Last summer, when Elizabeth Smart first disappeared, questions were raised about what made her case more "special" or more "newsworth" than a similar case in Milwaulkee, where a young black girl named Alexis Patterson had gone missing - but who was getting far less attention than Elizabeth's. The most obvious differences in the cases were race and economic status - Elizabeth was from a white, middle-class family, while Alexis was from a poorer, black family.
Questions are now being raised again about the effect of race on determining what makes a missing child case a nationwide story or not. Over a week ago, 12-year-old Ashleigh Moore disappeared from her home. Her mother's boyfriend was the last person to see her, and there is a possiblity that the police have found blood in the boyfriend's car, though police won't release any further information. As of the time of this posting, a search at Google News shows that the only stories mentioning Ashleigh's name are from Georgia newspapers and TV stations. No non-local sources have picked up on the story.
Even in the area where Ashleigh lived and disappeared, people are questioning how much of an impact her race is having on the public's perception of the case and the amount of interest (or lack thereof) it's getting.
"It really bothers that there isn't more community here," said Donna Torres. Torres and her 13-year-old son Daniel also have attended a weekend candlelight vigil and search for Ashleigh. "If this were a white kid, there would be a whole lot of people out here."Obviously, not ever single missing-child case can have the level of coverage that Elizabeth Smart's got, nor can every potential crime have the kind of exposure that Laci Peterson's (a white, middle-class woman, by the way) received. The problem is when it seems that the only cases that do get such intensive attention from the national media are those involving white, middle-class women and girls. One would think that - at least occasionally - the disappearance of a black woman or girl would rate significant coverage.
One bit of good news in all of this is that now 41 states have adopted the Amber Alert program to help get word out as quickly as possible about missing children, and George Bush is signing a national Amber Alert bill into law today. In addition to establishing a nation-wide Amber Alert, the law will increase penalties for child kidnapping, require live in prison for some repeat child sex offenders and strengthens laws regarding child porongraphy.
Today, nearly a year after her disapperance, Alexis Patterson is still missing, and her case still receives little coverage outside it's local area. Ashleigh Moore has been missing for 9 days, and her story has yet to break on the national news scene. When the next missing-child story breaks, odds are it will once again be a white, middle- or upper-class child. It's happened too often for it to be a "coincidence" that the cases of black children don't get the same kind of coverage.
We like to pretend that the US has made significant strides in combating racism, and, admittedly, we have come quite a ways. But when we can't seem to work up as much interest in the case of missing black kids as we do for missing white kids, it's obvious we still have a very long ways to go.
Normally, I don't like removing comment people have left (unless someone accidentially leaves a duplicate comment, and then I only delete the excess ones). Earlier today, however, I got identical comments on 2 different posts, advocating that people sign up a number of government office and personnel up to get a lot of junk mail, ostensibly as a form of protest. It wouldn't be a very effective protest, and its not an idea I want to support, so I have deleted both of these messages. If more appear, I will delete them also.
Just for clarification, while I generally won't delete comments, I do reserve the right to do so if I feel it's necessary. Having a difference of opinion is fine - I want to get different opinions aired here and am interested in what "the other side" thinks. There are some situations, though, were I may decide it's necessary to delete a few comments - if they are excessively rude, obscene, threatening, "hateful", advocate violence or other potentially harmful tactics or are otherwise abusive. In this case, I consider the tactics being suggested as harassing (and rather counterproductive).
Aside from these two comments today, I've never had cause to remove any others. If you feel my policy is too restrictive, you're certainly free to set up your own site where people can be as obnoxious as they desire - but on this site, I do expect civility.
My desk tried to fall apart and we've had to rebuild it. Blogging should back to normal tomorrow!
Excerpts from a piece Howard Dean has written for Truthout. I advise reading the whole thing.
George W. Bush ran for President on the promise that he would be ``a uniter, not a divider.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. Earlier this week, Senator Rick Santorum, the third highest ranking Republican in the Senate, compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. On Friday, President Bush praised Santorum as ``an inclusive man.'' With his praise, this President has once again demonstrated his willingness to follow the extremist Republican tradition of dividing our country for political gain. The President knows that his defense of Santorum's inflammatory words deeply offends millions of gay and lesbian Americans, their family and friends; his praise also raises grave concerns about this Administration's commitment to civil rights and civil liberties.[...] The issue at hand is about more than Senator Santorum's reprehensible statements, however, and the issue is also about more than the dignity and respect of gay and lesbian Americans.
