Richard Condon, a disk jockey at KOOJ in Baton Rouge, LA, recently incited his listeners to go to a peace rally and heckle the protestors. As part of his incitement, he said that he thinks protestors should be shot in the head.
Below is a copy of a letter I have sent to Don Gosselin, the station contact, of Citidel Communications. If you find Richard Condon's statement as outrageous and over the line as I do, I would encourage you to write him as well. Hesiod at Counterspin Central also has information available about who to contact at the FCC if you'd like to make your feelings known to them as well.
I am appalled that one of your disk jockeys would go on the air and say that, in spite of anti-war protestors right to protest, "I think these son-of-a-buggers deserve a bullet in the head", and that we should "nuke Canada's ass".
Such comments are exceptionally inflammatory, and inflammatory talk by the media can often contribute to people deciding to take violent action. As I'm sure you are aware, the media has been filled recently with invective against the French for their lack of support for attacking Iraq. Conservative pundits and entertainers have suggested - some would claim jokingly - that we should "bomb France first" and other such violent reactions. What you may not have heard about - as it has received much less publicity - is that there have been acts of vandalism and violence against people or places that are even remotely related to the concept of "French". Incidents have ranged from graffiti saying "Scum go back to France" being painted on a garage to a small chain of dry cleaners - named "French Cleaners", though the owner was neither French nor named "French" - having had 2 stores vandalized, and the 3rd burned to the ground (though the source of that fire is still under investigation).
My point is, when the media goes out of its way to demonise people or groups of people, based on heritage, religion, political beliefs and so on, there are some who will be so incensed that they will decide to take action on those suggestions. While the media may not have any kind of a legal liability in such cases, technicalities of the law can't erase any part of the moral responsibility they may share with the perpetrators for having stoked the flames of hatred. Evidence of how his suggestion spreads can be seen in the fact that one of the people protesting the protestors showed up with a sign saying "You all should be shot".
If Mr. Condon disagrees with the people protesting the war, I'm sure there are many other ways he could express his anger and outrage without resorting to suggesting that protestors should be made the victims of violence. While I may not appreciate his suggestion that people should go down to the local peace rally, be disruptive and shout profanities, that, at least, is a non-violent way of expression displeasure with the protestors, and had he left it at that, I would not be writing to you now. Had he even made comments such as saying that protestors should be deported - sent to France even, or that they should be jailed, or had he advocated that people boycott businesses that display anti-war sentiments or socially shun those who don't support the war, again, I might not like it, but I wouldn't be writing to complain. It is specifically his decision to - sarcastically, satirically or seriously - suggest that protestors should be shot in the head that I consider out of line, and for which I feel some sort of action on your part needs to be taken.
I hope that you will at the very least reprimand Mr. Condon for his comments, or, better yet, demonstrate that your station will not condone such violent rhetoric, and release Mr. Condon from your employment.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
If I receive a response, I'll be posting it here.
Reyvan has a very nice Flash presentation on the events leading up to the war - pointing out that Osama bin Laden's goal has been to unite the Islamic counties and peoples against the United States, and noting that the way the Bush administration is prosecuting this war seems to be helping Osama reach his goal. Even for people familar with the timeline, I would recommend this presentation as a good reminder of what has happened and just what the stakes are.
The Department of Defense has created a "war news" site. Now, since it's a mouthpiece for the DoD, I tend to be a bit skeptical of the news posted there, but they do have one nice feature: A "thank you" note for the troops that you can add your name to. The message will then be presented to the soldiers. I don't know if anyone would be interested in participating or not, but I thought I'd mention it, just in case.
If this isn't an indication of just how incompetent the planning for this war has been.....
Despite the desert conditions of the Iraqi campaign, many American soldiers are sporting deep-green combat fatigues. Why are some troops donning woodland camouflage?
According to published reports, the Pentagon simply goofed by not anticipating the demand for sand-colored desert fatigues... [Slate]
We frequently hear from the pro-war advocates that protesting the war will demoralize our troops, making it more dangerous for them to be in the middle of the war. I can see where this might be true - were it not for the effort that anti-war forces have put into assuring our soldiers that our disagreement is with the purpose of the war, not with the men and women who have been sent to fight it.
I have to wonder, though, if the unreasonably optimistic view painted by the government in the months leading up to the war hasn't had a demoralizing effect of its own? Granted, it is possible that things may change and show that the predictions made by Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and others weren't overly optimistic at all, but I, for one, doubt that will be the case. Unless things change, however, our nation's warriors are currently fighting a fierce battle they were told would likely be easy, and facing anger and resistance from people they were told would be welcoming them as joyous throngs throwing flowers in the streets and waiving flags. What could be more demoralizing than that? To think that you are going into a battle to free an oppressed people only to find they don't necessarily want your help?
Ari Fleischer is now trying to say that Bush was "upfront" with us about the prospects for the war, and, in that kind of twisted way politicians have, that may well be true. Bush, himself, said little about how he thought the war might go - he was more insistant on pressing his believe that it simply must go. Yet others in the administration weren't nearly as cautious. On the Sunday before the war began, Dick Cheney went on the Sunday talk shows and promoted his belief that the war would be over quickly.
On CBS's "Face the Nation" on March 16, Cheney said the fight would be "weeks rather than months. There's always the possibility of complications that you can't anticipate, but I have great confidence in our troops." Cheney also predicted the fight would "go relatively quickly, but we can't count on that." That same day on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney said, "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." It was then he predicted that the regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle," and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside." Asked if Americans are prepared for a "long, costly and bloody battle," Cheney replied: "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein, and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that." Cheney has spoken that way for months.
Cheney, of course, wasn't the only one promoting an optimistic view:
With the President having generally stayed silent on the issue of how long the war might last or how difficult it would be, these optimistic statements were the main "official" words we - and our soldiers - heard from the administration. A current CBS News poll, 55% of those surveyed feel that we have underestimated the Iraqi forces and their resolve. On 37% thought our estimation was accurate.
It's bad enough when the government misleads us on the prospects of how a war will go in order to make people more willing to accept the idea (short, quick, easy wars being far easier to sell than a longer, more drawn-out conflict), but when they do so in such a way that leads our soldiers to also believe that they will be welcomed by joyous civilians as "liberators" puts it into an entirely different category.
MediaGuardian.co.uk has an interesting article on some of the reports that have come out of the war and were later found to either be untrue or at least questionable. It covers stories about the 2 columns of tanks - each with 1,000 vehicles, that were said to be coming out of Baghdad, as well as the tank column of 120 tanks that was said to have been coming out of Basra, the discovery of the alleged chemical weapons plant, the taking of Umm Qasr, the executions of 2 British soldier POWs by the Iraqi army, and the popular uprising in Basra.
One comment really caught my eye, though:
On Monday, much of the British press treated the discovery with some caution. Part of the scepticism stemmed from the fact that one of the board members of the Jerusalem Post is Richard Perle, the Bush defence adviser and most vocal backer of the invasion of Iraq.
Definately qualifies as one of those "things that make you go Hmmmm....." While there's no proof at this time that Perle had anything at all to do with the story - it certainly is an interesting coincidence.
In a brief break from all the political shenanigans, I just have to share with you two of the funniest lines from movie reviews I've seen in a while - and they both apply to the same film - John Travolta's latest, Basic.
From Stephen Hunter in the Washington Post: "You know the old one about the infinite number of monkeys and the infinite number of typewriters eventually writing all of Shakespeare? Well, maybe, but I'll tell you who wrote Basic: Monkey No. 7,563,231,521. I think they would have been better off choosing Monkey No. 4,456,347's effort."
And my personal favourite:
From Kenneth Turan in the LA Times: "If any of your talkative friends get to Basic before you do, don't worry about them giving the plot away. They won't be able to."
Ouch!
There's a photo that has been published on several sites - first by Al-Jazeera - and it is an extremely disturbing picture. As such, I'm not posting it to the blog proper, but am linking to it so that you have a choice of seeing it or not. You probably already have, though - its' the picture of a child who has died as the result of massive head injuries (i.e. most of the child's upper skull is missing).
I've noticed two things about this picture - one, while the picture is horrifying - there seems to be something ... odd ... about it. In general, when one has that serious of an injury, there is a fair amount of blood and other ... viscera .... visible, and it's not stuff that's easy to clean up. In this image, though, there is none. At all. Or any indication that there was any.
The other is that no one else (that I'm aware of) has commented on it.
This leads me to think that I'm missing something here, and I don't want to make mountains out of molehills. The first time I saw the image, I thought it was a picture of a doll or something like a manniquin. So, I'm asking quite sincerely, can anyone tell me what I'm overlooking? I've never been a terribly visual person, so it's not unheard of for me to not necessarily be able to tell what is in a picture or why a picture looks strange. Any input would be most appreciated.
Over at Eschaton, there's an interesting comment thread about why 9/11 attracts so many conspiracy theories. One comment in particular, however, jumped out at me. In it, Robbo points out how much the right has gained from 9/11, regardless of whether there was a conspiracy involved or not:
I don't believe in any 9/11 conspiracy theory, but every bit of evidence supports the notion that the radical right jumped on 9/11 to jump-start the drive to get America into precisely the jam we're in this very moment.
Deep breath. The entire nation, along with most of the disapproving world, is preoccupied with a dumbass war against a former client state of the U.S. -- a war that's looking dumber and more dangerous every day; the public is "rallying around the flag" right on cue, despite the well-publicized litany of lies repeatedly told by Administration officials to sell us this war; we have turned our back on the international court of law and several important international treaties; our steel tariff was just declared illegal by the WTO, meaning that another international institution may have to be relegated to the junk-heap already occupied by NATO and the UN; the nation is not having open debates on any of a number of other serious issues facing the country; Dick Cheney and a crew of reactionaries are holed up in a fortified bunker somewhere undoing the nation's regulatory framework (e.g., exempting military bases from the Endangered Species Act); the media have few correspondents left to follow up on a variety of massive corporate scandals that left Wall Street reeling (how's your 401K?); the military budget is pushing $400 billion/year even before massive war/reconstruction costs, which we will bear the brunt of this time because of widespread international horror at our actions; Bushco's major campaign contributors are receiving fat no-bid contracts to re-build the country our military is systematically dismantling; John Ashcroft is busy writing PATRIOT Act III in between busting head shops and outlawing abortions; the Republicans shoved through massive cut taxes (primarily for the wealthy) at a time when federal and state budgets are hemorrhaging, thereby ensuring that government services and regulatory structures will become ever weaker and less able to constrain amoral corporations; and the U.S. Freaking Congress has responded by issuing a resolution directly the President to designate a day "recognizing the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protection of Providence for the people of the United States and our Armed Forces."
These are irrefutable facts. Who needs conspiracy theories? Wake up.
Bleak as it may be, sometimes its good to look at the whole ball of wax in one shot like that - an important reminder of what we're up against.
I posted yesterday about House Resolution 153 which would designate a day as a national day of prayer, fasting and humility. Well, the damnable thing passed today. If you'd like to find out whether your representative voted in favour of it or not, here's the vote roll at thomas.loc.gov so you can find out.
Over at Atrios' Eschalon, several people have suggested various ways to protest this action, including declaring your own day of gluttony, bragging and hedonism. One suggestion is to - on whichever day is eventually chosen to be The Day - spend the day visiting every all-you-can-eat buffet you can find, bragging about yourself and having some good, not-so-clean fun. While I can't actually go out to do something like this, I love the concept, and want to encourage anyone who thinks this kind of a resolution is inspiringly insipid - not to mention a violation of the separation of Church and State - to join in.
Breaking News: MSNBC has just reported that Richard Perle has resigned as chairman of the Defense Policy Board. This will come as good news to many people. Atrios at Eschaton has reported frequently on Perle, many of the outrageous things he's said, the conflicts - and potential conflicts - of interest between his position as chairman of the Defense Policy Board, and his buisness associations.
UPDATE: Perle's resignation has been accepted, but he is being asked to stay on as a member of the board.
It's been no secret that President Bush doesn't want there to be much of an investigation into what went wrong and allowed the September 11th attacks to happen. While there is endless speculation of why this may be - theories have ranged from feeling it would be a waste of time, since something like this couldn't really have been prevented, to conspiracy theories claiming that Bush doesn't want an investigation because we then might find out he was somehow involved in the attacks to help arrange his own political gain. We may never know where between those extremes the truth falls, but there's no denying that Bush simply doesn't want anyone to go poking around into the whole mess.
Previous tactics have included delaying announcing the formation of an independent "blue-ribbon" commission, warning Congress not to look into the matter too deeply and suggesting that we simply move forward, to the naming of Henry Kissinger as the head of the commission - a move Bush and his administration had to have known would be beyond controversial and tie things up with debates and protests until a new head was named. Since that time, little has been heard about the commission at all.
When Bush finally agreed to set up an independent commission, they were given until May of 2004 to do all of their investigative work and a $3 million dollar budget. Recently they requested an additional $11 million in order to do their work properly. The White House has "brushed off" the request, and did not include it in their most recent supplemental spending bill - the that included the $75 billion for the cost of the war.
If the commission does not get the $11 million that they have requested, they will not be able to continue functioning past August of this year, meaning that they won't be able to complete their job or do the kind of investigation this country needs.
As a point of comparison, a commission has been formed to investigate the recent explosion of the space shuttle Columbia, and they have been given $50 million in order to do their work - yet the 9/11 commission cannot get $11 million to do theirs.
Commission member Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman, said the probe is off to a disturbingly slow start and that failure to quickly provide the funding increase wouldn't help. "The White House should be strongly supporting that effort, given President Bush's compelling statement when he signed this bill into law," said Roemer, who last year served on the House-Senate joint inquiry on 9/11 that led to the creation of the commission. Roemer has gone so far as to draw comparisons with the $50 million provided to investigate the recent Columbia tragedy in which seven people died. "If we're looking at well over $11 million for that, we certainly should be looking for at least the same vicinity of money for how 3,000 people died and how to strengthen our homeland security," he said.
Of course, with all the focus that the war has been getting, the 9/11 commission and their woes has taken a way-back seat in the news. Bush may be hoping that he can quietly kill the commission by refusing to fund it, so that the investigation will never take place. He cannot be allowed to get away with this.
America needs to know what happened - what we did wrong, and what we did right. We need to know that our country is doing everything it can to prevent another attack from happening. In the name of preventing another attack, the government has been curtailing our rights, expanding their own powers, creating new departments, colour coding how worried we should be, planning to invade our privacy in new and different ways - including the use of data mining and background checks before allowing people to fly, demonizing dissenters and started a war with a country that they can't prove had anything to do with 9/11. What they won't do is allow a truly independent commission to have the time, money, manpower and access necessary to fully investigate what actually happened so that we can learn from the mistakes we made and make better use of the things we did right.
If we can't do that, then all of our other efforts will be in vain.
Time Magazine link via Hesiod at Counterspin Central
Watching MSNBC last night, I heard their reporter who is embedded with the 3rd division mention that some of the soldiers had been asking him what to expect when they return to America. It seems that some were concerned they would be spit on and derided, much like the returning Vietnam vets had been. Thankfully, the reporter was able to assure them that even those who may oppose the war want the best for our soldiers and hope that they will be able to come home very soon.
Given that so much of the rhetoric passed around by the pro-war advocates claims that the anti-war side opposes not only the war but our soldiers as well, I was very glad that the reporter not only gave the soldiers what reassurance he could, but that he also felt it was worth mentioning on the air.
And through it all, the Universe just keeps chugging along:
From ABC Online (Australia) - Light echoes through space: this sequence from the Hubble Space Telescope shows the January 2002 eruption of V838 Monocerotis reverberating through dust clouds - in May (top), September (middle), and December 2002 (bottom). At the centre is the expanding red supergiant (Pics: NASA/ESA/STScI)
Dave at "How to Save the World" has an interesting post on the propaganda coming out about the war, including information the "civilian uprising" in Barsa that never quite was and the impact of knocking the Iraqi national TV station off the air in the early hours of the war. He closes the post with this note:
$75 Billion just for the first phase of the war - that's $3,000 (a fortune) for every Iraqi man, woman and child. Think of what could have been done with that money.
Indeed.
I mentioned in an earlier post about Jan and I both having had our 6 month "blogiversaries" (I'm probably going to kick myself over using that word, but it's been a weird morning). I also just learned that Rayne, too, has just had hers.
Rayne, I love the personal glimpses you give us into your life and how the various issues we're facing affect you and your family. It helps give a context to your views, with gives them that much more power. Congrats!!
Below is the text of a resolution that has been submitted to the House of Representatives. (Found via Atrios at Eschaton)
It seems that now our Congress thinks we need to spend time praying and fasting in order to convince God to help us. Of course, if the war truly was what God wanted Bush (and hence, us) to do, wouldn't he be helping us already?
And even though it may be something of a tradition for such resolutions to be put forth, exactly what business does the secular government of this secular nation have in calling upon the citizens of the US to "seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and learn how we can do better in our everyday activities"? I'm sorry, but I think I have failings that require divine assistance, I think I can figure that out for myself, thankyouverymuch, and will decide on my own if I want to pray or not. I certainly don't need the House of Representatives to call upon me to do so!
