Turkey rejection stuns US
01/03/2003 21:35  - (SA)  

US officials, who had been prepared to hail the parliament's approval of the deployment based on initial reports that the vote had succeeded, expressed consternation when told that it had in fact been defeated.

"They did what?" blurted one State Department official.

I have to admit, part of me finds this rather humorous. There's a certain amount of irony in the fact that just last week, well after our attempts to buy off the Turkish government in order to get them to allow us to station troops in their country, Ari Fleischer, President Bush's press secretary, was asked about what the US might be willing to do in order to get the support of another government - and after trying to dodge the question a few times, gave this as his answer:

Mr. Fleischer: I haven't seen the story. And you already have the answer, about what this will be decided on. But think about the implications of what you're saying. You're saying that the leaders of other nations are buyable. And that is not an acceptable proposition.

Looks like he might actually be right after all.  Despite the money, grants, loans and other benefits we offered, the Turkish government turned us down.  Good for the Turks!

The article also notes:

After hearing the first reports that the parliament had approved access for US troops, the United States was set to laud the move and praise the Turkish government for its courage, according to a reaction prepared by the State Department.

"We warmly welcome the decision of the Turkish parliament to permit US forces to enter Turkey for possible military operations towards Iraq," it said. "We applaud the courageous leadership of the Turkish government."

[...]

After it became clear the vote had failed, one US official said the earlier language was "no longer operative."

It was not immediately clear if a new reaction would be prepared.

Another article from the same source also notes:

In Ankara, the embassy said US ties with Turkey would not be threatened by the vote, calling it democratic and one that would be respected by Washington.

"We respect this as a democratic result," embassy spokesperson Joseph Pennington said. "We will live with that. US ties with Turkey are not threatened in any way."

I'm sure the French and Germans will be relieved to hear this....  (Why do I have this feeling that this year, Thanksgiving menus may end up being a bit different than most years?)

An excellent article on Fallacies and War by Dave Koehler appears at phillyburbs.com.  I strongly recommend reading it, as he lays out an excellent explaination of what kind of falsehoods and faulty logic the administration is using to promote the war with Iraq.

Despite what you have been told by this administration, the ends do not justify the means. While the goals of disarming Saddam and helping Iraq become free and democratic are certainly good, war is not the right way to make that happen. There is no imminent threat and no need to throw away international law and diplomacy. We should not risk the lives of our troops and kill thousands and thousands of Iraqi men, women and children because of one man.

This was the opening post today for a short discussion on MetaFilter (the link in the message goes to the newspaper article that triggered the post:

The group's intent "is to support the right of Augusta National to choose their members regardless of race, religion, sex or creed," Powell said.

The group in question is the Ku Klux Klan. Silly.

The issue being discussed, of course, is the Augusta National Golf Course's refusal to admit female members.  Most of the replies to the message indicate strong support for the idea that Augusta needs to change their policy, and some speculated that now that the KKK has thrown their pointed hats into the "keep 'em separated" ring, Augusta may find itself forced to change the policy just to avoid the embarassment of being supported (and thus linked in the many people's minds) with the KKK.

Here's the thing that gets me, though:  If my understanding is correct, Augusta National is a private club, supported by its members.  Yes, it gets a lot of attention, particularly in regards to the Masters' Golf Tournament, and, as one MiFier noted, a lot of "backroom dealing" goes on in country clubs, but neither of these factors changes the fact that it is not a public facility.

Now, I do not like the idea that this private club excludes women.  I think it's sexist and silly.  I also think, however, that it is their choice to make.  I don't have to support them with any of my money, and I don't have to watch their tournament - and neither does anyone else.  But I believe very strongly that its important to keep in mind that they do - and should - have the right to include or exclude whomever they want from their private organization.  Why?  Because there are a lot of other private organizations that have exclusionist policies that many people support, such as the a council for black mayors and business-women's associations.  There are even colleges and universities that restrict their student population to a specific kind of minority.  Organizations like these are not controversial.  People understand why minorities wants groups and places of their own, and seem to be happy to let them have it.