The issue is whether we, as Americans, will continue to allow ourselves to be led down a path by this Administration to a country that is divided against itself by race, income, gender, sexual orientation and religion.
Senator Santorum's remarks do not exist in isolation. In January, President Bush went on national television to discuss the Supreme Court's hearing of the University of Michigan's affirmative action case. One of the most despicable moments of this President's Administration occurred when, on national prime time television, he used the word "quotas" repeatedly to describe the University of Michigan's admissions policy.
President Bush knows that the University of Michigan does not now have, and has never had, quotas. His use of the race-loaded word "quota" is intended to incite people's fears of losing their jobs, or their positions in America's leading universities, to minorities. Such rhetoric, which is designed to appease the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party and to appeal to Americans' worst instincts, betrays the guiding principle that America is a nation in which all people are created equal.
CalPundit has an excellent observation about the WMD false alarms, and why the Pentagon keeps releasing the "preliminary" information before the test results are confirmed:
...[T]hese reports aren't aimed at journalists or news junkies like blog readers. Rather, they are designed to build up a vague impression among casual news consumers that we've been finding WMD all over the place. Say it often enough, and everyone starts to get foggy about which reports panned out and which didn't - or even whether any of them did. Most people are simply left with the idea that we have lots of busy teams spread out all over Iraq and they keep finding stuff.Sadly, I think its working.
The Supreme Court has rejected, without comment an appeal by the state of Kentucky of a lower court ruling barring them from placing a 4 foot by 6 foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments in front of the state capital building. Last year, the Supreme Court also rejected a similar appeal from Indiana.
Kentucky Attorney General Albert Chandler appealed to the Supreme Court. He said the 2000 law required an overall public display of historic documents that included the Ten Commandments, a religious symbol.The full display may not have been designed yet, but the granite monument in question was donated to the state by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1971 and was previously on display until 1980.He said the display was proposed under the law, but it had not yet been designed or installed. He said the appeals court should not have made a constitutional decision based on "speculation and conjecture" over the display's appearance.
While the Supreme Court did not comment on their decision to reject the appeal, it appears that the Court agreed that, even as part of a larger display, the monument would contitute a violation of the separation of church and state. As I'd noted previously, I find the idea that the Ten Commandments are a "foundation" of American law to be rather specious, since only about 2 (and a half) of those commandments are found enshrined in our laws (stealing and killing are illegal, and "bearing false witness" - aka lying - is illegal in some cases).
In any event, even as conservative as this current court is, they've been fairly consistant in their rejection of the display of the Ten Commandments on public property, and for that, I'm grateful. I don't expect proponants of the idea to give up any time soon, but I'm glad that the courts aren't falling for their rather transparent attempts to try and justify their displays.
A couple days ago, I posted a entry titled "Will they or won't they" about the latest suspected chemical weapons "discovery" in Iraq. As has been the case each time, thus far, futher tests showed that the materials found aren't chemical weapons after all. ABC News.com has the scoop:
Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons specialists from the Army's 5th Corps examined the unmarked barrels found near Bayji, about 130 miles north of Baghdad, and tentatively concluded that there were no chemical weapons there, the leader of the team told a New York Times reporter embedded with the team."Our tests showed no positive hits at all," Capt. Ryan Cutchin, the leader of Mobile Exploitation Team Bravo told the Times.
The suspect site also included missiles, warheads and vehicles that were suspected to be mobile laboratories for banned weapons, but Cutchin said the vehicles were "probably for decontamination or some kind of fuel filling, consistent with the rockets found at the site."
Using high-tech gear unavailable to experts from another Army squad, Mobile Exploration Team (MET) Bravo - whose preliminary tests over the weekend identified a nerve agent and a blister agent - tests came up negative.
The investigators searching for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been frustrated by a lack of information and say they are understaffed and under-equipped.
This entry started as a tangent to the previous one about Ari Fleischer's comment on behalf of the President in regards to Rick Santorum's statement, and touches on issues I've raised before - but I felt it deserved an entry all it's own.