Another thing I found interesting - the resolution states that "all of the various faiths of the people of the United States" recognize "the need for fasting and humble supplication". Somehow I don't think they did a comprehensive survey before making that assertion. While I'm sure there are some people of almost any faith who would engage in prayer and fasting as a means of communicating with their God or Gods, it's not an actual tenet of every religion in the nation. Many of the Pagan faiths, for example, have no position whatsoever about whether or not one should fast and pray. It's certainly not something that is viewed as "needed".
This is just another example of why it is the government should stay out of religion entirely, and if you think this resolution has me a bit incensed, you're right. I am. Granted, the resolution clearly has no binding legal effect on me to do anything, but the government simply has no business trying to tell me what I should or shouldn't do as part of my own personal spirituality.
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 153
Recognizing the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protection of Providence for the people of the United States and our Armed Forces during the conflict in Iraq and under the threat of terrorism at home.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 20, 2003
Mr. AKIN (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. HAYES, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. BEAUPREZ, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. PITTS, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. TERRY, and Mr. SOUDER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform
RESOLUTION
Recognizing the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protection of Providence for the people of the United States and our Armed Forces during the conflict in Iraq and under the threat of terrorism at home.
Whereas the United States is currently engaged in a war on terrorism in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001;
Whereas the Armed Forces of the United States are currently engaged in a campaign to disarm the regime of Saddam Hussein and liberate the people of Iraq;
Whereas, on June 1, 1774, the Virginia House of Burgesses called for a day of fasting and prayer as an expression of solidarity with the people of Boston who were under siege by the enemy;
Whereas, on March 16, 1776, the Continental Congress, recognizing that the `Liberties of America are imminently endangered' and the need `to acknowledge the overruling Providence of God', called for a day of `Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer' ;
Whereas, on June 28, 1787, during the debate of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin, convinced of God's intimate involvement in human affairs, implored the Congress to seek the assistance of Heaven in all its dealings;
Whereas, on March 30, 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, at the bequest of the Senate, and himself recognizing the need of the Nation to humble itself before God in repentance for its national sins, proclaimed a day of fasting , prayer and humiliation;
Whereas all of the various faiths of the people of the United States have recognized, in our religious traditions, the need for fasting and humble supplication before
Providence;
Whereas humility, fasting , and prayer in times of danger have long been rooted in our essential national convictions and have been a means of producing unity and solidarity among all the diverse people of this Nation as well as procuring the enduring grace and benevolence of God;
Whereas, through prayer , fasting , and self-reflection, we may better recognize our own faults and shortcomings and submit to the wisdom and love of God in order that we may have guidance and strength in those daily actions and decisions we must take; and
Whereas dangers and threats to our Nation persist and, in this time of peril, it is appropriate that the people of the United States, leaders and citizens alike, seek guidance, strength, and resolve through prayer and fasting : Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the President should issue a proclamation--
(1) designating a day for humility, prayer , and fasting for all people of the United States; and
(2) calling on all people of the United States--
(A) to observe the day as a time of prayer and fasting ;
(B) to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and to learn how we can do better in our everyday activities; and
(C) to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our Nation.
"The storm is from God," he said, looking out his trembling window. "Until the aggression started, never in my life did I see a storm like this. We all believe in God, we all have faith in God. And God is setting obstacles against the Americans." [Washington Post]
Our President believes that his divine purpose is to rid the world of Saddam Hussein (and probably anyone else he believes is a terrorist), and that God chose him to lead the nation at this time in history. He also believes that God is on "our side" in the war.
Now Iraqis are wondering if maybe God isn't on "their side" - and is now helping them out by sending an intense sandstorm to interfere with our ability to wage this war effectively.
Maybe one of the embedded reporters will get a chance to find out where God is currently staying and ask him about it.
Last week I posted about the creeping fascism that seems to be growing in our nation. It's a topic I plan to stay on top of, and which other bloggers and activists have been writing about as well. I found this passage in an interesting article at The Email Activist. While there are points in the article where the author seems to be slipping a bit into hyperbolic paranoia (such as asking when slave labour may be making a comeback), the majority of the article reflects what I've seen and heard from a variety of other sources, and it makes an excellent point about how far we've come from the roots of this country and why it was initially established in the first place.
When the shooting started at Lexington Green in 1775, those calling themselves patriots were the men and women who refused to yield their rights to an increasingly oppressive government.Today, according to John Ashcroft and his Patriot Act of 2001, a patriot is someone who kneels down in fear and hands over his or her rights to the government in the name of fighting terrorism.
Isn’t the hypocrisy of this all too obvious? The Bush administration wants us to fight in Afghanistan, to fight in Iraq, and to fight wherever terrorists may be hiding. And what, pray tell, are we fighting for? Well, according to the White House, we’re fighting for freedom. Yet freedom is exactly what the White House is demanding that we now surrender in the name of fighting terrorism.
The article also includes a short list of the rights and freedoms that we have lost since 9/11 - most of them through the USA PATRIOT act. Some of those listed are ones that have been talked about fair frequently: The ability of the government to search homes or businesses without notifying you; libraries and bookstores can now be required to turn over your reading lists - and are forbidden to tell you if they've been asked for your records; the ability of the government to arrest and detain people suspected of possible terrorist involvement indefinately, without charges and without the ability to contact an attorney, and then - if they choose to take the case to trial - they can do so in a secret military tribunal, with no jury, no public oversight, no right to confront the evidence and no appeals; and the ability of law enforcement to listen in to conversations between attorneys and their clients.
There were two items on the list that I was not aware of, and which I find at least as troubling as the ones I was aware of - if not moreso. The first is that the government can now take steps, including using bugs, to track phone calls and emails of people who are not even suspected of having commited a crime. In addition, the FBI can make use of their Magic Lantern technology to track everywhere you visit on the Internet, and to capture every keystroke you make. The second is that the Feds can now investigate someone even if their only reason for being suspicious of them is that they have participated in activities that are legal and protected by the First Amendment - such as if someone has taken part in an anti-war protest or something of that nature.
Of course, John Ashcroft and his Justice department don't think the Patriot Act goes quite far enough, so they are working on a bill to "enhance" the new powers it grants.
Dr. David Cole, a Law professor at Georgetown University and author of Terrorism and the Constitution assessed the document, saying, “I think this is a quite radical proposal. It authorizes secret arrests. It would give the Attorney General essentially unchecked authority to deport anyone who he thought was a danger to our economic interests. It would strip citizenship from people for lawful political associations.”
Today's Washington Post reports on how the government is stepping up the use of secret surveilance and records searches which do not require authorization through the courts and - unless a case comes to trial - are not subject to any judicial oversight. In many of these cases, the government has no obligation to notify you that you're being investigated, or that they've requested your personal records from various businesses. These records may include e-mails, phone records, banking records and credit reports. These, too, are courtesy of the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act also significantly increased the amount of intelligence information that can be shared with criminal prosecutors and federal grand juries, giving authorities new powers in the war on terrorism. National security letters can be used as part of criminal investigations and preliminary inquiries involving terrorism and espionage, according to officials and internal FBI guidelines on the letters.
There is, however, one small bit of hopeful news in all of this. As it currently stands, Congress will be reviewing provisions of the Patriot Act in 2005. True, that sounds like it's a long ways off - and as fast as things are changing in this country, to a certain extent it is, but as more citizens become aware of the extent to which this country is sliding into fascism, more pressure can be brought to bear on Congress to ensure that they retain the necessary control in order to do those reviews, and that they will rescind, repeal or otherwise refuse to renew as many provisions of the act as possible.
Ever since the "War on TerrorTM" began, there have been concerns not only about how we would determine which "sponsors of terror" to go after, and what other countries might do with the precedent we're setting. One area of particular worry has been the long-running conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, and it looks like that dispute may be heating up again.
On March 23rd, 24 Hindus were killed in a raid on Nandimarg, a village in Indian-administered Kashmir. India is claiming that the raid was committed by Pakistanis, dressed in army uniforms, while Pakistan claims the raid was committed by India's own army. No rebel groups have yet claimed credit for the attack.
The dispute over Kashmir has been ongoing for the last 14 years, and it is often hard to tell who the good guys and bad guys are in the conflict. Official estimates indicate that around 37,000 people have died in the fighting, though Muslim rebels claim the number is closer to 80,000. One of the major sticking points has been that India refuses to enter into diplomatic talks with Pakistan until Pakistan stops supporting the terrorists India believes are behind the attacks. Pakistan, of course, denies that they are supporting any terrorists.
In response to the attack, the US has once again called upon India and Pakistan to try and work out the problem diplomatically. India is now complaining that the US is promoting a double-standard in how to deal with terrorism, with some conflicts - such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq - requiring military intervention, while others - such as that between India and Pakistan - being told to handle it diplomatically.
India on Wednesday strongly disapproved the "double standards" pursued by the US and some others in dealing with Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism, saying the fight against international terrorism was "ill-served" if threats in some cases were met with military means and in others with calls for restraint and dialogue.
New Delhi's sharp rebuff came following the renewed call by the US for resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue, disregarding India's growing concerns over cross-border terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir aided and abetted by Pakistan. "The global war against terrorism can only be won when it is pursued without double standards and terrorism is eradicated wherever it exists, without being influenced by short term political and other considerations," External Affairs Ministry spokesman told reporters. He said, "The combat against international terrorism is ill-served if threats in some cases are met with military means and in others with calls for restraint and dialogue."
One of the biggest concerns in the India-Pakistani conflict is that it may turn nuclear. Both nations have nuclear capabilities, and tensions are obviously very high. Today, both Pakistan and India have test fired nuclear-capable short-range missles in an apparent response to the recent killings.
The US has at least partially justified our attack on Iraq by claiming the Iraqi government sponsors terrorism. We also claimed that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. We've said that Saddam has had 12 years to show that he's willing to disarm and basically 'behave' himself. India's claims about Pakistan are similar. They believe that Pakistan is sponsoring the terrorist attacks on Kashmir, they know that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and the conflict has gone on for 14 years. Granted, they appear to have little evidence to support their claim that Pakistan is behind the attacks in Kashmir, but we have little evidence to support the idea that Saddam is behind the 9/11 attacks. How, then, do we justify telling India that they need to keep trying to use diplomacy, when we decided that our dispute with Iraq called for war?
I suspect that we will be seeing more problems like this in the future, as we make decisions that set dangerous precedents. We may want to be the world leader, but if we keep taking controversial actions and then telling other countries they should take a different route, we're going to lose influence quickly - and we won't be able to have much input in what happens as a result.
The United States can't assume that we can do whatever we want, justified or not, and not have other nations follow suit. We may be the largest and more powerful nation in the world, but that doesn't mean we get to have different rules than everyone else. Insisting that we do only adds to our image as a global bully - which is an image we can ill afford to have.
A few days ago, there were a number of articles boasting that a "huge" chemical weapons plant had been found. Almost immediately, US Central Command let it be known that it was premature to call it a "weapons plant", and that they would have to inspect the plant to find out if it had been used for chemical weapons or not.
Since then, fewer articles have been posted about the most recent news about the site - that no chemical weapons had been found, and that there is no indication it had been used to make chemical weapons in at least the last 5 years.
In an interesting note, Canoe (a Canadian news site) published an AP article which reports that "[b]efore the war, American intelligence agencies had identified the site in the town of Najaf as a possible part of Iraq's chemical weapons program." This raises an important question: If American intelligence agencies were aware of this site before the war, did they let the weapons inspectors know that they should check the site? If not, why not? and if so, how was it that this was initially described as a "discovery" - implying that it was a site previously unknown to Western forces?
Many sites reporting on the initial story linked to a Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe story from January 2003 that describes several sites in the Al-Najaf area that has been inspected, none of which showed indications of having been used as chemical weapons plants. It's hard for me (as a layman) to tell for sure if the specific site in question is among those reported in the article.
One of the hardest things to do right now is separate fact from speculation - and with the speed of the Internet, stories posted on one site can quickly spread throughout cyberspace. I've been glad to see that most of the bloggers I read regularly have been careful to indicate if a story they're reporting on is based more on rumours or speculations than fact or even 'confirmed reports', and it's something I try to do as well.
Sadly, it sometimes seems that we bloggers tend to be more skepical of reports than the "traditional" press is. Granted, they are in competition for ratings, and having 'scoops' is a time-honoured way of getting an audience. Since most blogs are not run on a for-profit basis (most are more a labour of love - or a labour of anger & frustration, as the case may be), the size of our audience isn't nearly as important. Blogs tend to live and die less on the basis of how many people read them than they do on the basis of whether or not the author/editor feels like keeping it going. It tends to give us a greater freedom in what we publish, and the manner in which we publish it. It doesn't guarantee accuracy - but it makes it much easier to ask questions about what is reported, or to take the time needed to try and verify a story before publishing it.
I don't think blogs will replace "traditional" news sources anytime soon, but as an adjunct, I do think we can be valuable to the public, pointing out some of the questions that need to be asked. It's certainly going to be interesting to watch how the relationship between "traditional" news sources and bloggers evolves, during the war and after its done.
I originally posted this in Rayne's comments section on a message she posted today about her daughter's teacher telling her not to call fries "French" fries, but that they were now "Freedom fries", but I wanted to post it here, also, because I think parents should be aware that this kind of crap does happen in our public schools, and should be watching out to make sure that your own children's teachers aren't indoctrinating them rather than educating them.
It's really frightening how easily that kind of stuff gets into our society - and where it shows up. Groupthink is one of the most insisious evils that I know of.
As for what happened at your daughter's school, well, that is beyond pathetic. Students in public schools should not be subjected to such blatant propaganda.
In addition to being ridiculous, this whole "hate the French" attitude has already begun to be translated into real crimes against French people and businesses with "French" in their name.
A woman who had moved to the states from France had her garage door vandalized, with a message reading "Scum. Go back to France", and a man who owned a chain of stores called "French Cleaners" had graffiti scratched into the window of one of this stores saying "F%$& the French" - which weakened the window enough to cause it to shatter, and had a pellet gun fired at a second store. At roughly the same time, his third store was destroyed by fire. At last report, the fire department was not classifying the fire as suspicious, but most of the media was, and I have to admit, I'd find it hard to believe that it wasn't arson - though the possiblity does exist.
The schools have no business whatsoever teaching children intolerance of anything, regardless of the teacher - or anyone else's - point of view. I am SO furious on your behalf right now.
Just like the teacher who was only giving extra credit to students who wrote and sent letters to the President that promoted her position on the war, this teacher is crossing the line between giving students the basic knowledge and materials they will need in order to learn how to make their own decisions and opinions and is simply trying to put opinions in their heads to start with. It is completely inexcusible, and I wish you all the best in handling this. I'm sure you'll be able to make them understand what exactly was wrong with what they did! :)
I'm watching some news on MSNBC right now, and just heard that the Senate has voted to slash the President's requested tax cut in half to help fund the war. Go Senate! It's good to see them recognizing the financial realities of the entire situation.
A note for those of you who want to leave comments -- Enetation, the comment service I use, allows the use of "Forum Codes" in comments - but since I don't often use forums, I'm not entirely sure what those codes would be. If, however, you are familiar with those codes, please feel free to make use of them in your posts.
I also got some very good news from them today -- I had contacted them a while back to see if they would be adding any HTML support, and got a response from them today that they have added support for links (though it doesn't auto-link URL's, so you have to include the "a href=" code), italics and bolding, so you should be able to use those, also.
I noticed that Jan from Secular Blasphemy ihs celebrating is 6 month anniversary - CONGRATULATIONS! You've been doing a great job, and while we don't always agree on everything, I find your posts to be illuminating.
When I saw his post about his 6 month anniversary, I realized that I had missed my own 6 month mark (can you say "overfocused"? I knew you could!) on March 17th. I just wanted to take a moment to thank all of you who have visited this site, who read it regularly, and who have given me so much encouragement in working on it. Even if you haven't left comments, just by turning up in the hit counter, you've helped me keep going, and I am deeply grateful. Being homebound and cut off from so much of the world, the response to 'different strings' helps me feel "useful", and you have no idea how much that means. So thank you all, and I hope you'll continue to find reasons to stop by here on your travels in cyberspace.
Kriselda
Many of the pro-war bloggers have been making a big deal about the reports early in the week of Iraq firing Scud missles, which they had claimed they not longer had. Today, they're also adding the reports that our soldiers have found a chemical weapons plant.
Shortly after the report of a possible weapons plant was made public, the Pentagon started backing off from the story a bit, and US Central Command noted that it was premature to call it a weapons plant or to say that we had found any forbidden weapons. Apparently, we have also since learned that none of the missles fired by Iraq were Scud missles.
The United States and Britain launched their war on Iraq (news - web sites) last week to oust President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) because they said he had stockpiles of banned chemical and biological weapons.
However, Washington and London say their forces have so far not found any evidence of chemical or biological weapons and none of the missiles fired by Iraq have been Scuds, despite initial reports to the contrary.
