He would probably come back with, "Yes, because I thought that the UN needed to be involved as well."
Thank you, RNC.