While the gay-rights's issue raised by the court case Santorum was commenting on (which challenges a Texas law that makes gay sodomy illegal, while leaving heterosexual sodomy legal - a law apparently passed during the same year the state rescinded a law that had made private beastiality illegal - meaning that it's ok for someone to have sex with an animal in private, but not ok for two men or two women to do so) are important, the substance of Santorum's comments went beyond even that.
In the interview, Santorum blamed the problem of priests molesting children on the growing tolerance for homosexuality. It is hard for me to express just how offensive this idea is. Priests do not molest boys because Americans find homosexuality less objectionable than before. Many of the molestations that are being reported now occured many years ago, before homosexuality was nearly as well "tolerated" as it is today (if it's status today can even be called "tolerated").
Sexual molestations - be it a man molesting a boy or a girl, or a woman doing the molesting - has little to do with sex in and of itself. It's an issue of power, just as any rape is. The desire for power may manifest itself in a sexual way, but the issue is still power.
For our President - though whatever method - to be sending a message of support for a man who believes that priests (or anyone else, for that matter) molesting teens are engaged in a "normal homosexual relationship" is inexcusable. Would either Senator Santorum or President Bush consider an adult molesting a teenaged girl a "normal heterosexual relationship"? If so, shouldn't we then just do away with statuatory rape laws? Somehow, I doubt either man would be in support of that.
I have never understood how people can get the idea that somehow kids - even teens - who are molested are in any way consenting to the abuse. Adults, and, in particular, adults who hold any kind of a position of authoritiy, such as teachers, parents, clergy, coaches and law-enforcement personnel, are also people who kids want to please - and they will often to go any lengths in order to ensure that they are pleased, even if it means doing things they don't want to do or feel that they should be doing. In no way does their "giving in" imply actual consent. The adult has the power in the relationship, and has the reponsiblity to be looking out for the child's best interest. Any harm that comes to that child through the adult's actions is the sole responsiblity of that adult.
While Santorum's comments about homosexuality in general are offensive enough, it is this assertion about priestly molestations that needs to become the focus of the outrage. Blogs may not yet have a huge amount of influence on what gets covered in the mainstream media, but as the situation with Trent Lott showed, if some enough of a hubbub can be raised in the blogosphere, and if some of those higher up in the blogging food chain would start covering that aspect of the story more, it very well might break out into the mainstream media, and questions can be raised about why the President would give his support to a man who says that priests molesting teens are just engaging in a "normal homosexual relationship". There's nothing normal about it - its quite simply a crime.
Busy, Busy, Busy raises some interesting questions regarding the widely circulated statement of support that Ari Fleischer reportedly passed on to the press regarding Senator Rick Santorum:
"The president believes the senator is an inclusive man. And that's what he believes," Fleischer said.Busy, Busy, Busy notes:
So just how did Ari Fleischer issue these widely quoted remarks? According to the White House web site, Fleischer published one statement Friday, and it made no mention of Santorum. His only interactive session with the press that day was a briefing, the transcript of which does not include the quotes at issue either, but does contain this exchange:No clear answers are forthcoming at the moment, but it is an question worth asking. Atrios at Eschaton has reported that the GOP has essentially issued a gag order, telling even those who support Santorum's statements to let him speak for himself. And what a job he's doing of that.Q: Ari, both Senator Frist and Senator Specter have publicly supported Senator Santorum. And my question: Does the President believe they were wrong to do so, because while governor of Texas he ever tried to get that state's sodomy law repealed?
MR. FLEISCHER: As I said this morning, Lester, the President has confidence in Senator Santorum, both as a senator, as a member of the Senate leadership.
Ok, so I may be something of a Witchy-come-lately, but I just recently started reading the Harry Potter books. I'd seen both of the movies and had been utterly charmed by them, and decided the books would be a good bet as well. Besides, as a part of the Pagan community, it's been impossible to escape all the stories of people trying to get Harry Potter books pulled from school library shelves or banned from being usable by teachers who may want to use them as a way to help get kids reading for the fun of it. It made me curious as to just how far these books might go in giving kids the idea that they, too, could become little witches and wizards, the most oft cited fear of parents who want the books kept away from their kids.
I am, of course, still confused on what it is that parents find so objectionable. Apparently, so is a judge in Arkansas, who recently ordered that the Cedarville School District return the books to the shelves, rather than keeping them in a back room and require a parents' permission slip for a kid to check them out.