Scud missiles, along with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, are among the arms that Iraq was barred from possessing by U.N. resolutions after the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites). [Yahoo News - updated roughly an hour before I made this post]
Just found this in the comments section at Eschaton - rather interesting, given how much time and energy Bush has put into convincing people that there is a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The quote is from the official transcript of a January 31st joint press conference with President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, located at the official White Hourse site:
Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question. The one thing I would say, however, is I've absolutely no doubt at all that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after September the 11th? We know that these terrorists networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction. And we know also that they will do whatever they can to acquire the most deadly weaponry they can. And that's why it's important to deal with these issues together.
Be sure to re-read that. One of the main justifications for this war has been the belief among many Americans that Saddam Hussein IS connected to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks. President Bush has been going out of his way to create the impression of this link, and polls show that 48% of the American people believe that there is a connection, even though there has been no evidence presented to back up that belief. Yet here we have the President, upon being asked directly if he believes (not if he has evidence of or can prove - just if he believes) that a link exists, and his answer is that he "can't make that claim". This isn't something where his words are being twisted, or a case of bad reporting by the so-called liberal media - this is from an official White House transcript from the White House website.
For those who missed it, here is Michael Moore's acceptance speech from the Oscars tonight. I don't always agree with Moore, and I can't say that I take everything he says or presents in his films at face value, but I did like what he had to say tonight, and wanted to share it.
Whoa. On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan from Canada, I'd like to thank the Academy for this. I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to — they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.
There's a MeFi thread today about the "Third Wave" experiment - an attempt by a teacher to help his students understand how ordinary Germans during the Second World War were able to, essentially, ignore all that was going on around them, and fall into conformity with Hitler and the Nazi's fascist dictates.
According to his own accounting of the experiement, by instructing his students in the values of "Strength through Discipline", "Strength trough Community", "Strength through Action" and "Strength through Pride", he was able - in less than a week - to create a mini, fascist group who believed that it was their duty to spy on other members of the group and report any infractions of the "rules", who obeyed his instructions without question, recruited others into the "movement", and showed little ability to think or act for themselves.
Admittedly, there is room for some questions about the veracity of the account posted at the above link - as one MeFi poster pointed out, there seem to be some conflicts of the timeline and a whiff of implausibility to how some things were described. I do, however, feel that the experiment happened and the events were at least reasonably close to what is described by the teacher. Part of this comes from my own memory of an experiment done by my 6th grade class in discrimination. When I look back on it now, I'm astonished how quickly the students chosen to be the "dominant" group took to their role as bigots, and the "subordinate" group took to their roles as victims. I also recall that initially the teacher provided us with some specific examples of how the discrimination should be shown (separate water fountains, showing deference to the dominant group by letting them go through doors first, and so on), and it didn't take long for the students to expand the list of ways to oppress their fellow classmates. The changes in behaviour were quick and nearly complete - and I recall being uncomfortable with how quickly what was intended as "role play" went from feeling like acting to being much more natural.
The Third Wave experiment - if it played out reasonably close to how it was described - showed how easy it can be for a group of people to accept fascism - to buckle to authority and conform to what is expected, and how quickly the mindset can spread. Sadly, it is something that we can see happening to a certain extent here in America since the 9/11 attacks.
At least, so far, it's been "to a certain extent". The question, of course, is when it will stop.
In the last couple of weeks, the quote (below) from Hermann G?g has been posted on just about every blog I've visited, but it's a very important one for us to hear and remember...
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
...especially when we recall this quote, from our freedom-loving Attorney General, John Ashcroft:
"To those who pit Americans against immigrants and citizens against noncitizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of goodwill to remain silent in the face of evil."
One of the truly frightening lessons from the Third Wave experiment is that the students knew, when the teacher started his experiment, that they had been talking about Nazi Germany and how Hitler gained control over the populace. One might think that such knowledge would serve almost as a vaccine - helping them be able to resist techniques designed to turn them into good little fascists themselves, but it didn't. No one in the class opposed what was happening, and nothing was able to stop the transformation from occurring, until the teacher ended the experiment by providing a sharp lesson in what had happened.
Likewise, we might think that our civilization's knowledge of Nazi Germany, and our own horror at the things that happened during Hitler's rule, would make it that much harder for any leader to turn us into good little fascists. Yet, all around us, there are signs that the transformation is well-underway. A story (brief excerpt below) published in Salon, and widely quoted by the blogging community tells of the reaction a couple received when mentioning that they were against the war, and that Iraq had not been a part of the 9/11 attacks.
"At some point, you have to trust your president! You have to believe that he knows something we don't". Not exactly the most comforting words I've read. No, I don't have to trust the president - especially when he has developed such a track record of lying, evasion, misinformation and otherwise misleading us in so many ways.
One way the new facism is reinforces is how, when confronted by people who do not agree with the war, rather than keeping their arguments to the actual assertions being made by the anti-war side, those who are in favour of the war frequently attack the speaker, or the anti-war movement, instead. When someone points out that none of the evidence Bush has presented as justifying this war stands up well to scrutiny, rather than countering that claim with information showing how the evidence does hold us, the pro-war advocate is more likely to tell you that, if you love Saddam so much, you should just move to Iraq.
Today I was listening to the news on MSNBC, and Chris Matthews began talking about how, now that the war has started, there's much more support for the war. He implied that Democrats who aren't supporting the war are somehow 'missing the point', and from his arrogant tone of voice, you could tell he considers those who support the war to be superior to those who oppose it. He's not the only one.
With the media making snide comments and implications about anti-war advocates, and pro-war forces doing everything they can to both discredit the personal character of those who oppose the war and to question their patriotism, an atmosphere develops in which continuing to express opposition becomes a scary thing.
A few days ago, I posted a notice about MoveOn.org's Windowlight campaign. At the time I posted it, I fully intended to participate, thinking that my husband had agreed. Since the, however, he's become concerned that if we did have such a visible symbol of our opposition to the war on our home, we might be at risk for someone throwing a rock through the window or some other kind of vandalism. He says that it's not so much the fear that's stopping him, but the simple fact that we can't afford to replace the glass if they did. While I don't agree with him, its not the kind of thing I can do without his agreement. Even though he denies that he's responding to intimidation, in a very real sense, he is. Were it not for the fact that the pro-war forces have shown themselves willing to stoop to such measures, there's be no reason to worry about whether we could afford replacing a window or not.*
All of these tactics are the kinds of things that help create the repressive atmosphere in which fascism can flourish. As with the "Third Wave" experiment, even though we know the signs to watch out for and the horror that can result when a fascist dictator gains control of a free people, we are not immune to tactics, and the country is in very real danger of losing it's vision and purpose as a land of liberty.
It took the teacher revealing to the student how far they had falling into fascism to shake them out of it. It took much the same kind of revelation to bring the German people back out of it as well. There has to be some way, however, to stop the slide in the first place. The more of us that can speak out about the danger we are in, and the more people we can help see how far we've already come, the better chance we have of combating it as a whole. It won't be easy to reach those who are committed to the path they're on, but we have to try.
*As it currently stands, he's agreed for us to pay attention to what happens over the next couple of weeks, and see if there is much reaction to the Windowlight campaign, and rediscuss the issue then. Of course, the war proper may be over by that time, but I'm glad he's at least willing to consider it. :) Meanwhile, I have my "Virtual Windowlight" on this page, and a friend of mine has said she will add a light to her window for me -- thanks again so much!!
Earlier today, I commented on the shifting list of the "Coalition of the Willing" and asked if we even know who our supposed partners are in this war. Turns out that might actually be a fair question. According to Salon, some of the countries we have listed as members of the coalition are speaking out against the war.
Even those nominally included in the coalition are bashing the war, however much President Bush thanks them for their support. Portugal was added to the coalition list on Thursday, but somebody forgot to send the country's president the talking points. "Given that there is no mandate from the United Nations, ... Portugal will not form part of the military coalition which will be built up," Portuguese President Jorge Sampaio said on Wednesday, according to Agence France-Presse. "We will, however, allow our allies transit rights, just as other countries have done, including some which have expressed strong opposition to any military action against Iraq."
On Wednesday, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher had moved Portugal, Singapore and Bulgaria from the column of those that didn't want to be named to those in the Coalition of the Willing. "This is not something one can do an accounting every day," Boucher said. "I'm not inclined to do a chart or a graph or anything or, you know, color-coded countries."
It might serve him well to do so, though, because Portugal isn't the only State Department-labeled "Willing" country having trouble deciding whether or not it's in the coalition. Angolan Radio Ecclesia reported on Wednesday that all 30 members of the Angolan National Assembly spoke against the war; M.P. Joao Melo said that U.S. behavior was "unilateralist" and "imperialist." Angola -- along with the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Iceland, Kuwait, Mongolia, Portugal, Rwanda, Singapore and Uganda, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and the Solomon Islands -- was added to the list on Thursday.
"We are not having any kind of involvement," a spokesman for the Eritrean Foreign Ministry said to AFP, while backing the U.S. action. Eritrea is also a member of the Coalition of the Willing.
In comments on my previous post about the inspiring speech given to the troops of the Royal Irish, Dave noted that upon 'liberating' the port city of Umm Qasr, the first thing the soldiers did was to raise the American flag. ABC World News Tonight was just reporting on that incident. The soldiers raised both the American and Marine flags, and - thankfully - their commanders ordered the flags removed and replaced with the Iraqi flag in short order, reminding the troops that they are there to liberate the country, not to take it over.
While I'm glad to see that the commanders took action quickly to remove the inappropriate flag, it's sad that our soldiers don't seem to have gotten the concept that we're not invading in order to "conquer" Iraq. You'd think that is something they should be well aware of.
Yesterday, I posted a list of the (then 43) countries that were part of the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" in support of the war on Iraq. Today, there have been reports that we are now up to 44 or 45 countries, but when asked, the State Department indicated they wouldn't be able to keep issuing new lists or giving updated information as things change, so I have no idea who the new countries are).
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2003
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
1:50 p.m. EST
BRIEFER: Richard Boucher, Spokesman
[...] MR. BOUCHER: As far as the coalition goes, the coalition for disarmament of Iraq, the numbers, as the President said more that 35 countries have publicly declared their support. That's true. I'm not going to try to give a daily update or create a bar graph of totals. When we have a sort of another solid list, we'll give it out to you, but it's more than 35. It's still growing. Everyday we hear from new countries who are interested in being listed. Some of those are new, some of those are changes from the unlisted -- I think before I told there were at least 45 countries that we felt were cooperating and supporting this effort. It's easily above 50 now, but we'll give you a new list as soon as we -- it looks fairly safe.
QUESTION: Richard, on that, all you need is to give us two or three names to complete the 35, because we had 33 yesterday.
MR. BOUCHER: More than 35.
QUESTION: Okay. What are the others?
QUESTION: And will they actually back up the President with the names of -- I'm not suggesting you're wrong. I just --
MR. BOUCHER: I'm not -- I don't, again, I, this is something that's been changing. It's hard for me everyday to try to put out a new list or put our three or four more. Some of these things are still being checked. The cables come in at different times. I just don't feel comfortable knocking out two or three names today and two or three tomorrow. We'll give you a list as soon as we can.
QUESTION: So there aren't --
QUESTION: Well, then, (inaudible).
MR. BOUCHER: Because there are. Because we read the wires and we look at what other countries say in public and we see themselves declare -- we see them declare themselves. They are in touch with the other governments. They get in touch directly with us. We want to provide you with the best possible information, but if you have any doubts, I suspect that if you read Reuters Wire Service, for example, you could probably find 35 countries that had already declared in public. [...]
I had also noted that government officials are trying to say that this war's coalition is "greater" than the one in 1991. The Washington Post had an article today that largely debunks that claim.
The first Persian Gulf War was prosecuted by a 34-nation military force, with each nation listed in the coalition contributing troops on the ground, aircraft, ships or medics. (The list is sometimes reported as 31, because four Persian Gulf states provided a combined force.) Dozens of others nations voiced support for the war against Iraq in 1991, meaning that under the standards used by the current Bush administration, the size of the 1991 coalition likely topped 100 countries.
Moreover, the list of 34 countries in 1991 did not include Japan, which pledged $4 billion to fund the multinational force and aid frontline states; the Soviet Union, which supported a United Nations resolution authorizing force; or tiny Luxembourg, which paid the fees of Dutch and Belgian ships passing through the Suez Canal.
Twenty-one of the 34 countries that contributed forces or materiel to the first Persian Gulf War -- such as France, Syria, Pakistan, Canada, Germany and Norway -- have either refused to support the current conflict or have asked not to be identified because of public opposition to U.S. actions. In 1991, for instance, France provided 17,000 troops, 350 tanks, 38 aircraft and 14 ships. Syria provided 19,000 troops in Saudi Arabia and 270 tanks, and Germany provided five minesweepers, three other ships and eight aircraft.
The administration's current list is further padded by including countries that did not exist in 1991. Six countries now listed as supporters were then part of the Soviet Union. Czechoslovakia, which in 1991 provided 200 troops and 150 medics, has now broken into two countries, both listed as supporters of the current war.
The administration has struggled to demonstrate international support for the war since it failed to win passage of a U.N. resolution authorizing military force. The first Gulf war was backed by a U.N. resolution that was opposed by two members of the 15-member Security Council; the administration earlier this week withdrew a resolution when it became clear it could muster only four votes in support of it.
In internal talking points issued earlier in the week, when the administration claimed 30 countries as public supporters, officials were urged to compare the number of current supporters to the size of the military force assembled in 1991. Yesterday, officials announced the number of countries had topped 44.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said countries on the list "may not be providing a specific resource, or they may just be allowing access, overflight or other participation in that way, or they may just have decided they want to be publicly associated with the effort to disarm Iraq."
I have to admit I find it amusing that we can't even get a basic count of who are "coalition partners" are - the State Department briefing starts with 35, and then as the reporters try to nail down who it is, it's suddenly "easily more than 50", while the Washington Post article holds at 44. I have to wonder if we even know who our reputed partners are...
Jan as Secular Blasphemy posted a excerpt from this speech today, and the BBC posted a longer excerpt. I could just post the links and leave it at that - but reading it touched me very greatly.
Too often, it seems that honour is dead, especially in times of conflict, where our modern societies seem given to gloating, and I think it is important for reminders of this nature to be spread far and wide, because there is a wisdom here that is all too rare. I only hope that our own troops are getting the same kind of message from their leaders:
Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins to the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish
"We go to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country.
We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them.
There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly. Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send.
As for the others I expect you to rock their world. Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.
Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there.
You will see things that no man could pay to see and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis.
You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing.
Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.
If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day.
Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves.
[...] It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly.
I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts, I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them.
If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.
The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please. [...]
They're showing the Shock & Awe attack on ABC right now - the reporter describing the attack sounds like he's about to lose it - it looks like the entire western side of Baghdad is on fire, and the sound of the bombs is terrifying. I can't even begin to imagine the carnage this is causing. They say that the bombs are supposed to be "precision guided" and "carefully targeted", and that 90% of the bombs should accurately hit their mark. As Peter Jennings said "You have to wonder about that other 10%".
May Thor - the protector and defender of the common man - keep His hand around the innocent citizens of Iraq, who have been so badly abused for so many years - and protect them from the horrors their own leader may inflict, as well as the ones inflicted by ours.
May Odin and Frey - the God and Goddess of war - guard and guide our warriors, and return them home to their families and their lives with speed and safety to a nation grateful for their courage, honour and willingness to sacrifice themselves in the service of this land.
May Frigga - the Great Mother - grant comfort and peace to the families and loved ones of our soldiers, that during this time when fear is great, they will know that their sons, daughters, wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and friends are in the care of the Gods.
So mote it be.
According to a UPI article, 43 countries have agree to be recognized as part of the "Coalition of the Willing" that George Bush has said is joining the US in the war on Iraq. The article notes that, while Donald Rumsfeld is portraying this as a larger coalition than that during the 1991 war, that perception is only true when looking at the number of countries involved. We have gotten more countries to agree to "help" us than we did previously. In terms of supplying troops or contributing money, however, the levels of "assistance" fall greatly. There are also reports that there are other countries who are "helping" us, but do not wish to be named or acknowledged.
Now, see, to me, when a country is taking your side in the war, but doesn't want anyone to know about it, that's a pretty big clue that there's something a bit hinky about the whole war thing....
The countries included as part of the coalition are:
One of my online friends is an American living in Cairo. She has been keeping a journal for a while now, and comments today on what it's been like living there while many Egyptians have begun demonstrations and are trying to get into the US Embassy. She also points to an article in the Guardian about the reactions there. It notes that many of the protesters are students from the American University in Cairo, which is where her husband is a professor.
Essam el-Eryan, a prominent Muslim Brotherhood member among the protesters, said: ``American interests shouldn't feel safe in the Arab region. Iraq should be supported to transform the swift war that the U.S. wants to gang and city fights, to make Iraq a graveyard to the Americans.''
Some good tips, via Lesliepear:
One of the things we have learned over the past 18 months is that we are amazingly resilient. The vast majority of us have the ability to cope during the most challenging of times. Taking action where we can, mobilizing our resources and recognizing what we can control and what we cannot control can make a big difference in how we feel. Here are some additional tips and group meetings which you may find helpful.
Living with Uncertainty - Personal Strategies
- Remain engaged in the world by staying connected with people. Don't withdraw. Talk to family, friends or colleagues about your concerns.