When it comes to white men, however, there's a problem.  One common excuse for this is that white men have always had power and have always had their exclusive clubs.  Likewise, the minority-only organizations are justified by pointing out that minorities aren't welcome in the white, male enclaves, and that minorities (both racial and gender-based) have issues that only others from their same demographic can really understand.

This is where I start getting confused.  If minorities can only be understood by other minorities, then why would it not also be considered true that white men can only be understood by other white men?  And if all of the places that, until now, have belonged to white men are to be opened to all, then there should be no need for minorities to have organizations of their own, since they would no longer be excluded.  Yet, even as more and more places have been opened up to minorities, I am unaware of any comperable reduction in the number of minority only groups.

If our country wants to strive for total equality, then there has to be one rule for all - either its ok for private organizations to be selective in their membership, or all private organizations need to be open to all.  Saying that minorities can have their own private clubs, but whites can't isn't equality - in fact, its discriminatory - against the whites.

Don't get me wrong - these thoughts and beliefs apply ONLY to private organizations. If an organization receives any support from public funds, then their membership must be open to all - since "all" are chipping in through their taxes.  This is why I believe that the decision allowing the Boy Scouts to discriminate against homosexuals is dead wrong.  They receive some of their support from public funds, and are often given "breaks" by governmental entities, such as allowing them to use schools as little or no cost for their meetings and recruitment, or other, similar, benefits.  If they're going to accept public support, then they should not be allowed to discriminate - period.  By the same token, if I were to learn that Augusta is publicly supported in any way, then they, too, should be open.  Otherwise, its really up to the paying members to decide how they want their club to be run.

It become a regular part of the American Tragedy Ritual.  Something horrific happens, and investigators swear they will get to the bottom of it.  We are told that the incident could not have been forseen nor could it likely have been prevented.  The nation mourns, and then it begins.  We begin to hear first rumours that there was concern about 'just this sort of thing' happening, followed by the release of memos or other evidence showing just what those concerns were.

The Shuttle Columbia disaster is no different.  The investigation has begun, and the memos of doom are being released.  The Smoking Gun has posted copies of four of the memos so far, some of which seem fairly prescient given how things worked out.

Some select quotes:

• Any more activity today on the tile damage or are people just relegated to crossing their fingers and hoping for the best? - Robert Daugherty, engineer, to veteran NASA controller Carlisle Campbell
  
  
• These are all some interesting questions that some smart people in the engineering community could go investigate if they have not already.  Here's my take on it from an operations perspective.
  
  [...] If there was hot plasma sneaking into the wheel wells, we woudl see increases in our landing ger [sic] temperatures and likely our tire pressures.  If we actually saw our instrumentation in the wheel wells disappear during entry then I suspect that the gear will not deploy anyway because the wires that control the pyros and all the hydraulic valves would burn up too.  Ultimately our (MMACS)recommendation in that case is going to be to set up for a bailout (assuming the wing doesn't burn off before we can get the crew out). The rest of the cases are great big what-ifs. [...] - Jeffery Kling, controller, to several people (recipient list is on the copy of the e-mail at the site)
  
  
• First, why are we talking about this on the day before landing, and not the day after launch? [...] Anyway, if there were evidence on this flight that we were missing tiles/RCC, I might be worried.
  
  [...] If you lost all the hydraulics, you won't have to worry about whether to deploy the gear, or ditch, etc. Bailout is your only option (probably won't even be able to do that). [...] - William Anderson, in response to Jeffery Kling's message (above)

As Anderson notes, a bailout probably would have been possible - especially given the additional evidence that parts of the shuttle were falling off before they began noticing the odd readings in the wheel well, and then lost telemetry from the instruments located there. Still, there's something disturbing in memos like these - especially when you can see parallels between what the technicians were hypothesizing and what we, the public, knows at this point about what happened.

They say that hindsight is always 20/20, and it is much easier to look at these memos now and find the passages that fit the events than it is to look at them before anything happens and know what, if anything, is of serious concern - but I hope that at some point - and sooner, rather than later - those who are entrusted with our safety and the safety of those who are risking their lives in the service of this country will be able to better determine what kinds of warnings need to be heeded, and what to do about them.