The books written by British author J.K. Rowling have been assailed by some Christian groups for their themes of spells, sorcery and magic. The American Library Association says the books were the most frequently challenged of 2002, but rarely did those challenges lead to restrictions or bans.One of the chief complaints from Christian groups has been that the books will lead children to become interested in religious witchcraft (the most common form of which is Wicca). Some parents have claimed that having the books in the schools is a violation of the separation of church and state because witchcraft is a religion. (Ironically, under almost any other circumstance, most fundamentalist Christians will say that Wicca and witchcraft are not religions - and are generally quite adamant about it. Now, when it works to their advantage to claim that they are, well, guess what?)
The problem with all of this, of course, is that there is naer a trace of religious witchcraft contained within the Harry Potter books. A few of the more significant differences:
For parents who are worried that Harry Potter will have a negative effect on their children, I would recommend that rather than trying to prevent anyone else's children from reading it as well, try reading the books yourself. As an adult, your faith should be strong enough to withstand any perceived threat that the books might represent, and it will give you a first-hand perspective of whether or not the books would be harmful for your children. It will also help you be able to guide your child in recognizing the difference between what is real and what is fantasy.
Sometimes, someone will do something so shameless that it just makes you have to stop and catch your breath. This is one of those times.
Before we get main event, though, The Advertiser, an Australian newspaper, has a report today on how the New York State government and New York City's City Hall, are proposing legislation that would ban vendors from the Ground Zero site, in an effort to recognize the "sanctity" of the site. This fits in with the general tenor of how people have, for the most part, tried to avoid exploiting the September 11th attacks as a sign of respect for those who died that day.
The Republicans, however, don't seem to feel any need to follow suit. Instead, they've decided to make the most of 9/11 when it comes time for their convention and Bush's push for re-election next year.
The president is planning a sprint of a campaign that would start, at least officially, with his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, which is now set for Sept. 2.I certainly expected the events of September 11th and it's aftermath to play a significant role in Bush's re-election campaign - but somehow, the thought of them scheduling the convention in New York City and specifically timing it to coincide with the rememberences of the tragedy to boost Bush's re-election chances is just astounding in its arrogance. "We're here to remember those many people who died on this spot three years ago, and to remind you of what a great job President Bush has done since then to... blah, blah, blah"? "Crass" just doesn't quite cut it. Hopefully, this kind of exploitation will do more to turn people off, offended by it the way so many have been offended by the sales of trinkets, hotdogs and other items at Ground Zero, that it'll just blow up in Bush's face.The convention, to be held in New York City, will be the latest since the Republican Party was founded in 1856, and Bush's advisers said they chose the date so the event would flow into the commemorations marking the third anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks.
The back-to-back events would complete the framework for a general election campaign that is being built around national security and Bush's role in combating terrorism, Republicans said.
Some school children in Illinois have been served food contaminated with ammonia according to state records, after education officials failed to notify schools that the food had been tainted.
Dozens of children were sickened.How, exactly, something like this happened is a bit unclear. What is known is that a USDA inspector was aware of the leak around the time it occured, and the warehouse was put under quarentine, yet, according to Missouri and St. Louis officials, the USDA ignored the quarentine and allowed Gateway to ship the food to schools. Education officials suspected that 3,800 cases of contaminated food was shipped, according to documents the Chicago Tribune (which initially reported thestory) had access to.The food was contaminated when a ruptured pipe leaked 90 pounds of ammonia refrigerant at Gateway Cold Storage in St. Louis on Nov. 18, 2001.
The results were at least somewhat predictable:
Nearly a year after the leak, 42 children at Laraway Elementary School in Joliet were rushed to a hospital after eating chicken tenders from the warehouse that state health officials said contained up to 133 times the accepted level of ammonia.Now, to me, the obvious question is "Why wasn't the contaminated food destroyed upon discovery of the problem?" Apparently, the food was kept while St. Louis health officials tried to find a way to "treat and "salvage" it. I don't know about anyone else, but if it were my kids, I would not want them eating food that had been contaminated and "salvaged". I realize that destroying and replacing the food would have cost a fair amount, but the inevitable lawsuits that will be resulting from this malfeasance are going to cost a lot more.