- Keep up with the news, but don't watch it around the clock.
- Take necessary precautions but don't overdo it. Make an emergency communication plan with family and friends. Reach out to neighbors and get to know each other.
- Maintain your regular routine and make time to do things you enjoy.
- Get involved in local activities or volunteer your time for a worthy cause. Know there's strength in numbers and building a sense of community is very helpful.
- Take care of your health. Make time to exercise and participate in other pleasurable activities which distract you and lower your stress level. Be sure to get adequate rest.
- Don't numb your feelings with drugs and alcohol.
- Draw on your religious or spiritual traditions for strength.
- Remember you don't have to believe everything you think. Keep a perspective.
- Remind yourself that the perceptions are different but the stress effects from perceptions are real.
- Be optimistic about the challenges ahead. Remember we've come through challenging times in the past.
Sitting here, watching news of the war, I can also watch my dogs as they're sleeping. Yes, I'm one of the silly saps who thinks of her dogs as more than just an animal-that-lives-in-the-house. During the day, when I'm otherwise alone, they keep me company. When I'm upset, they know it and rush in to comfort me. Since my husband and I have chosen not to have kids, they're our children, and they're truly my friends.
Right now, both of them are stretched out comfortably, with those happy, peaceful puppy faces all dogs have when they sleep. To look at them, you'd never know there was anything going on in the world. Even when they're awake, they're bouncing around like nothing's wrong, thrilled at a few moments attention from "mommy" and "daddy" and a Milk-Bone, eager to run out in the yard and play, and snuggling up close after they've worn themselves out, laying their heads in our laps and offering that unconditional adoration that we humans so love.
Right now, I'd so love to be one of them....
See, this is just wrong (Item 47):
In an apparent move to depress them further, about 300 Florida residents with a history of depression open their mailboxes to find free samples of Eli Lilly's new product, Prozac Weekly, along with a letter that enthuses, "We are very excited to be able to offer you a more convenient way to take your antidepressant medication." A class-action suit filed in July accuses Eli Lilly, Walgreens a local hospital, and five doctors of violating the patients' right to privacy.
First off, mailing prescription medicine is just plain stupid. There are usually good, medical reasons why certain drugs are sold only by prescritption (though, admittedly, there are also skanky, financial reasons for some companies wanting to keep their drugs available by prescription only, since they usually can sell them for a great deal more than they can over-the-counter). Some drugs can be dangerous if taken incorrectly or by people who don't have the condition they are supposed to treat. Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI) antidepressants, such a Prozac, are among those. Taking too much Prozac (or other SSRI), or taking it unnecessarily, can lead to serotonin syndrome, which can cause such symptoms as fever, tremor, seizure, coma and death.
Yes, many pharmacies deliver drugs by mail every day, and yes, there is always the risk of people coming along and stealing shipments. In my own experience (I use a mail-order pharmacy because my insurance gives me a huge break on the cost if I do), the shipments are packaged in such a way that it's not obvious they are drugs, and when they are delivered, they're generally put between the screen and front doors, and are hidden by the metal base of the screen door. If other mail-order pharmacies work the same way, it reduces the risk of people stealing the drugs. In addition, a person who had ordered drugs from a pharmacy knows that they're expecting the shipment, so if they don't show up, it can be reported.
With unsolicited samples, however, there's a greater risk -- no one knows they're coming, so no one will miss them if they don't show up. Plus, the boxes are likely to be emblazoned with the the product's name. Even though Prozac isn't one of those drugs that tends to be used "recreationally", It's likely to be of value to someone. Not a brilliant move by any stretch of the imagination.
But that, of course, isn't the main issue. The real issue here is that Eli Lilly sought out and got the names and addresses of people who take Prozac so that they could try to sell them on a different form of the drug. Why would they want to change people over from "regular" Prozac to a "weekly" version? Well, the fact that the initial patent on Prozac has run out probably has something to do with it.
Fluoxetine, the active ingredient in Prozac, is now available as a generic drug, meaning Eli Lilly stands to lose a large portion of the fluoxetine market. To help combat this, they have, in recent years, introduced Sarafem, a much-advertised drug that is nothing more than Prozac, under a new name, and used to treat "pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder" (PMDD). By advertising and promoting it under a new name, Lilly has a chance to keep selling Prozac at a higher price, since many consumers may not realize that it's the same thing as Prozac, Lilly is counting on them to insist to their doctors that they want Sarafem, not fluoxetine. (This, by the way, is pretty much the whole concept behind advertising prescription drugs - to get patients to request specific drugs from the doctor and insist on them, even if the doctor feels a different medication or generic form of the drug would be just as good, if not better, for that particular patient).
Prozac Weekly is another way Eli Lilly is trying to keep making as much money as possible off of fluoxetine. It's the same medication, but processed in such a way that you only have to take one pill a week, and it will be released gradually into your system. Now, for my own part, the idea of swallowing something that would stay in my system for 7 days is a bit creepy, but that's just me. But may patients might see this as convenient and want their doctors to prescribe to it for them, and Eli Lilly wants to reach as many of these patients as possible. What do they do? They get the names and addresses of Prozac-takers from doctors, pharmacies and hospitals and mail it to them!
What business, exactly, do the doctors, hospitals and pharmacies that sold Lilly the names and addresses of their patients and customers, have doing such a thing. Pharmacies, I can understand somewhat better - I'm not aware of any legal concept of "pharmacist-customer privilege", so they are not forbidden to sell that information (though, in my opinion, they should be). But doctors and hospitals? They're not supposed to be doing that - and telling someone what medicine you're taking should be a clear violation of your rights to have your medical information kept confidential.
I know that if I received a "free sample" of any of the medications I take, I would furious. I may talk freely about my medical issues, but that's my choice. It's not up to anyone else to give that information out - and I hope that the jury in this case decides to make it clear to the medical and pharmaceutical industries that seeking out or providing such information is inappropriate, and a stupid business decisions.
From FIONA:
Now here's a delectable fantasy for you.
Yes, a very nice fantasy, indeed...
Much has been made, in the blogging community, about the report that the FBI has found a copy of the Bill of Rights that has been missing for the last 138 years. Many have asked what they plan to do with it - read it or burn it? My suggestion? They should give it to the 12 Republican congressmen referred to in this article...
Last week, 12 Republican congressmen, including Duncan Hunter, the Californian who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, signed a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, raising pointed questions about his policy of allowing journalists to travel with American troops.
The congressmen said journalists — specifically Peter Jennings, the ABC News anchor — were asking soldiers "inappropriate" questions, like what anxiety they had about fighting. The congressmen asked Mr. Rumsfeld to explain why he was not imposing "censorship."
[...] Bill Wheatley, a vice president of NBC News, said that most of the criticism seemed to be from "people on the edges of this sort of debate."
Although those executives said they did not believe that the Republican lawmakers would affect Pentagon policy, they expressed discomfort with questions about censorship.
"The Bush administration has talked about this being a war in part designed to give the people of Iraq the types of freedoms we have," Mr. Wheatley said. "I find it surprising that a group of congressman is suggesting that our freedoms be restricted."
Well, there are now at least two sites suggesting that the Statue of Liberty should be returned to France. Thankfully, they both appear to be satire rather than serious, and one even offers a cute list of suggested replacement for French words.
It's good to see that humour is still alive and well, no?
We've been hearing for what seems like ages now that this would be a quick war, and the speed of the war would help minimize the potential for civilian casualties. Now that the conflict is beginning, however, President Bush has decided it's finally time to let us know the reality of the situation: the war may be "longer and more difficult than some predict."
This really isn't news to many who have been against the war - we've always known that this might not be a quick or easy war, but the pro-war forces have kept insisting that it would be. I can only hope that we - and now President Bush - are wrong and that it is a quick, easy war.
On the positive side, it doesn't appear that they are trying the "Shock and Awe" approach that had previously been described (300 to 400 bombs on Baghdad on each of the first two days, and, as one Pentagon official put it "There will be no safe place in Baghdad"). Of course, there's no guarantee that they won't resort to that at some point, but at least they have restrained themselves thus far.
Good news out of Washington today:
WASHINGTON, March 19 — By a 52-to-48 vote, the Senate on Tuesday defeated an attempt to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. With war looming in Iraq, proponents of drilling, most of them Republicans, had focused on energy security as they tried to lift a congressional ban on drilling in the refuge.
In the end, lobbying by Vice President Dick Cheney and others were unable to persuade two key Republicans, Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, to support drilling on in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The United States could save more oil than the refuge will produce “by just getting the SUVs to have the same fuel economy as autos,” Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., argued Tuesday night.
It looks like the Oscar's won't be quite as "repressive" as had been previously reported. While I still feel that the Academy has the right to set whatever ground rules they want, and to invite whomever they feel is best to appear on the show, I'm really glad to see that they're not going to pressure the winners to avoid making political statements, and may be including noted anti-war activists as presenters.
Oscar Winners Can Have Their War Talk
Oscar producer Gil Cates has given this year's Academy Awards winners carte blanche to have their say about America's war with Iraq - but he's urging presenters to stick to the script. Faced with anti-war activists like Richard Gere and Susan Sarandon as presenters, Cates is hoping they remember they're movie stars on Oscar night, but he feels winners have the right to say what they want - in 45 seconds. At a press conference in Hollywood late yesterday, the producer said, "People who will present have received their scripts it would be inappropriate for them to make changes. But those who have been nominated when they take to the stage that's their 45 seconds and there's nothing we can do to stop them from saying what they want to say." His comments come after speculation about a new Hollywood blacklist, on which celebrities speaking out against the war are placed.
From Howard Dean's website - his statement on the war:
Tonight, for better or worse, America is at war. Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field. Those of us who, over the past 6 months, have expressed deep concerns about this President's management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction.
Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam "unsuitable, immoral and intolerable."
This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced --this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so.
CLEVELAND (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia banned broadcast media from an appearance Wednesday where he will receive an award for supporting free speech.
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
Well, it appears that we're going to have pre-emptive interrogations and possible detentions to go along with our pre-emptive war. The FBI is planning to round up about around 10,000 Iraqi nationals living in the US to interrogate in an effort to try and weed out possible terrorists who are here to strike once the war starts. According to CBS News, those to be interrogated include:
[...] "students," "defectors," "permanent residents," "visitors" and even a few recently-naturalized U.S. citizens.
The bureau is also seeking to expel several more Iraqi diplomats like the two suspected intelligence agents who were kicked out of Baghdad's U.N. delegation in New York arlier this month. Officials will detain all immigrants from 34 suspect countries seeking asylum -- mindful that Ramzi Yousef, the first World Trade Center bomber in 1993, entered the U.S. seeking asylum from Iraq. The FBI says it anticipates making several terrorism- and visa fraud-related arrests as a result of their campaign.
With the governments current policy of indefinite detentions for people suspected of being linked to terrorism, it will be interesting to see how many of these interrogations will develop into extended stays...
Salon published an article today about how several groups have planned acts of civil disobedience, to be carried out at roughly the same time the war begins, as a way of protesting the war.
Some anti-war activists say their efforts will demonstrate support for American soldiers, because the best way to help them is to bring them home. But counter-demonstrators say they, not anti-war protesters, will be voicing genuine solidarity with the troops.
When are people going to realize that neither side has a monopoly on supporting the troops? I seriously doubt that any rational person, whether they are for or against the war, wants to see our soldiers harmed in any way, or demoralized as they go into battle. There is a great deal of respect for our soldiers and the fact that they are willing to risk their lives for us, even if we don't agree with the war currently being fought.
I know many people have questioned what "support our troops" means - for me it's the basic recognition that these people are willing to risk death in order to protect our country and what it stands for. They do not choose where they are sent when time comes for war, nor do they choose what war or wars they have to fight in. My disagreement with the Bush Administration over the war has nothing to do with how I feel about the soldiers who have to fight there - nor do I think it should.
During the Vietnam era, soldiers who had returned from the war were treated horribly by people who opposed the war - and between the horrors of the war itself and the rejection and ostricization they faced when they got back, Vietnam Vets have suffered some of the worst mental and emotional problems of any returning vets. Maybe we now go a bit overboard in wanting to make sure the soldiers themselves know that any anger we express about the war is not directed at them specifically, but I also think it's a good thing, becuase they need to know that. What they're going to have to face will be difficult enough, there shouldn't have to worry about what kind of reaction will await them when they get back home.
From MoveOn.org:
It now appears that a war may be very close. The Bush administration has abandoned the diplomatic process at the United Nations. The United Nations has begun pulling its inspectors out of Iraq. President Bush has given Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq or face war. This is a very sad day.
We must remember in this dark moment that we have come a long way. By working for peace around the globe, millions of people have successfully challenged the justness of this war on a world stage. We have persuaded governments to heed their peoples' call to peace, and helped the United Nations maintain its integrity. We all have been part of a historic mobilization of the citizens of the globe. It will change everything. And in the end, we will win.
We will continue waging peace, even if war comes. We have joined together to articulate a vision of how the world should be -- of how nations should treat each other, of how we can collectively deal with threats to our security.
One simple way to show your continued commitment to this vision is to put a light in your window. It could be a Christmas string or candle, a light bulb, or a lantern. It's an easy way to keep the light of reason and hope burning, to let others know that they are not alone, and to show the way home to the young men and women who are on their way to Iraq.
We'd like to keep a list of the places and people who are joining in this simple act. Please sign up now at: http://www.moveon.org/windowlight/
I am posting this article for 2 reasons. First, it is very interesting, and, if it is a fair portrayal of the similarities between 1930's Germany and 2000's America, it is both haunting and terrifying. The Second reason is because I am unsure of how fair a portrayal it is. I have a basic knowledge of how Hitler rose to power, but I don't know all the details, and I have found it very difficult to always read past the author's bias when looking at various resources for additional information.
My hope is that if some read this article and are familar enough with the history of 1930's Germany, they can offer some insight as to whether this is a reasonably fair presentation or if it is unfairly biased to put George W. Bush in a very unfavourable light.
I very much would appreciate any comments you might wish to leave on this -- and thank you!
Published on Sunday, March 16, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
by Thom Hartmann
The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.
It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)
But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.
Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.
"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.
Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.
Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.
To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.
Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)
Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us.
Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.
His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity." Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true.
Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals." He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader.
He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.
His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, "Radio and press are at out disposal." Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.
To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.
But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.
With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.
It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our time." Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.
In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."
To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans," and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the "intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies.
Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class's way of life.
A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with democracy.
As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering.
February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine's "Man Of The Year."
Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency's initials: the SS.
We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable "shock and awe" among the nation's leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book "Shock And Awe" published by the National Defense University Press.
Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power: "fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.
Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.
To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.
Thom Hartmann lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s, and is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.
From Eschaton:
Dick Cheney, on Meet the Press. From penalcolony in comments:
|
Something I was thinking about earlier today, in regards to how we, as a culture, handle concerns of racism, especially in light of the increased tension these last two years.
Right after the 9/11 attacks, we were urged to remember that not all Middle Easterners were responsible for what had happened - not even all Muslims were. There were constant reminders in the media from civic and governmental leaders that we should take care not to take out our anger on people who had nothing to do with the actions that had been taken against us. The President has spoken out on many occasions, assuring the Muslim, Arabic and general Middle Eastern communities that they are a valued part of our country and our culture, and reminding the rest of us to treat them fairly.
Keep in mind - at that point, we had just faced the horrors of having airplanes flown into busy offices and the Pentagon, with a fourth aimed who-knows-where before it was brought down by its passengers. Over 3,000 innocent people had just died, and all of the perpetrators could be traced back to one racial/cultural group and one religion. But America is a tolerant country, we were reminded, and while we may be angry at people who look and sound like the Muslims, Arabs and other Middle Easterners who live here, it wasn't their fault, and it would be wrong to take our anger out on them.
Fast forward a year-and-a-half. We want to go to war against Iraq. France doesn't, and stands up to us. Now, France can't actually stop us from going to war, and it's unlikely that their refusal to join us in battle is really going to cost us lives - especially since I've heard nothing about there even being a scintilla of a chance that France would have sent troops or supplies. So, basically, France thumbs its nose at us. What do we do?
Well, we start renaming foods, and boycotting French items. It doesn't seem to matter to anyone that there are many Americans who, having noticed that imported French just-about-anything has enough of a cachet to it for there to be a reasonably consistant market for it, have built their lives around selling imported French goods. There are French restaraunts, gormet shops, cheese and wine shops, even stores featuring French fashions. The people who run these stores had nothing to do with the decision the French government made to not help the US. They may not even be French themselves - but their livlihoods are now now at risk because suddenly we're all supposed to boycott French everything. Sure, they're not needing to place orders for a while may eventually hurt some anonymous French corporation - but before it does that, it's going to hurt that American businessman - at a time when our economy is pretty rotten to begin with.
We hear various comics making jokes about the French, those lovable "cheese-eating surrender monkeys". We see our Congressional representatives ordering the cafeteria to rename foods and trying to get money to bring dead American bodies back from French burial grounds. The White House is even rumoured to have endorsed the idea of boycotting French items. If you want to pick on the French, it's fine by Uncle Sam.
Notice how different these reactions are? Nobody's out there trying to tell people we need to show tolerance for French-Americans. No one's offering them any reassurances that we don't hate them or blame them for what the French government did. We didn't recommend boycotts of Middle Eastern goods and foods after 9/11, but we're supposed to avoid French stuff now. This makes no sense to me.
I have to wonder if it's seen as "ok" to be intolerant towards the French because they're not a minority - so a little racist harrassment shouldn't be any kind of big deal to them. Or maybe if we were more afraid that the Middle Eastern community might get angry if we didn't try to prevent expressions of hatred towards them, and that we might end up with more terrorist attacks on our hands (a pretty racist view right there, if you ask me). Who knows what else could have been going on in our collective noggin that would explain the difference. All I know is that there is a difference, and it just makes our current treatment of the French look that much more juvinille.
An excellent rant from "Where is Raed", a blogger living in Baghdad. Here's a taste - be sure to read the whole thing:
I think that the coming war is not justified (and it is very near now, we hear the war drums loud and clear if you don’t then take those earplugs off!). The excuses for it have been stretched to their limits they will almost snap. A decision has been made sometime ago that “regime change” in Baghdad is needed and excuses for the forceful change have to be made. I do think war could have been avoided, not by running back and forth the last two months, that’s silly. But the whole issue of Iraq should have been dealt with differently since the first day after GW I.
The entities that call themselves “the international community” should have assumed their responsibilities a long time ago, should have thought about what the sanctions they have imposed really meant, should have looked at reports about weapons and human rights abuses a long time before having them thrown in their faces as excuses for war five minutes before midnight.
What is bringing on this rant is the question that has been bugging for days now: how could “support democracy in Iraq” become to mean “bomb the hell out of Iraq”? why did it end up that democracy won’t happen unless we go thru war? Nobody minded an un-democratic Iraq for a very long time, now people have decided to bomb us to democracy? Well, thank you! how thoughtful.
Which would make the better president - Bush or a package of Tic-Tacs?
Don't miss this weeks Virtual Occoquan! Read the best of the Salon Blogs all in one handy space... and thanks again to Mark Hoback for all his hard work in putting VO together each week :)
This is a letter I sent a short time ago to the members of the United Nations in a last-ditch effort to see if anything can still be done to stop this war. There is a site called the "Emergency Kit to Stop the War" that offers information on the UN Resolution (377) that authorises them to use UN Peacekeeping troops to stop a permanent Security Council member from being the aggressor in a war. While a lot of the information cited on the site strikes me as a bit loopy (such as suggesting that people appeal to the UN using ideas such as the Bush families close ties to the Nazis during WWII or that research shows that the attacks at the WTC were an "inside job" in line with the early-60's plans for Operation Northwoods), they DO have a copyable list of e-mail addresses for the UN ambassadors and many English-language media outlets in the US and around the world. In writing my letter, I chose not to mention the organization that sponsors the page.
I doubt the UN will even discuss the use of Peacekeeping troops to prevent Bush from going to war, but its one of those things I figured couldn't hurt to at least try - especially if others are trying to send the same message. There has to be at least a bit of hope up until the bombs start falling.
To the members of the United Nations:
As an American citizen, I am ashamed of the way the American government is handling the situation with Iraq. While I do not, in any way, shape or form, support Saddam Hussein, his regime or the way that he has handled this current crisis, and while I would like to see Iraq be free from his "leadership", I cannot condone or support the way George W. Bush has decided to go about removing him from power.
Since I am neither a diplomat nor a military leader, I don't know how best to resolve this situation, but bombing Baghdad and risking the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens and the soldiers sent in to fight this war simply cannot be the best answer there is. Had Mr. Bush been willing to give diplomacy serious (or any) consideration and to allow the peace process to work, I think a real solution could have been found.
I understand that under Resolution 377, the General Assembly has the power and ability to call up UN Peacekeeping troops and use them to prevent a permanent member of the Security Council from being the aggressor in a war. While Mr. Bush has attempted to present this as a necessary war to make the United States more secure and to prevent Iraq from being able to attack us, either on their own or by providing aid and weapons to a terrorist organization, I am not convinced that Iraq is a serious threat to the US or, for that matter, to other countries outside the Middle East. Additionally, at this time, there are no indication that they have any plans or desires to invade or otherwise attack any countries in their immediate vicinity. As such, I do not - and cannot - believe that attack and invasion are justified responses to the concerns about Iraq and its weapons capabilities.
Please understand, I love my country, and I cannot bear to see what it is turning into under this current administration. I am asking you for help in preventing this great nation from becoming the next international pariah and threat to world peace. I hope that this proposal will be given serious consideration, and that the UN will not allow itself to be intimidated by the new aggressiveness that the US is displaying. So far, I, and other Americans who, like me, oppose the war, have been unable to get the government to listen. So have the millions from around the world who have made their opposition to this war known. It seem that Mr. Bush only speaks the language of violence and considers himself and the US government to be above the rules that govern the rest of the world. The UN needs to step in and remind him that, even though we may be a large, powerful country, we are still a part of the international community and need to work within that framework, rather than playing the 'lone cowboy' out to be a hero.
Ron Wyden is quickly becoming a hero of mine.
Senator Ron Wyden (D.-Ore.), who earlier this year spearheaded an effort to cut off funding for the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness program, won Senate Commerce Committee approval last week of an amendment to require Congressional oversight of the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II) being developed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
Concerned that the CAPPS II program could violate the privacy and civil liberties of the flying public, Wyden introduced the amendment to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to report to Congress within 90 days on what impact the CAPPS II program will have on the privacy and civil liberties of United States citizens, including how individual information will be used and what safeguards will be implemented to protect the public's rights.
CAPPS II bears more than just a passing similarity to the Total Information Awareness program, but in some ways is almost more insidious since, at present, there is no indication that people would ever be able to find out what their rating is nor how they would be able to appeal their rating (if such an appeal would even be possible).
When we think of Communist countries and other repressive regimes, one of the images that comes to mind is the need for people to have proper "travelling papers" and restriction on who could go where, even within their own country. CAPPS II is, in a sense, a high-tech version of that - if your rating doesn't measure up, travel for you becomes that much more difficult. Somehow, I don't think that's what we really want.
Did the people who insist on renaming French fries and French toast, and who want to have the government pay to move the bodies of soldiers killed in WWII from Fance to America really think it wouldn't lead to things like this?
(3/17/03- Houston) — For Francoise Thomas, the anger against France for its continuing opposition to military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein hadn't hit home until she read about it on one of her doors.
When Thomas took out the garbage Saturday morning, she saw red letters spray-painted on the garage door of her townhouse.
"Scum go back to France," it read.
I don't even want to know what's next...
UPDATE: Here is a picture of the garage after it was "redecorated".
Earlier this evening, my husband found a poem he had written several years ago... it still seems somewhat appropriate. While there's no denying that Saddam Hussein is an evil man, it doesn't necessary follow that anyone who opposes him is automatically on the side of good. Here is his poem, "Battle for Evil", and his comments on the situation and finding the poem again.
Earlier this evening, I was reflecting on the political climate today, and the impending war with Iraq. I couldn't help wondering how the events of America's history wound up leading up to this point, and whether or not Karma had some role to play in our electing someone so hell bent on forsaking peace in favor of starting a war. Admittedly, I've been trying to distance myself, as much as possible, from the issue, either by surfing the net, watching TV (avoiding the networks), or playing hours upon hours of Dark Age of Camelot. I'm not so much trying to pretend reality doesn't exist right now, but I feel a desire to try and pretend that it's better.
Tonight, the writer in me was feeling inclined to relieve some of the stress I've been feeling by putting my emotions on paper. Unfortunately, I'm still too taken aback by everything to even conceive of the words that would adequately describe just what it is that I am feeling. As luck would have it, I just happened to have found a folder on my hard drive that contains every poem I've ever written. One poem, Battle For Evil, though written as a period piece, sadly draws a very poignant parallel between what I'd invisioned when I wrote it, and what we could face in the next few days. I'd like to share it with you now...
Battle For Evil
By Matt Hutchinson
Knights in armor
Clothed in black
Blades glaring
In the moonlit night
Riding on mighty steeds
Eyes full of anger
Conquest in their faces
Ready for the fight
The ground is solid
Grass trampled, life lost
The sound of men
Drowning out the innocence
Of nature
Animals confused
Wondering what has invaded
Their home
Fog provides a curtain
For the soldiers which come tonight
To fight the battle
The battle for evil
The sound of trumpets
Echoes through the air
The battle begins
And all is lost
Forest crumbled
Trees afire
Smoke rises
Carrying the souls of the dead
To the night sky above
Was it worth it?
To fight the battle?
The battle for evil?
IN THE Azores and on Washington talk shows, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made clear that it was too late for Iraq to disarm, too late for further weapons inspections and too late for more diplomacy to get the world to support the U.S. casus belli. Although they are giving the United Nations another day to agree with the American position, Bush and his lieutenants made clear that was mere symbolism. The only means to avoid war, they said, was Hussein’s exile.
“Saddam can leave the country, if he’s interested in peace,” the president said. “He got to decide whether he was going to disarm, and he didn’t. He can decide whether he wants to leave the country.” [MSNBC]
In other words, within the next few days, we will be at war. We will be raining bombs on Baghdad. The men and women in our voluntary armed forces will be at risk - at great risk. Of course, so will we - the civilian population of the US. The CIA, FBI and Homeland Security Agency has told us that attacking Iraq will increase the liklihood of terrorist attacks on American targets both here, in the states, and abroad.
March 16 — Calling Monday a “moment of truth for the world,” President Bush pressed one last time for Iraq’s disarmament during an emergency summit with the leaders of Spain and Britain in the Azores islands on Sunday. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who just hours before the meeting placed his country on war footing, responded to the allies, saying it is a “great lie” that his country still has banned weapons.
AT A JOINT press conference at the end of the brief meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Durao Barroso, Bush said the world must support the “immediate and unconditional” disarmament of Saddam Hussein.
“Tomorrow is the day we will determine if diplomacy can work,” Bush said. “These are his decisions to make and thus far he has made bad decisions.”
How Bush can claim that "tomorrow" they will decide if diplomacy can work, when he obviously determined before any of this really began that it wouldn't, is beyond me - but this is man who seems to be chronically allergic to the truth, so it's certainly no surprise.
Germany obviously expects war to break out soon. They're instructing all Germans to leave Iraq as soon as possible and are planning to be ready to close the embassy in Baghdad in the next 3 days.
Once diplomacy was exhausted, officials said, Bush would address the nation, issuing a final ultimatum to Saddam and giving aid workers and others time to leave Iraq.
An editorial at the Christian Science Monitor takes the "lets avoid anything French" trend to it's next logical point:
Why stop with Evian, Total gasoline, and the Concorde (
justonly the Air France flights)? Let's get to the heart of thematterthing: Ahugebig percentage of the words inmoderntoday's English are of - gasp! - Frenchoriginbeginnings. What if, as a result of thecurrent diplomatic disputetoday's falling out between lands, the Frenchdemandask for their words back? We could all be linguistichostagescaptives.
In some ways, it's almost hard to tell which anti-French protests are supposed to be taken seriously and which are the result of people trying to point out how silly the whole effort is. When I first read about the Florida Congresswoman who wants the government to pay - using tax dollars - for any families who want to move the bodies of their WWII veteren relatives from their current burial places in France to American soil, I thought for sure it was some kind of a joke - but it's not. She's dead serious.
"I, along with many other Americans, do not feel that the French government appreciates the sacrifices men and women in uniform have made to defend the freedom that the French enjoy today," Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite said in introducing legislation providing financial help for the reburial of veterans from the two world wars.
There are many reasons I worry for this country. She's right up there.
On a positive note, at least veterans groups aren't immediatly jumping on the bandwagon:
Steve Thomas, a spokesman for the American Legion, said the veterans' group would need some time to look at the legislation. He said the American Legion has always respected the wishes of the families concerning those who died in combat, but noted that "a lot of people may not want to repatriate their fallen loved ones, separating them from their comrades, to make a statement about the French government."
Safely in the satire column is a petition at Petition Online asking that the actor French Stewart change his name to Freedom Stewart. Scary thing is, he comes across as goofy enough that I could almost see him doing it (albeit temporarily). Turns out he's got a new movie coming out on video - the sequal to Inspector Gadget - so he could probably even use the publicity if he did. Whether he does (or would) or not, though, the petition itself is cute.
Courtesy of Mark at Fried Green al-Qaedas: "...teenie weenie model airplanes of mass destruction..."
Want some context? Check it out here
TBOGG has come up with the perfect name for the upcoming war with Iraq:
Operation Inigo Montoya
"My name is George W. Bush. You tried to kill my father. Prepare to die."
ROFL
I really wish I could participate in this... if anyone is going, please take an extra candle for me?
As of noon EST today (Friday), there are over 3,000 vigils planned in 100 countries. Tens of thousands -- if not hundreds of thousands -- will be participating on Sunday.
You can still sign up for a vigil in your area at: http://www.globalvigil.org
The Global Vigil is endorsed by Nobel Peace Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who recently said:
"On Sunday evening people in every corner of the globe will shine beacons of light throughout the world. May our candles rekindle the light of reason and hope so that war will be averted in Iraq and peace will prevail in the world."
Please sign up today.
In a recent column, Molly Ivins made the following comment:
A final note on matters journalistic: At his press conference last week, President Bush broke a 43-year tradition by failing to call on Helen Thomas, now of the Hearst Syndicate, who has been asking questions at presidential press conferences since 1960. Thomas is openly critical of this administration, and particularly of this war.
Afraid to take a question from an 82-year-old woman? George W. Bush has no class.
The way she phrased that question "Afraid to take a question from an 82-year-old woman?" makes it sound like an 82-year-old woman should be easy to deal with - that the combination of age and gender should render the questioner impotent, someone whose questions should be of no challenge to the President.
The easy thing to say is that Helen Thomas is no 'ordinary' 82-year-old woman, but that misses the point. If Helen Thomas had been Harold Thomas, or if Helen were, say 50, it's unlikey anyone would be asking if Bush was afraid of an 82-year-old man or a 50-year-old woman since neither would, stereotypically, project the same image of feebleness that the phrase "82-year-old woman" does.
Given Thomas' long history of excellent journalism and tough questions, it's not surprising that Bush didn't want to take a question from her. He knew she could easily back him into a corner - any one of several corners, actually - that he doesn't want to acknowledge exist.
Yes, it's shameful that Bush refused to call on Helen Thomas, but not because he "afraid" of an 82-year-old woman. It's shameful because he didn't want to face someone who's has a well-earned reputation for putting Presidents on the spot. Any President worth the office shouldn't be afraid of answering any questions put to him, and should remember that we - as his employers - have a right to know those answers - whether he likes it or not.
According to an article in The Scotsman, several Hollywood starts - including George Clooney, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Meryl Streep, Sean Penn, Vanessa Redgrave, Ed Norton, Dustin Hoffman, Dennis Hopper and Spike Lee - have been barred from being presenters at this year's Acadamy Awards in an effort to prevent the awards show from being turned into a peace rally.
Now, the producers have the right to do that - the show is not intended as a forum for political opinions of any stripe (though it certainly has been used as such on many occasions), and they have an obligation to make sure that the show gets the highest rating possible for their advertisers. I only comment on it because I've heard nothing about them trying to keep pro-war celebrities from making comments promoting their views as well. While they're not required to be fair, I certainly hope that the will choose to be.
UPDATE: Something I meant to mention, but forgot (::slaps hand:: BAD BLOGGER! BAD!). Even though I recognize the Acadamy has the right to determine the content of their own show, I also support the right of people who disagree with their anti peace-protester position to boycott the show. Both are fine examples of the marketplace at work -- the producers of the show are trying to create a product they think people will want to watch, and the consumers have the ability to tell them whether they're right or wrong in their assumptions by choosing to watch or not as their conscience (and interests) dictate.
On a semi-related note, I know that NBC has expressed concern over Martin Sheen's vocal oppostion to the war, and it's been reported that his role as the President on "The West Wing" is in jeopardy because of it (though no similar distress has been exhibited over Fred Thompson's making his pro-war sentiments). On Wednesday nights, NBC usuallly shows "The West Wing" at 8pm (Central) followed by Law & Order at 9. Last night, however, they showed two episodes of "Law & Order" - one in place of "The West Wing" and one in the show's normal time slot.
Now, I don't know if this is something they'd had planned for a while or not, but I have to admit it made me curious. Does anyone know if this is something NBC did because of the controversy, or was it just one of their special "let's-show-a-lot-of-Law & Order" nights (which, given how much I love "Law & Order", isn't anything I have an objection to *g*)?
While I agree that teachers should have a great deal of latitude in what kind of assignments they give their students, or what they consider appropriate material for extra credit, this teacher clearly crossed the line.
Louis Zellers says adjunct speech professor Rosalyn Kahn offered her students extra credit for sending letters to Bush expressing anti-war views but said they would receive no extra credit if they wrote letters supporting a war with Iraq.
Zellers says his letter to Bush also will request that all letters received from Citrus College students be retracted.