One of our national mantras has long been that we must do things "for the good of the children" or "to protect the children". Senator Rick Santorum has tried to justify his belief that there should be no right to privacy and that the government should be able to regulate private, sexual behaviour between consenting adults because some behaviours are detrimental to "healthy, stable families" and happy, stable families are necessary for the good of, you guessed it, the children. Yet the USDA and Illinois Board of Education couldn't be bothered to tell schools that they were receiving food contaminated with ammonia or, better yet, stop the food from being distributed - knowing that children would be eating it? The anecdotal "Adam and Steve" giving each other blow jobs in the privacy of their own bedroom are too dangerous to children for their actions to be legal, but it's ok for them to eat food that's been tainted with ammonia? I'm sorry, but I just can't follow that logic.*
The Illinois Board of Education, the USDA and the FDA are all investigating, and the Will County state's attorney's office is bringing the situation before a grand jury. This is all well and good, but given that the USDA and the Illinois Board of Education both apparently knew about the problem and did nothing, I'm not quite sure what their investigations are likely to show, and the fact that it happened at all is simply inexcusable.
As the mother of one of the girls who was sickened by the food said: "How could they care so little about the kids that they would just look the other way and serve them any old food?"
*For the record, I don't believe that private sexual behaviour, reading material or other entertainment choices and so on, should be regulated "for the good of the children". I think kids can - and should - be protected from inappropriate material by their parents, without having to deny all adults access to it. My point, though, is that it makes no sense to me that, if we're not going to worry enough about the health and well-being of kids to do something as basic as avoiding serving them contaminated food in the schools, then how on earth does anyone get off trying to justify restricting adult behaviour "for the good of the children"?
ABC News is reporting that, once again, drums filled with suspicious chemicals have been found in Iraq. Preliminary tests indicate they may contain nerve gas and a blister agent, but there'll be nothing definitive for at least a couple of days. One thing officials are noting is that this time, there are some missiles and warheads near where the chemicals were found, along with "partially looted vehicles ... with dosage charts inside."
One thing I did notice in the article, though is that everyone is trying to be very careful to stress that these findings are preliminary and, as has happened before, may turn out to be something else when all the tests are in.
I'm feeling just a little bit proud of Kansas City at the moment. This isn't exactly a bastion of liberal values here (though KC's not nearly as conservative as one might expect for a city in the middle of the Bible Belt), but the city council is now working on extending benefits to the gay, lesbian and unmarried partners of city employees. Not only that, but they're also looking at creating a domestic partner registration, which would give unmarried (gay or straight) couples the ability to legally declare their relationship and obtain at least some of the rights afforded married couples, including the right to make medical decisions on behalf of their partner in the case of an emergency.
KC may be a bit slower in coming to the table on something like this than other cities have been, but it's a pretty big step for this area, and one I'm very glad to see being taken. Hopefully, some of the suburban areas nearby will follow suit.
In a special effort to annoy The Raven today, I'm updating the commenting and trackback templates. The reason I'm letting you know this is that I'm still learning how to use CSS for layouts and am not always sure of what I'm doing - which means some of the intermediary steps between the starting point and the point where I like it enough to leave it alone may look really weird. Please excuse the mess. :)
Thanks again for stopping by, and be sure to leave any thoughts or comments you have on any of the posts. I love to hear what people think, and I find I learn a great deal from what you have to say.
Take care, and enjoy!
Kriselda
Two file-sharing networks, under fire from the music and movie industries, received a favourable ruling from a federal judge today, saying that they are not liable for the illegal use of their software by their customers.
The 34-page ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Wilson was a blow to recording companies and movie studios that had sought to stem the illegal copying and distribution of their copyright works.Basically, the judge ruled that there was no evidence that either Grokster or StreamCast (the distributors of Morpheus) could "supervise and control" the use of their services by their customers. The difference between these file-sharing services and Napsters is that Napster maintained directories of files available through its software on their own servers, which theoretically gave them a much greater abililty to control and filter what was allowed to pass through.[...] In his ruling, Wilson cited the movie industry's efforts to hold Sony liable for video cassette recorders that can be used to make illegal copies of copyright works.
Obviously, the ruling will be appealled, but based on the precedent from the Sony VCR case, my guess is that it could well be upheld.
Wil Wheaton is furious - and understandably so.