The college place placed Kahn on administrative leave with pay starting this week, pending a review of her actions.
The class in question, oddly, was a speech class - not any kind of a writing or political science class - and is a required class for people who are wanting to transfer to California's state schools.
As you may have noticed, I am against the war in Iraq. I also think that it's good for Bush to receive a lot of letters and calls from people expressing that viewpoint. I even think that giving students extra credt for writing to him to express their views would be appropriate for certain kinds of classes - but only if the credit is given regardless of what view the student expresses.
One student summarized his experience this way:
"It seemed more like a political science class," Stevens said. "There was no room for dissenting remarks. You just had to follow her beliefs and that's what you worked with. I told her "this isn't fair, we can't compromise our beliefs,' but that I did the assignment according to her instructions. When she said the letter had to be mailed if I wanted credit, I said, "No, that's not OK,' and I took the letter back."
Apparently, that wasn't the only subject about which she tried to use her students to push her views - she also had them write to a state senator about the state's education budget.
Specifically, students were told to write that part-time instructors are vital to the college and that they shouldn't lose their jobs, said Christopher Stevens, 20, a first-year student at Citrus College.
For both assignments, students were told they would only receive credit if they expressed certain political viewpoints, Stevens said.
Encouraging political activism is good. But this teacher wasn't as interested in doing that as she was in getting more support for her own views, to make them appear more popular than they really are.
The situation was resolved with the teacher being suspended, and ordered to revoke her initial assignment and redo the project giving students the extra credit if they write the letters without regard to the position the student takes on the matter, and with out requiring the students send the letters to get credit.
It's been a while since we actually got some really good news in this country - and while it may really only impact the Smart family and the family of the man accused of kidnapping her, it's a story every had heard about, and the safe return of a child kidnapped by someone other than a parent involved in a custody dispute is rare enough, that, for me anyway, it's rather heartwarming.
March 12 — Elizabeth Smart, the 15-year-old girl who vanished from her Salt Lake City bedroom nine months ago, was found alive Wednesday with a drifter who had once done work at the family’s home, police said. “It is nothing but a miracle,” said Ed Smart, the girl’s father.
Congratulations to the Smarts - I hope Elizabeth will heal quickly and as fully as possible from her ordeal!
From Newsday.com:
NEW YORK (AP) _ The City Council in the place hit hardest by the Sept. 11 attacks approved a resolution Wednesday opposing war with Iraq except as a last resort.
The 31-17 vote came after months of debate over whether New York should stake out a position.
"If we're going to be looking for a fight, let's fight poverty, let's fight firehouse closures, let's fight racism and sexism," said Yvette Clarke, a Democrat who supported the resolution.
Recent polls show that 75 percent of New Yorkers oppose a war without the support of the United Nations.
Like every other form of protest that has been displayed in this country, this will probably have no effect on Bush's push for a war. It's still heartening, however, to see cities taking a stand to let our erstwhile leaders know what they're thinking.
As the article points out, New York City was the place hardest hit by the September 11th attacks, and yet even there, the thirst for vengence is being tempered by a desire for a peaceful resolution to the Iraq situation.
I really hate idiocy. Calling french fries and french toast "freedom fries" and "freedom toast" is pathetically juvinile - like something kids in grade school would do. That it's being done now by Congress is simply depressing. Haven't they got more important things to concern themselves with?
The Congressman leading the effort says that this is a "small but symbolic" way of protesting France's refusal to cooperate in the war effort, but somehow I doubt that it really has much of an impact on the French at all. Except maybe to make them laugh at us.
Much has been said about the role of the Christian Right in Bush's government, and there is a significant amount of speculation that Bush's desire for the Iraq war is somehow related to the idea that the end of the world is a good thing and should be brought to reality as soon as possible. The logic appears to be that if Christians can trigger the apocalypse, then Christ has to return and will set up his thousand-year reign of glory.
Most religions have some kind of prophecy or belief in an end-of-the-world scenario. As a Norse Pagan, I don't necessarily follow all of what forms the fundamentalist Christian form of this belief, but I find it interesting how differently they approach their prohecied Rapture and Apocolypse from how Norse Pagans view the coming of Ragnarok. In both cases, the ultimate outcome of the final battle is the this world is destroyed, evil is defeated and a new world begins. Many fundamentalist Christians believe that this is something that they want to see happen as soon as possible, and they want to do what they can to help bring it about. Modern Norse Pagans, however, see Ragnarok as something that is inevitable, but that we are called upon to help forestall as long as possible.
As we've seen over the last few years, the fundamentalist Christins are becoming more and more powerful, and those who hold such beliefs are becoming bolder in stating what they believe, what they think needs to be done, and why they feel that America is heading for a trip to the Christian hell. The goal of the fundamentalist Christians is to turn America into a theocracy - not unlike Afghanistan under the Taliban.
It's not entirely clear how deeply involved in this kind of thinking President Bush himself is, but several of his close associates are known to be very committed. In particular, Anton Scalia, one of the Supreme Court justices, is a strong advocate of including much more religion in government. He has published articles arguing that, despite our Constitutional principle that the government rules by the consent of the people, it is really God who ordains the government and that democracy obscures "the divine authority behind government". Think about that for a moment, because it's a very scary concept. Seeing the Forest recently published an excellent article on Scalia's comments, and I strongly encourage everyone to take the time to read it.
One thing the StF article notes is that Scalia believes that we can tell who God has chosen to be the leader-by-divine-right is that the God-chosen leader will seize power in a battle, proving he is the one who should lead. He goes on to question whether the election of 2000 would be considered such a "battle". We know that Bush believes he has been chosen by God for this mission, so I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that isn't exactly how many of these theocrats view the 2000 elections.
There are any number of questions that can be asked about how the fundamentalist view of Christanity and the "End Times" is influencing our leaders, and what their beliefs will lead them to do to this country. I find it more than a bit disturbing that many of these people who so badly want to see the Rapture happen as soon as possible, are also the same people who have a fair amount of control over our military, and, more importantly, America's nuclear arsenal.
I suppose for me, one of the ironies of this whole subject is that there has been so much talk lately of who has or doesn't have nuclear weapons, who should and shouldn't have them, and whether or not they'll be used in the upcoming war on Iraq - and when you read the stories where the prophesy of Ragnarok is laid out, there are some stunning similarities between how the warning signs and coming of Ragnarok are described (a three-year winter in which no other seasons intervene, a world covered in fire and ash...) and the effects of a nuclear attack. An intriguing article by Catlin O'Brien describes it this way:
This account of the apocalypse is, in many ways, what a primitive rationalization of nuclear annihilation might be like. Most of the destructive affects of the nuclear bomb are presented in some manifestation or another. While the Norse people certainly did not have the technology for conceiving or understanding, much less creating, a nuclear bomb, they managed to quite lyrically depict its effect.
At the end of the world, normal rules cease to apply. This is a common theme in modern apocalyptic literature, with the example of incest being the most obvious. From there, the physical events of Ragnarok parallel those of nuclear holocaust as well. What the Elder Edda attributes to fire giants would be neatly achieved by the firestorm resulting from an atomic explosion. Similarly, the earth suffers a prolonged winter and the moon and sun disappear, much as they would during "nuclear winter," when the debris from nuclear explosions would surround the earth. The Midgard Serpent provides a pretty accurate description of nuclear fallout, making the very air and land so poisonous that even a god cannot survive.
Even the image of a final battle and the societal perspective of such are reminiscent of nuclear war. A nation involved in such a war, or faced with its possibility, must dehumanize its enemies, demoting them to beasts and demons while elevating itself to the status of a wise and moral caretaker of the world. This occurred in both America and Russia during the Cold War; it is human nature. The citizens of that nation, moreover, will come to accept and rationalize the idea of war and even the idea of total destruction.
Even if we refrain from using our own nuclear weapons, we know that many other nations now have them, and that some, like North Korea, have made it clear the will not hesitate to use them. The possiblity of nuclear war is once again something we have to consider.
If our President and his associates truly believe that his has been chosen by God to lead during these times, and if they also believe that the end-of-the-world is something they need to help bring about, is it any wonder that his actions have seemed to be so out of touch with the world in which the rest of us must live?
In a strange coda to the story about the man arrested for wearing a pro-peace t-shirt in the Crossgates mall in Guilderland, NY, the security guard, Robert Williams who signed the complaint has been fired - for having signed the complaint. Williams noted that he had signed the compliant on orders from the assistant director of security for the mall, Fred Tallman, who had been asked to come to the police substation in the mall to sign the paperwork himself, but told police he didn't have time to do so. Tallman also told the police that Williams was a representative of the company and as such could sign the report.
Perhaps the most interesting twist, however, is that Williams' firing is causing almost as much of a stir as the original arrest within the community - and many of Williams' supporters are peace activists who feel he is being scapegoated for a bad decision on the part of management. Williams was fired on Friday (3/7), and on Sunday (3/9), yet another protest was held at Crossgates mall and roughly 100 people showed up to protest Williams' firing.
According to the Times Online (UK), former President Bush (father of the current President Bush) has given a speech expressing to his son the need for international cooperation in a situation such as the one we are currently facing over Iraq, and encouraging him to try and mend the rift that has grown between the United States and some of our long-standing allies over Bush's unyeilding push for war.
The former President’s comments reflect unease among the Bush family and its entourage at the way that George W. Bush is ignoring international opinion and overriding the institutions that his father sought to uphold. [...]
Although not addressed to his son in person, the message, in a speech at Tufts University in Massachusetts, was unmistakeable. Mr Bush Sr even came close to conceding that opponents of his son’s case against President Saddam Hussein, who he himself is on record as loathing, have legitimate cause for concern.
He said that the key question of how many weapons of mass destruction Iraq held “could be debated”. The case against Saddam was “less clear” than in 1991, when Mr Bush Sr led an international coalition to expel invading Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Objectives were “a little fuzzier today”, he added.
I am rather surprised, but very pleased, that former President Bush would actually stand up and make such comments in public. Obviously, he knows how sensitive his son is to criticism and how he loathes having anyone disagree with him. I have to wonder if perhaps former President Bush has tried to convey these same concerns in private, and, feeling that he wasn't getting his point across, decided to take them public to increase pressure on the current President Bush.
Whatever his reasons, I'm glad to have him step forward to express these thoughts. This is the one man who has had previous experience in this kind of a situation - though in the first Gulf War, the reasons for going to war were much more evident - and hopefully, his opinion will be given the kind of consideration it deserves in this matter.
March 10-11 -- "Burglars to be banned from suing victims". United Kingdom: "Burglars who are injured while committing a crime are to banned from suing their victims for compensation. David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, has bowed to public pressure after the outcry over the case of Brendon Fearon, the burglar who is trying to sue Tony Martin for £15,000 after being shot while breaking into his home." (David Bamber, Daily Telegraph, Mar. 9).
This one law I would like to see implemented here in the US. Criminals should not have the right to expect that they will be able to safely break into any place at any time. This has been a topic of late in the US because of a suit in which the family of a burglar who was killed while breaking into a shop by a booby-trap the frustrated, and thrice-robbed, owner had set up, was awarded $75,000 in compensation. The owner even gave criminals fair warning by posting signs - including one on the window the burglar broke in order to enter the shop - telling people there was an electronic booby trap, but the burglar decided to go ahead with the robbery anyway. His family took the store owner to court, and the store owner was found partially liable for the burglar's death.
To me, that's just outrageous. The only person responsible for the burglar's death is the burglar himself. In robbing the store, the burglar made a choice - he voluntarily chose to break the law, violate the store owner's property and face whatever risks come with that. It's pretty much common knowledge that if you decide to engage in criminal activities, you may find yourself hurt or killed as a result. As far as I'm concerned, once someone chooses to be a criminal, they're on their own. They should not be able to seek compensation to anything that happens to them as a result of their own bad choices.
Northstar Online recently ran an opinion piece about this case, making an argument that the award was justified.
People should use reasonable theft prevention devices when trying to secure their property. The device rigged to shock with 220 volts aided the death of the burglar, and just as easily could have killed a police officer or a rescue worker.
A homemade booby trap that is intentionally rigged to kill intruders is irrational and inhumane. No amount of property that could be lost is worth the cost of human life.
No burglar is ever punished by death in America.
Now, I will grant that they have a point about the trap being potentially hazardous to rescue workers or police officers - and had someone with a legitimate reason to be entering the store through the windows been injured or killed in the process, I would say that they or their family would be entitled to substantial compensation. The burglar, however, had no legitimate reason for entering through the window.
I think it's also important to note that their assertion that no burglar is ever punished by death isn't entirely accurate. In cases that make their way through our legal system, this is true. Burglary does not earn someone the death penalty. People who have broken into other people's homes, however, are frequently killed by the homeowner, or, in some cases, by police responding to the call for help. In those cases, the killing is generally considered justified. No criminal charges are filed, and there is no civil remedy to be sought by the burglar and/or his/her family.
I do believe that criminals should have certain basic rights as to how their are handled by the judicial system and in our prisons. They have a right to a fair trial and humane treatment. While committing the crime, however, they are voluntarily choosing to declare themselves as existing outside the law, and show that they have no regard for others lives or property. No one forces them to commit their crimes, and if they are injured or killed during the commission of the crime, they only have themselves to blame. Compensating them for foolish or wrong choices does little to deter others, and only serves to reward them for their illegal actions.
UPDATE: Be sure to read the comments left by Vince - he makes some very good points, and I may have to rethink my position on this one a bit...
Mar 9 2003
Mike Hamilton reports from Camp Coyote in Kuwait
Terrified Iraqi soldiers have crossed the Kuwait border and tried to surrender to British forces - because they thought the war had already started.
The motley band of a dozen troops waved the white flag as British paratroopers tested their weapons during a routine exercise.
The stunned Paras from 16 Air Assault Brigade were forced to tell the Iraqis they were not firing at them, and ordered them back to their home country telling them it was too early to surrender.
Is it just me, or is there something kinda off about this story. As a bit of humour, it's not bad, but it seems to me that if Iraqi soldiers walked up to a group of British soldiers, it's unlikely that they would just shoo them away. The idea that the Iraqi soldiers didn't know whether or not the war had actually started also seems to be more than a bit of a stretch.
If anyone get any additional information to verify or debunk this story, I'd love to hear about it. Thanks!
Iraq may have a new kind of rocket designed for chemical or biological attacks.
NEW YORK, March 10 — U.N. inspectors have uncovered a new variety of Iraqi rocket that was apparently configured to strew bomblets filled with chemical and biological agents, The New York Times reported Monday, citing U.S. officials.
The disclosure, if verified, could help bolster the U.S. case that Iraq remains in defiance of the U.N. order to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction.
It'll be interesting to see if this report is verified, and what impact it has on the discussions and voting at the United Nations. I do have to admit that, since the source of the report is listed as "US officials", and since this information was apparently not included Hans Blix's most recent report to the UN Security Council, I tend to be a bit suspicious about the overall veracity of the report and the timing of its release. With no current information that I've been able to find, however, either for or against its authenticity, it's impossible to guess if it's valid or not.
The St. Petersburg Times has an interesting - and reasonably well-balanced - FAQ about the situation with Iraq. It addresses questions including what authorization Bush has to start the war, why Saddam was not removed during the first Gulf War, how much resistance is expected from the Iraqi troops, how many troops we're planning to deply (around a quarter of a million soldiers, plus aircraft carriers, planes and other support troops and equipment), what kind of assistance have other countries pledged (which so far total about 42,000 and 44,070 depending on whether or not the war received UN support), and how the US intends to deploy chickens to help protect our soldiers.
Some of the questions - and their answers - raise additional questions:
7) What's the cost -- in lives -- to remove Hussein?
An estimated 100,000 to 200,000 Iraqis could die during warfare, nongovernment and humanitarian agencies say. After the war, another 200,000 Iraqis could die because of malnutrition, poor health facilities and economic deprivation. More could die in the chaos during and after a war, as long-frustrated factions seek to settle scores. Iraq's population figures are not reliable, but estimates suggest it has about 24-million people. Figures vary, but an estimated 85,000 Iraqis were killed or wounded in the Persian Gulf War.
Many who support the war say that the Iraqi people want this war and that the loss of some civilians is a cost that may be worth paying to eliminate Saddam. I have to wonder, though, if "some" is the same as up to 200,00 during and another 200,000 after? Has anyone verified with the Iraqi citizens that they consider this a fair price to pay for eliminating Saddam?
14) Why are so many countries reluctant to support the U.S. position?
Lack of popular support at home, primarily. Many countries voicing opposition to war have democratically elected governments and must be sensitive to public sentiment. Opposition in some nations is overwhelming -- greater than 80 percent in France, more than 9 out of 10 in Turkey. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder recently won re-election, to a great extent, because he opposed war.
Democratically elected governments must be sensitive to public sentiment? Has anyone explained this to Bush and company lately?
Al-Qaida operatives are planning to strike at US and allied forces taking part in a war in Iraq, according to information acquired by American intelligence agencies, counterterrorism officials said Saturday. [Chicago Sun-Times]
I have a sneeking suspicion that this information is going to quickly be cited as proof that Saddam Hussein is in cahoots with al-Qaeda - why else would they have terrorist cells in Iraq, right? Before we go down that road, though, we need to remember that there are also thought to be any number of cells in the United States. Somehow I doubt that would be considered evidence that President Bush was involved with al-Qaeda. Just wanted to throw that out there....