Earlier today Reuters published a story about how George Bush is a "fan" of the "Iraqi Information Minister". In his interview with Tom Brokaw, Bush said: "He's my man, he was great," and "I did watch some of his clips. I get a lot of things secondhand, but in the case of the statue or Sahaf, somebody would say, he's getting ready to speak and I'd pop out of a meeting or turn and watch the TV."
When I first read the story, it struck me as odd, but not something to be upset about - but after reading Wil Wheaton's entry on the subject, I have to agree - this is simply unacceptable behaviour on the part of our President.
What?Wheaton also comment on Bush's comment that he'd "pop out of a meeting" when told that the Iraqi Information Minister was going to be on TV.He's my man?
HE'S MY MAN?!
HE IS THE ENEMY, MR. BUSH!
You know who Bush's MAN should have been? Every American soldier who was in Iraq fighting his immoral, illegal, and totally unnecessary war. Every child who is without a father or mother, every husband or wife, son or daughter who isn't ever coming home . . . they are "your man," Mr. Bush.
I'm glad the President of the United States, during a war, is jumping out of meetings to watch his "man" on TV. I'm glad Mr. Bush didn't let a silly thing like running the country interfere with his watching his man on TV.Re-reading Bush's statement, I'm reminded of when I was in college and would find a way to arrange my class schedule so I could watch my soap operas or would occasionally leave a class half-way through so I could go on an afternoon shopping trip with my friends. Its the kind of thing a kid, newly freed from the restraints of his or her parents does - not something an adult - even if he is the leader of the free world - should be doing.
I'm sure some will think that this is nothing to be upset about - but it's the kind of thing that just goes to show how petty, indulgent and juvinile our President is. It's like the stereotypical "adult child" we seen in Hollywood movies - the easily distracted executive who would rather play with his train set than pay attention to reports on how his business is doing, and who's employees indulge him (and cover up for his incompetence) because, well, he IS the boss after all.
Oh. my. Gods. The country is being run by Arthur Carlson. (And you never thought he'd get out of WKRP, did you?)
When you have a few minutes -- or a few hours - be sure to stop by the Geoblog, a very interesting use of the Weblogs.com recently updated list.
This site features a map of the world, and as posts are made to blogs around the world, Geoblog grabs the information from Weblogs.com, snatches up a short excerpt from the newest entry and shows that to you, along with where the post is being made. It's not quite in real time - the author estimates, though, that the posting to the Geoblog is made within 1 to 3 minutes of the blog being updated.
It's quite fascinating, really.
It appears that Senator Rick Santorum isn't the only one who thinks that the government has the power to regulate what happens in the bedrooms of consenting adults. According to a recent article in Slate magazine, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia seems to agree
"It's conceded by the state of Texas that married couples can't be regulated in their private sexual decisions," says Smith [the plaintiff's attorneys]. To which Scalia rejoins, "They may have conceded it, but I haven't."Scalia, like Santorum, also seems to have no problem with gays - as long as they refrain from having gay sex.
Smith says these laws say "you can't have sexual activity at all" if you are gay and Scalia objects: "They just say you can't have sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex." See? No problem. Homosexuals remain perfectly at liberty to have heterosexual sex in Texas.Scalia even uses bigamy as a point of comparison in his questioning on the matter:
Then Scalia wonders whether state statutes that criminalize rape or adultery only among opposite sexes are similarly unconstitutional. Smith argues that this is quite different from "giving all people free rein to make sexual decisions except one small group of people." Scalia retorts, "You can put it that way. You can make it sound puritanical. But lots of laws make moral judgments. What about the laws against bigamy?"Worse, Scalia also seems to think that homosexuality is somehow contagious - that it could spread from teacher to student if a gay person happened to get a job teaching school.
Smith explains that the anti-sodomy laws have pernicious secondary effects—keeping gay parents from gaining child visitation or custody or employment, for instance—and Rehnquist wonders whether, if these laws are stuck down, states can have laws "preferring non-homosexuals to homosexuals as kindergarten teachers." Smith replies that there would need to be some showing that gay kindergarten teachers produce harm to children. Scalia offers one: "Only that children might be induced to follow the path to homosexuality."When Charles Rosenthal, the attorney representing the state of Texas, seems to make a wrong turn in his arguments, Scalia seems seriously rattled.