NOTE: I have a lot of reference articles for this post, so rather than just providing links, I'm going to go ahead and copy the relevant paragraphs here so that you don't have to go clicking all over the web just to follow up on the points I'm trying to make. All links will go to the full articles. - k
After reading a round-up of today's stories about the North Korean nuclear situation, I am even more puzzled as to why we are focusing so much on Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, Saddam Hussein has not tried to take any of our soldiers hostage, threatened to attack us with nuclear weapons, or test fired any missles recently, yet North Korea has done all of these things (and they plan to test another missle within the next few days).
WASHINGTON, March 7 — The North Korean fighter jets that intercepted an unarmed American spy plane over the Sea of Japan last weekend were trying to force the aircraft to land in North Korea and seize its crew, a senior defense official said today.
One of the four North Korean MIG's came within 50 feet of the American plane, an Air Force RC-135S Cobra Ball aircraft, and the pilot made internationally recognized hand signals to the American flight crew to follow him, presumably back to his home base, the official said. [New York Times]
North Korea would launch a ballistic missile attack on the United States if Washington made a pre-emptive strike against the communist state's nuclear facility, the man described as Pyongyang's "unofficial spokesman" claimed yesterday.
Kim Myong-chol, who has links to the Stalinist regime, told reporters in Tokyo that a US strike on the nuclear facility at Yongbyon "means nuclear war".
"If American forces carry out a pre-emptive strike on the Yongbyon facility, North Korea will immediately target, carry the war to the US mainland," he said, adding that New York, Washington and Chicago would be "aflame".
A pre-emptive strike on Yongbyon is one of the strategic options in the crisis over North Korea's nuclear arms program. The US has deployed 24 long-range bombers to the Pacific base of Guam capable of launching such a strike. [Sydney Morning Herald]
WASHINGTON/SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea has declared a maritime exclusion zone in the Sea of Japan, signaling it might be planning a missile test in the next several days and again raising regional tensions, the Defense Department said on Friday.
The Pentagon said it was aware of a three-day exclusion warning for March 8-11 in virtually the same area off its coast where Pyongyang tested an anti-ship missile on Feb. 25. [ABC News]
I also find it interesting that Bush calls the North Korean situation a "regional issue", and is insisting on working with China, Russia, South Korea and other countries in the area to find a solution. We're willing to go to war with Iraq, even if we have to do it alone, but we're not willing to hold talks with North Korea unless other countries are involved. I'm not sure how, exactly, that makes sense.
President Bush said Thursday that multilateral dialogue was the best way to deal with the communist nation's nuclear development, which he called "a regional issue." Without mentioning Bush's comments, Pyongyang's daily Minju Joson on Saturday attacked the same proposal mentioned earlier by Secretary of State Colin Powell.
"Through 'multilateral talks' the U.S. seeks to internationalize the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula, evade its responsibility for spawning it and make its solution more difficult," Minju Joson said in a commentary carried by Pyongyang's official news agency, KCNA. [Fox News]
Apparently, North Korea fully believes that they will be the next Iraq.
U.S. President George W. Bush said this week that if diplomatic efforts to find a solution to the crisis fail, then the "military option is our last choice."
The North's state-run news agency KCNA said Friday his comments were "an undisguised revelation of the U.S. intention to make a pre-emptive strike at the DPRK's nuclear facilities." DPRK stands for Democratic People's Republic of Korea. [Canada.com]
Given our insistance that the military option in Iraq would also be a "last resort", while acting in such a way as to make it obvious we consider it to be our "only resort", and given Bush's national security strategy making pre-emptive strikes part of our military strategy, its no wonder that North Korea would make such a claim.
Since it was announced that North Korea had violated the 1994 agreement regarding nuclear weapons, they have become more and more aggressive in trying to get Washington's attention, and we have consistantly downplayed the threat that they pose. Sadly, the message that other nations may take away from this is that if we think they have nuclear weapons, they can expect to be threatened with invasion and war (and, most likely, will get it), but if we know they have nuclear weapons, we'll pretty much leave them alone. This does not do much to deter hostile regimes from trying to achieve nuclear capabilities.
I will say this, though: I am far more concerned about the potential for an attack on the US homeland from North Korea than I am from Iraq or even Iraqi-backed terrorists.
UPDATE: Even odder than our priorities is this bit of information from the Boston Globe:
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has not suspended or revoked the authority of Westinghouse Co. to transfer documents related to nuclear technology to North Korea, despite the fact that the Asian nation has admitted that it violated terms of a nonproliferation agreement it signed with Washington in 1994, US Department of Energy documents show.
So, we're worried about North Korea becoming a real menace as a nuclear power - but we're still letting one of our major corporations give them information on nuclear technology? Even if the information is focused more on nuclear energy than nuclear weapons, it doesn't seem wise to help them increase their knowledge of nuclear technology in general.
Recently, officials from the state of California presented the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with evidence that during the massive energy crisis the state faced during 2000 and 2001, the states major energy wholesalers conspired to manipulate energy availability and otherwise create situations to artificially increase the price they could charge for power. The officials claim that the energy companies overcharged California consumers to the tune of $9 billion dollars and is now seeking refunds from the companies to their customers who were victimized by the scheme.
There are some who feel that white-collar crimes, such as this, deserve harsher punishment than just paying restitution or fines. They feel that corporations that commit crimes should be treated like any other criminal, and subject to a white-collar version of the states "three strikes" law, and a bill to that effect has now been introduced in the California State Senate.
California State Senator Gloria Romero recently introduced a bill that would hold California's law-breaking corporations to the same standard to which the state holds its law-breaking citizens. Three strikes and you're out. If a corporation commits three major violations that result in a fine of at least $1 million or a death, the California Attorney General will revoke the corporation's charter. For companies incorporated in other states, three strikes means that they will lose their right to transact business in California.
It's certainly a novel approach, and given that California is one of the nations most populous states, it could have a strong impact on businesses across the country who do business there. Firms that run afoul of California law and find themselves unable to do business there any longer may lose enough of their consumer base that they will end up bankrupt or simply shut down. I have no doubt that opponents of the measure will argue that putting companies out of business in this way could have a devastating impact on the economy - not just in California, but also in the other states where the company had been doing business.
I think this argument has some merit - in part because each state has their own laws and regulations, and what may be perfectly acceptable behaviour in New York might be illegal in California. At the same time, however, companies should be well aware of what the laws are for each state they do business in, and they should be expected to follow those laws. If a company is consistently engaging in actions that are serious enough to result in major fines or the death of customers (the criteria that would trigger the corporate three-strikes law), there's certainly a question as to what, if any, benefit there is in their continuing to do business.
It'll be interesting to see if there's enough concern over white-collar crime for it to gain sufficient support to become a point of public debate. Many people do not seem to consider white-collar crimes as being as "bad" as "regular" crimes - and are willing to cut corporations more slack in terms of what they can get away with. Some of this, I think, stems from the perception that white-collar crime doesn't really "victimize" someone they same way a robbery, assault or murder does - that it's "only money", so it can't be that bad. Yet with the economy in the poor shape its in, and money being as tight as it is, there may be a change in that perception. People can ill afford to be overcharged on their energy bills, or otherwise suffer the economic effects of corporate crime - and they may be more willing to support harsher measure to try and deter companies from committing those crimes in the first place.
For more views on this proposal, see the discussion at MetaFilter.
First the administration tries to justify the war by alleging that a report gave certain statistics when the report said no such thing (and then changed their story a couple times), then Powell praises a report from the British that turned out to be plagiarized, and now we're citing documents that turn out to be "not authentic". Can't wait to see what's next...
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The head of the U.N. nuclear agency said on Friday that the documents backing U.S. and British allegations that Iraq (news - web sites) had attempted to import uranium from Niger were "not authentic."
"Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded ... that these documents, which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic," International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in a report to the U.N. Security Council.
"We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded," he said.
Britain and the United States alleged Iraq had attempted to revive a nuclear weapons program that was neutralized by the United Nations (news - web sites) before U.N. inspectors left Baghdad in December 1998 on the eve of a U.S.-British bombing raid.
The claim Iraq had attempted to import the uranium was vital to the U.S. accusation, since it would not have needed the uranium for anything other than an atomic weapons program.
I found this at Progress is an Illusion and just had to share it. Too perfect!
"Ready 2004" swag available here: http://www.cafeshops.com/cp/store.aspx?s=ready2004
I don't generally like to quote something written by someone else wholesale, but these are some very important questions that Rep. Ron Paul (Texas, 14th District) put together last September (which I just discovered tonight), and I think they should be more widely circulated:
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002
QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ
Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.
Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?
Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?
Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?
Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?
Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?
Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?
Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?
Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?
Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?
Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?
Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States - and who may again attack the United States - and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?
Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US, and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?
How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?
Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?
Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?
Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?
Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?
Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?
Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?
Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?
Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?
If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?
How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?
Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992 - including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?
Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?
Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?
Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?
Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?
What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?
Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?
Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?
Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?
Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and - not coincidentally - we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?
Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?
Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?
[ Side note: While doing a bit of research on Rep. Paul, I also found that there is a movement afoot to draft him as a Presidential candidate in 2004. If you would like more information on this, you can find it at: http://www.paul2004.com/index.html ]
Colleen Rowley, the FBI agent who blew the whistle on the FBI's lack of follow-through on clues prior to 9-11 that might have helped prevent the attack, has written a second letter, airing her concerns about how the FBI has handled their role in preparation for the war on Iraq and terrorism prevention in the United States. Near the end of her letter, she draws an comparison between how the FBI mishandled the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco and how the US is handling the situation with Iraq.
Law enforcement authorities were certain Koresh had accumulated a formidable arsenal of weapons and ammunition at his compound and may have been planning on using them someday. The FBI also had evidence that he was sexually abusing young girls in the cult. After the first law enforcement assault failed, after losing the element of surprise, the Branch Davidian compound was contained and steadily increasing pressure was applied for weeks. But then the FBI decided it could wait no longer and mounted the second assault—with disastrous consequences. The children we sought to liberate all died when Koresh and his followers set fires leading to their mass death and destruction.
The FBI, of course, cannot be blamed for what Koresh set in motion. Nevertheless, we learned some lessons from this unfortunate episode and quickly explored better ways to deal with such challenges. As a direct result of that exploration, many subsequent criminal/terrorist “standoffs” in which the FBI has been involved have been resolved peacefully and effectively. I would suggest that present circumstances vis-a-vis Iraq are very analagous, and that you consider sharing with senior administration officials the important lessons learned by the FBI at Waco.
I can only hope that this time, someone will listen.
The President held a press conference tonight, talking once again about how Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a "direct threat" to the US and that his job is to protect Americans, and that he's going to do so.
I still have to wonder, though, how he is protecting us when the CIA, the FBI and the Homeland Security Agency have all said that attacking Iraq will not make us less vulnerable to terrorism, but more. Attacking Iraq will serve to anger Islamic extremists and be used as an excuse for them to strike us again in our homeland.
"Remember 9-11" has become something of a rallying cry for those who support the war with Iraq. I wonder if they can appreciate the tragic irony that in "remembering" 9/11 by attacking Iraq, we will are putting ourselves at an even greater risk of suffering even more such attacks? I also have to wonder if they can appreciate the irony that Osama bin Laden has said he wants to see Saddam Hussein removed from office - though he'd undoubtedly prefer that it be the Iraqi people who do it and not the Americans. If we go through with this war, we'll be helping bin Laden achieve one of his goals.
And here I thought the Supreme Court was the final arbiter of what is or isn't Constitutional:
Congress could remove federal courts' jurisdiction to rule on the Pledge of Allegiance if the Supreme Court doesn't overturn an appeals court decision that bars children from reciting the Pledge in school, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday.
[...] Rep. Steve Chabot, Ohio Republican and chairman of the Constitution subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, said he thinks the Supreme Court will overturn the appeals court's decision and make congressional action unnecessary.
But he said if that doesn't happen, the two options open to Congress are a statutory change to limit jurisdiction, as Mr. DeLay laid out, or amend the Constitution to protect the Pledge.
Personally, I would prefer to see the Constitution protected rather than the Pledge, but that seems to be a rather unpopular opinion in some quarters....
UPDATE: Also on the subject of the "under God" phrase, Roger Ebert has an excellent editorial on why the ban on it should be upheld, which includes this observation:
Because our enemies are for the most part more enthusiastic about horizontal prayer than we are, and see absolutely no difference between church and state--indeed, want to make them the same--it is alarming to reflect that they may be having more success bringing us around to their point of view than we are at sticking to our own traditional American beliefs about freedom of religion. When Ashcroft and his enemies both begin their days with displays of their godliness, do we feel safer after they rise from their devotions?
Note: Ebert describes two kinds of prayer - vertical prayer and horizontal prayer, which he defines this way:
Vertical prayer is private, directed upward toward heaven. It need not be spoken aloud, because God is a spirit and has no ears. Horizontal prayer must always be audible, because its purpose is not to be heard by God, but to be heard by fellow men standing within earshot.
According to an article, from January 1, 2003, the Crossroads Mall (where the men were arrested for wearing pro-peace t-shirts) already had a history of removing pro-peace demonstrators from the mall (link found courtesy of Hesiod at Counterspin Central):
Peace activists ask Crossgates to explain their ouster
By SARA FOSS
Published: Wednesday January 1, 2003
Gazette Reporter
GUILDERLAND - A group of people who walked around Crossgates Mall at the height of the Christmas season with antiwar statements displayed on their shirts said they want to know why mall security forced them to leave the premises.
Several members of Upper Hudson Peace Action said they were not creating a disturbance or demonstrating, but simply wearing shirts that expressed messages of peace, such as "Don't invade Iraq" and "Peace on Earth."
On the afternoon of Dec. 21, between 20 and 24 members of Upper Hudson Peace Action wandered around the mall in groups of two or three, said. Some had antiwar messages written on their shirts, while others had pieces of paper containing antiwar statements taped to their shirts, she said.
Members of the group had arranged to meet at the Crossgates food court around 5 p.m. When they did, security escorted them out of the mall, and drove them to their cars in security vehicles, said Pat Beetle, a coordinator for the group.
Hesiod also had a link to this comment in the discussion forum of the Time Union:
Arn Gunnutes - 02:53pm Mar 5, 2003 EST (#7 of 136)
As a shopper at Crossgates (not anymore!), when I visit New York, I can tell you that not so long ago, I saw at least one person with a shirt on that said "Nuke Iraq, Kill Saddam Hussein", and other such vitriol walking in the mall last week for at least 45 minutes.
No one ever approached THEM telling them that they were wearing unacceptable clothing or "might cause a disturbance".
I have a feeling this mall is going to be under close scruitiny from civil libertarians for quite some time....
Here's a bit of good news - both that the mall is dropping the charges, and that there were a good number of people willing to go out and not only show their opposition to the war, but also their support of the ability for citizens to express their opinions.
GUILDERLAND, N.Y., March 5 - The management at Crossgates Mall Wednesday asked the Guilderland Police Department to drop the trespassing charges against a Selkirk man. This came after about 100 protestors descended on Crossgates Mall that afternoon. Their "Mall Walk for Peace" protested the arrest of 60-year-old Stephen Downs, who was charged with trespassing Monday night when he wouldn't leave the mall after he refused to remove his T-shirt bearing a peace message.
On the not-so-good side of things, at least one person who showed up to protest the anti-war protseters (would that make him an anti-anti-war protester?) decided he need to push some people around, literally - which tends to support my earlier thought that the concern about anti-war sentiment isn't so much thinking there's something wrong with anti-war sentiment but concern that those who are upset with anti-war protesters will potentially cause a disturbance or other problems.
When a few protestors decided to get a little more vocal, a 55-year-old veteran carrying a sign reading "Remember 9-11" confronted them. The veteran yelled at the protestors and then went so far as to push some of the men.
I've seen and heard of several incidents where people who are in support of the war are making comments about how we should "Remember 9-11" - which is something that shouldn't be forgotten, but which also is irrelevent to the issue at hand. There is no evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the 9-11 attacks, and no one known to be connected to the attacks (planners or perpetrators) is Iraqi.
Wouldn't we serve the memory of those killed on September 11th by going after those who actually killed them, and not some guy we can conveniently demonize, but who - as far as anyone has been able to show - had nothing to do with their deaths?
Catnmus notes that the Smoking Gun has copies of the police reports from the incident yesterday where two men were arrested for wearing t-shirts with pro-peace slogans on them.
Reading through the reports is kind of interesting. In the supporting depositions, the store detective at Macy's (Katie Light) notes that a customer came in concerned about a 'verbal dispute' between the guys in the anti-war t-shirts and other customers, but there is no indication as to whether the customer reported who initiated the dispute.
The other one (from Robert Williams, apparently one of the store security guards) reports that the men were stopping customers to talk to them (but not chanting anything). Now, Light's deposition says that she was informed of the 'verbal dispute' and contacted mall security to check it out. Williams' says he was responding to 'the complaint' - which logically would have to be the complaint the original customer made to Light. Williams' deposition, however, doesn't say where the information about the stopping customers came from - whether someone else reported it, or if he observed it or what.
The other thing, though, is that when the guys talked to the media (specifically MSNBC, the source for the story I quoted from in my comments on the incident), the guys specifically said that they were just walking around and were not handing out leaflets or talking to anyone.
In any event, if, in fact, they were stopping cusomters to talk to them about why they are against the war, I can see the mall asking them to stop doing that - and that should have been the end of the matter. By doing that, they would have been addressing the actual behaviour that was, according to their reports, causing the problem. Asking them to remove the shirts was out of bounds, and should not have been a part of the issue.
From IMDb.com:
Sheen Faces Firing Over War Stance
Hollywood star Martin Sheen is facing getting fired from his role as President Jed Bartlett in TV hit The West Wing - because of his outspoken views on war. The Apocalypse Now actor has been the most vocal of a growing number of celebrity names strongly opposed to conflict with Iraq. He has addressed rallies and spearheaded last week's "virtual match" in Washington DC, where legislators were bombarded with a million emails, telephone calls and faxes from protesters. But Sheen's strong political views are causing problems for West Wing bosses at NBC, who fear they face a boycott from advertisers. The actor claims NBC executives have told him his high profile could damage the show and called on him to explain his views. Meanwhile, Sheen and other stars among the anti-war lobby are also facing a public backlash because of their controversial standpoint.
It seems to me that if the cause for this war were just, there'd be no reason to fear anti-war protesters - be they celebrities, people wearing t-shirts in the mall or anyone else. The only reason to silence dissent is if you're afraid the dissenters will make more sense than you do and convince others to oppose your plans.
Right now, NBC needs to get the message that more people will quit watching their shows (not just "The West Wing", but others as well) if they do fire Martin Sheen (or anyone else) for their views, that will quit watching the show if they don't.
Interstingly, former Senator Fred Thompson, currently playing District Attorney Arthur Branch on NBC's "Law & Order", hasn't received the same kind of flack for appearing in a pro-war commercial that Martin Sheen has for his anti-war stance. I've found no reports that there are any threats to Thompson's job or any "discomfort" being expressed by NBC officials.
This is another situation to watch closely - particularly if they NBC continues to act to silence anti-war celebrities and not pro-war ones.
I'm an American. I'm not sure I'm always comfortable admitting that these days, but it's a simple fact. I was born in America and have lived here my entire life. In fact, I've only ever been to one other country, and that was to spend a bit of time in Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. A very nice place, I might add.
I've not always been happy with what my government has done, but it's never gone beyond a philosophical difference of opinions before, or just a basic sense of concern - but with a feeling of certainty that things would be set aright.
The first time I recall having any comprehension of the world of politics was during Watergate. I was maybe 8 or 9 at the time, and I knew my parents were upset about what was happening, but I didn't really understand it very well. My Dad tried to explain it to me in ways an 8 or 9 year old could grasp, and I think that he tried, as best he could, to avoid painting me a picture that would turn me against the government in general.
During the Ford and Carter years, I was enamoured with the Presidency. I remember going downtown one time when President Ford was in town and the thrill of seeing his limo go by. I sent a letter to him telling him how much I liked him - in that inimitable "little girl" way - and got a very nice booklet on the White House in return. In Junior High, I even went to Washington DC on a field trip with one of my school classes. We got to see the Capitol, the White House, several of the monuments. At that point I wanted to be able to be the President one day.
Somehow, though, during the Reagan-Bush years, I fell out of love with the government. I don't know what it was that did it - though Iran-Contra, Abscam, and the first Gulf War didn't help any. I started to question what the government was doing, and why, and didn't really like the answers I was coming up with. Of course, the Clinton administration just turned me into a cynic. Between his own actions and the actions of those trying to bring him down, I got to a point where I could no longer believe that politicians even knew what it meant to try and serve the public as opposed to their own interests. I started speaking out a lot more about what I believe in, and trying to educate myself on various issues (though I could still use more of that in a lot of areas - it's an ongoing process).
This administration, though, has taken things to a whole new level. The California energy crisis. Enron. Trying to keep everything secret. "Faith-Based Charities". Lies. All of that before 9/11 - it was irritating and infuriating, but it was something that could be lived with and could be changed once this administration was voted out of office (Bush's re-election is not something I can really allow myself to contemplate, even as I do whatever I can to try and help prevent it).
And then the attacks came. And in the time since then, this country has become a place I barely even recognize any more. USA PATRIOT Act, the looming shadow of Patriot II. TIPS. TIA. Increased scanning at the airport - using our credit histories and bank records to see if we're safe to fly. People who protest the government's policies being visited by the FBI. "You're either with us or against us." Insinuations that those who disagree with the administration are borderline traitors. People being held without charges, unable to speak to their lawyers, indefinately. Refusing to allow the courts to have jurisdiction over certain cases. Claiming Congress has no right to see who is helping shape our energy policy - and then threatening the budget of the office that tried to force the issue in the courts. Filing amicus briefs to encourage judges to deny a parade permit for anti-war protesters. Increased surveillance of citizens. On and on and on.
And the fear. They want us to be afraid all the time. They know that they can't win us over with logic, so they try to scare us into submission. Yellow. Orange. Yellow. Orange. Oops - sorry - bad intel! Be on the lookout for these scary looking men. Heh - uh, sorry folks, just a false alarm. They're going to attack us with scuba divers! They're going to attack apartments! They're going to attack banks! Don't go to the shopping mall - they might get you there! By the way - if you don't continue living your life exactly like you always have, you've let them win. Of course, we're going to have to make a lot of changes in how our country is run to keep you all safe - even if making some of those changes really just ends up giving them what they want.
It's Osama! He's the devil incarnate and we're going to bring him in dead or alive. No, wait! It's Saddam! Yeah, that's who we need to get! See, he's got these planes.... oh, he doesn't? Ok, well, we've got this report that says he's only six months from having nuclear weapons. Um, wait, he was six months away in 1998. Or was it 1991? It doesn't matter, see, he's close! We have to go get him now!! (North Korea? Nah, nothing to see there, move along!) The British gave us this fantastic report on just how bad he is -- what do you mean they didn't write it? Plagiarism? Well. Hmmm. Ok, look, he's got weapons. See, he's destroying them, just like we asked him to! That proves he has more, and that we have to go get him!! (Osama? Yeah, I think he's still around, why do you ask?). Yes, we have to get Saddam. Its the only way to keep us safe from terrorists. Now, going after Saddam may make some people mad, so he may become more likely to launch terror attacks against us (and so might others who think what we're doing is wrong), but even though we'll be more vulnerable, we'll be safer. Just be sure to get your duct tape!
And every day, there's more. There's the shame of watching our President act like the schoolyard bully as he tries to coerce other nations into joining us in this insane quest for war. They owe us, you know, and if that doesn't work we can always try bribes. Spying on UN officials? Sure, why not. We can use that information to try and get them to join us. It doesn't matter how low we stoop in trying to get other countries to go along with us - since the ends apparently justify the means in this case.
And so I've now come to a point where all the twisting and spinning, lying and hiding, fear tactics, bullying, and everything else, are starting to wear me down. Not in terms of my opposition to what the current administration is doing - that never waivers. But in other ways. I've been clinically depressed for as long as I can remember, and have to take medication to keep it under control. But lately, that doesn't seem to be working so well, and I can't remember the last time I felt as emotionally ragged as I have these last few months. Tears come far to easy these days, as does rage. I'm getting headaches regularly, and haven't been able to sleep decently in weeks. And I can't find anything in my life to account for it except everything that's been going on around me.
Being homebound, and cut off from so much of the world, I sometimes think that what happens outside my doors probably shouldn't affect me much - but it does. This isn't a cozy, safe cave for me to hibernate in and let the world pass me by. I just never imagined, though, that there'd be a day when what my government is doing would actually make me ill - and somehow, I don't think this is one of those things that two aspirin and a call in the morning will fix.
STEPHEN DOWNS AND his son, Roger Downs, each had a pro-peace shirt made Monday night. One shirt simply said "Let Inspections Work" on one side and "No War With Iraq" on the other. The other shirt said "Give Peace A Chance" on the front and "Peace On Earth" on the back. The men paid about $23 for each of the shirts and then wore them in the mall.
"We were just shopping. We were wearing these T-shirts. We weren't handing out leaflets, we weren't saying anything," Roger Downs recalled.
They may not have been saying anything, but they were creating enough of a disturbance to one employee, who called security.
Security asked Downs and his son to remove their shirts. Roger Downs complied, but when Stephen Downs wouldn't, he was told to leave the mall. When he refused, he was arrested.
[...] New York Civil Liberties Union President Stephen Gottlieb says he can't believe the peaceful T-shirts could lead to Downs' arrest.
[...] Guilderland police say they arrested Downs because he refused to leave private property. That, they say, is trespassing.
Representatives for Crossgates did not return calls for comment Tuesday.
Signs posted at entrances to the mall say that "wearing of apparel... likely to provoke disturbances... is prohibited" at the mall.
"Likely to provoke disturbances". When you get right down to it, that's pretty vague, really. What criteria are used to determine how "likely to provoke disturbances" any given shirt (or other article of clothing) is? Obviously, no actual disturbance has to occur for something to be considered out of bounds. I know when I was still able to go to malls, I saw some pretty outlandish and offensive things on shirts that no one seemed to think needed to be removed or were "likely to provoke disturbances".
It can be argued that once they asked the guy to leave, he should have - but what I find most disturbing about this incident is that the security guard felt that an anti-war t-shirt was provocative enough to tell the guy to take it off or leave in the first place. I'd love to have someone go to that mall and keep track of what other kinds of shirts are seen there that aren't considered too provocative.
What's really sad, though, is that the main reason for considering a shirt "likely to provoke disturbances" would be if you're afraid that someone will see the shirt and have a significant reaction to it. The guy who wants to promote peace is being shushed to prevent a guy who wants a war from acting out when confronted with a message contradictory to his own desires. It's not the guy in the peace shirt whose the threat here, it's the one who wants war and thinks he needs to verbally (or otherwise) assault those who disagree. The message the whole incident sends, however, is that those who want peace should just be quiet.
This quote is from a recent article on Turkey's refusal to allow us to station our troops in their country in order to attack Iraq from the north:
"It's a huge setback for our purposes. It stunned me,” Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on CNN's "Late Edition.” "We spent the last 50 years defending them in NATO. And along comes this opportunity, and by three votes they decline the opportunity to allow us to come in through the north.”
It sounds a lot like the reason many have given for being so upset at France's refusal to support our war plans. We helped defend them during World War II, the thinking goes, so they owe us their help on Iraq. Never mind that some might view our helping them in WWII as a "repayment" of sorts for them helping us out in the Revolutionary War. No, they "owe" us.
What bothers me, though, is that I cannot think of any time that we have come to the aid of another country in which we did not believe in the cause that was being fought for or feel that the action was either necessary or desirable. Yet that is exactly what we are expecting the French and the Turks to do. We are telling them that they are somehow obligated to help President Bush in this quest of his, even though the people of these democratic nations have made it clear to their governments that they do not support our cause, nor do they feel this war is necessary or desirable, and their government has chosen to listen.
Isn't that how its supposed to work in a democracy?
From today's Top 5 List: Rejected Homeland Security Slogans
The Stealthy, Sneaky, Privacy-Invading Alert-Issuing Hide-Under-Your-Bed-While-Bush-Bombs-Iraq Agency
I couldn't have said it better myself :)
This was posted today on The Obeserver's sight regarding the British spellings in the memo they posted regarding the US spying on delegations from other nations in order to be able to better influence their voting:
CLARIFICATION from MARTIN BRIGHT, The Observer
"There seems to be some confusion over the Anglicised (or Anglicized) spelling in our reproduction of the email online and on the front of the newspaper. This was done for editorial reasons to standardise (standardize) spelling throughout the newspaper. Following the many queries from the United States we would like to make it clear that the original document had American spelling and this will be corrected on the online version of the email".
If you've been curious about how the "Flash Mind Reader" trick works, Snopes has the answer here.
If you're not familiar with Snopes, it is one of - if not the - best sites on the web for finding out the truth behind all those e-mails that seem to circulate forever. You know the ones - lists of "amazing but true" facts (that may not be true after all), promises that if you forward a message to "x" number of people you'll get something free, petitions, "news" stories, the infamous "friend of a friend" stories, and general urban legends. I cannot recommend this site too highly!
Something I've been thinking about a bit.
Since September 11, there has been a significant focus on airport and airplane safety. The Transportation Security Administration has been formed to help screen passengers, and we're now going to be testing a system of checking bank records and credit reports (among other things, potentially) to ensure that everyone getting on an airplane is "safe" for flying.
Concern about air safety is certainly valid, and we do need to try and prevent terrorists from being able to take over our planes and crash them into buildings, or whatever else the may have in mind.
What bothers me, though, is that when you look at air travel in general, there is still a greater risk that a plane will crash from mechanical malfunctions or human error as opposed to being taken out by a terrorist act. Yet despite all of the airplane crashes we've had over the years, we've never had the kind of focus on making aircraft themselves, and the personnel and crew who maintain and fly the planes, safer, that we now have about the possiblity of terrorism. There's no denying that what happened was one of the most horrific acts ever commited - but in terms of overall safety issues, there are greater dangers than terrorists that aren't being given anywhere near the same kind of consideration.
By the same token, following the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, even though we knew it had been commited by white supremacists, using a rented Ryder truck and a bomb made from fuel and fertilizer. Did we, as a country, establish any kind of systems to help identify potential white supremacist terrorists? Did we take any steps to make sure that fertilizer and fuel wouldn't fall into the wrong hands? A rented vehicle was also used in the first World Trade Center bombing, but we don't seem to have put any procedures in place to help make screen who we allow to rent trucks.
It just seems curious to me that so much effort is being made to prevent terrorism aboard airplanes, but we have never done so much to prevent accidents due to other causes, or terrorism that takes different forms. It suggests that there may also be another agenda at work, though I'm not sure what - and I hate feeling like I'm getting more cynical and suspicious all the time.
Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo makes an interesting observation about the ramification of Turkey's rejection of our proposal to station troops in their country:
But if you want some evidence of this administration's diplomatic incompetence, consider this. We publicly sold out the Kurds to get this deal. We really should have made sure we had a deal before we tipped our hands to the Kurds about the price we were willing to pay for it.
Now we have no deal and no Kurds. I don't think we should have sold out the Kurds regardless. But if we were going to do so we should have been clearer with ourselves about who we were in bed with, the Turks or the Kurds.
Atrios at Eschaton is reporting on a memo leaked to The Observer (a British newspaper) that indicates that the US is engaged in significant surveillance efforts to try and learn how to influence the votes of several countries in their quest to gain "approval" for the invasion of Iraq.
There is a copy of the memo here, and I have to admit that I'm not sure from reading the memo that I understand where the Oberver gets its conclusions from. Also, as someone noted in the comments section at Electrolite on this same article, the memo - as published by The Observer - has many "British" spellings, as opposed to the "American" spellings one would expect from an American official. Obviously, this is not conclusive proof of anything - the Observer has a good reputation for accuracy, and there are possible explainations for the spelling. Another commenter at Electrolite noted that British papers routinely change the spellings of American documents to the way the Brits write the words, or the author of the memo may, for whatever reason, make use of British forms of various words, despite being American. (I bring this up because I, myself, have a very odd tendency to British spellings - especially words like honour, favour, colour, etc., and I was born and raised in the states, and I figure I can't be the only American who does that).
The Observer's response to some of the concerns that have been raised can be found here.
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:
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.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
| E-mail: |  |
AKA: | ThorsWitch |
 | INTP |
 | B7 d++ t+ k++ s+ u- f+ i++ o+ x- e l c- |
 |
    
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| « ? ProChoice Is Not AntiLife # » | ||||||||||
| << | domain-ated | >> | ||||||||||
| << ? domain girls # >> | ||||||||||
| <·· PWA ··> | ||||||||||
| < ? blogs by women # > | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ‹ # Circle of Shadows ? › | ||||||||||
| <-- ? In MY Opinion # --> | ||||||||||
| « # blogshares ? » | ||||||||||
| « # Scorpio ? » | ||||||||||
| < # Blogrollers ? > | ||||||||||
| < ? six degrees # > | ||||||||||
|
[ <<
?
Verbosity
#
>>
] |
||||||||||
| domain whore | ||||||||||
|
Are you a  ? Domain . Addict # |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
)O(
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Rate Me on BlogHop.com!
|
Rate me at Eatonweb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
![[ Registered ]](http://www.differentstrings.info/images/diarist.gif){kind=small}
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Recommended sites |
Please note: The Salon Blog mailing list and web rings are not managed by Salon Magazine, but are specifically for the owners/authors/editors of Salon Blogs. The Salon name is used with permission.
| < £ Salon Bloggers & > |
| Do you own/edit/write a Salon Blog? Join the Salon Bloggers Webring! |
|
|
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.differentstrings.info/images/valid-rss-dylan2.gif "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
|
|
|
![[Blue Ribbon Campaign icon]](http://br.eff.org/br.gif)