In response to a question from Justice Anthony Kennedy as to whether Bowers is still good law, Rosenthal replies that mores have changed and that "physical homosexual intimacy is now more acceptable." Since he suddenly seems to be arguing the wrong side of the case, an astonished Scalia steps in to say, "You think there is public approval of homosexuality?"Have I mentioned before that Justice Scalia scares me? This is the same Justice who believes that democracy obscures "the divine authority behind government," and that we can tell who God wants to have be our leader, as he will have grabbed his power through some form of battle. Oh, and Scalia's also the one who, when he was recently given an award for free speech banned the broadcast media from covering it.Rosenthal catches his pass, then runs the wrong way down the field: "There is approval of homosexuality. But not of homosexual activity." Scalia wonders how there can be such widespread "approval" if Congress still refuses to add homosexuals to classes of citizens protected by the civil rights laws. "You're saying there's no disapproval of homosexual acts. But you can't ... say that," he sputters.
Remember that Scalia was instrumental in the Supreme Court's decision to halt the recount of votes in Florida, following the 2000 election, and was the author of the opinion that essentially said that no recount should be done because, if the recount showed that George Bush had not actually won the state, it might cause a credibility problem for his administration (ignoring entirely the fact that if George Bush has not actually won the state, he wouldn't have had an administration to have any crediblity to worry about). Many believe that if Chief Justice Renquhist were to retire while Bush is still in office, W will want to make Scalia the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
That would be scary.
As for the Slate article quoted above, you should check it out, if only for the wonderfully surreal conversation near the end about immorality, teaching German, just what Texas thinks of gays in general, and the feasibility of gay politicians in Texas.
I'm not sure there is a comment for this one...
O.J. Says He May Cover Blake Trial...except maybe "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD - NOOOOOOOOO!"O.J. Simpson has denied widespread reports that he will be featured in a reality TV series. He told the Chicago Sun-Times: "I have no plans in any way to do a reality show even though people have approached me about it." However, he said, he had been contacted by some TV outlets to become an analyst at the Robert Blake murder trial. "I'd love to do it," he said. "I think I have a lot of insight. I don't know if he's guilty or not but I know there's no such thing anymore as innocent until proven guilty."
RonK at Cogent Provocateur has a long, but very much "worth it" essay on the WMD question. I'm quoting a couple of substantial excerpts, but there's a lot more to the essay and I strongly recommend reading it. He not only looks at how and why we may have been misled about the existence of WMD in Iraq, but also the repercussions of our having done that on the world stage. As with any "warning" of what might be, its possible his case may be somewhat overstated, but I think there's more than enough validity in his ideas that they're worth at least thinking about.
On whether or not we were duped:
The joke is on us, but does it matter any more? We won, didn't we?Yes, we won ... and yes, it still matters, else high officialdom wouldn't be clinging gamely to the original premise. And the PR labs wouldn't be working overtime testing damage control solutions.
From August's "what's all this frenzy about a war?", to September's "you don't introduce new products in August", through November's election victory over an opposition "soft" on Saddam, through the winter games of spinning Blix on ice, through Powell's PowerPoint prestidigitation in February, to a no-time-to-vote forced March, we plied the crowd with predictable fare. We loosened them up with liberation cocktails. We circulated tray after tray of Saddam-as-Hitler appetizers. We dutifully jotted down orders for commercial or strategic side-dishes. But the main course was always a grand sterling-covered platter of sizzling Snipe a la Bush.
No WMD, no War Powers Resolution. No WMD, no UN Res. 1441. No WMD, no Coalition of the Willing. No WMD, no Azores ultimatum. Everything hinged on Iraq's possession of WMD, and her intransigent refusal to give them up. Scratch the surface of any auxiliary casus belli, and chances are you'll find a circular argument: "Saddam is evil and dangerous. How do we know? Because he has WMDs. How can we be so sure he has WMDs? Because he's evil and dangerous."
and on some of the recent possible explainations as to why we've not yet been able to find any evidence of Iraq's WMD:
So we haven't found any WMD. There are plenty of reasonable explanations ... depending how warm the audience is. Try one of these on for size:Saddam had WMDs, which were incinerated in coalition attacks. Funny, that's what Saddam said last time ... at least in part ... and we didn't buy it then. Probably true, in part ... but too convenient, on the whole.There are a couple of late entrants in the reinvention derby. Most prominent is a report by NYT's Judith Miller, embedded with MET Alpha. In this version, an informant reveals that Saddam ordered all WMD destroyed just days before the war. So ...We found WMD, but it's so secret we can't reveal it. Not credible ... not even if there's a Carlyle Group logo on every item.
WMD are hidden so well nobody has found them yet ... the "vault thesis". Incompatible with the standard thesis, and equally devastating to US intel reputation ... but faintly plausible. The goods could be consolidated in a relatively small volume. The technicians and forklift operators -- like Pharoah's pyramid architects -- could have been buried along with the goods. Saddam had the only key, and he's not talking. There are no seed cultures. (They'd require power supplies for controlled environments, and rotation of growth media.) There's no fissile material. (Gamma survey would find it despite shielding, and it there'd be a big, dirty production site somewhere ... US hasn't even figured out how to decontaminate its own WW II extraction facilities.)
Saddam slipped the goods across the border into Syria months ago. Unlikely from a number of perspectives, but plausible. Promoted by Israeli intel, which has its own agenda. Incompatible with the main corpus of prewar "solid intelligence", and suffers from most of the "vault thesis" plot spoilers.
Saddam brought a superpower down on his head rather than surrender these WMDs? Then he destroyed the same precious WMDs rather than use them against the superpower? As in the vault thesis, he does this without leaving major production-residue signatures. And ...Only a prize-winning, best-selling subject-matter specialist could get a piece like this printed in the Podunk Herald. Miller is a journalistic rock star -- deservedly so -- but she's stuck in the desert, holding the bag, waiting for the snipe, while a goddamn real biological terror -- SARS -- bounces around the globe. In short, this report walks like a fish, quacks like a fish, and smells like a fish.US intel was comprehensively wrong on every detail ... but coincidentally correct on the central premise ... but almost all of that evidence no longer exists. And ...
The story -- pre-cleared with the military -- reaches us through a chain of biased sources: a surprise witness (who tells us everything we want to hear, complete with an al Qaeda connection), one or more military intelligence operatives, and an embedded reporter who hasn't met the informant or seen any evidence, and who laid her reputational neck on the line with the WMD hawks a long way back.
On yesterday's Nightline, Ted Koppel spotted what may be a more promising explanatory trial balloon -- "all's fair in love and war". By this thesis, we were never serious about WMD. WMD was never anything more than a necessary selling tool for war. War was necessary and salutary as an "object lesson" to lesser beings, reminding them (for their own good) that the US is big and tough. Why now? "9/11 changed everything". Why Iraq? No special reason ... Iraq presented itself as an adversary of convenience. Koppel gathered unabashed supporting testimony from B-list neocon hawks, including former CIA Director Woolsey.
As the Bush administration is now having to backpedal a bit and admit they may not be able to find any WMD, it's important for it to be clear just how certain he, and his coalition partner Tony Blair, were that those weapons were there and were an immediate danger. The Times Online (UK) has published an article reviewing some of the recent "excuses" that Geoff Hoon, the British Defense Secretary has offered as to why Saddam didn't make use of his WMD during the war and why we're having such difficulty locating evidence of any. It also contains a nice selection of quotes from various officials, made prior to the war, about just how certain they were that Iraq had these weapons.
“If we know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him?” “It (Iraq regime) possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons . . . we know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX gas” -- George Bush, October 7, 2002“We are dealing with a very real threat today, that of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction” -- Geoff Hoon, March 10, 2003
“His (Saddam Hussein’s) regime has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and he has an active programme to acquire and develop nuclear weapons” -- Donald Rumsfeld, January 20, 2003
“Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
“In fact, they (Iraqi regime) can produce enough dry biological agent in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people. “Saddam Hussein has never accounted for vast amounts of chemical weaponry: 550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions, and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents. If we consider just one category of missing weaponry, 6,500 bombs from the Iran-Iraq war. . . Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tonnes of chemical-weapons agent. Even the low end of 100 tonnes of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly five times the size of Manhattan” -- Colin Powell, address to the UN Security Council, February 5, 2003
“It is right (going to war) because weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, are a real threat to the security of the world and this country” -- Tony Blair, House of Commons, January 15, 2003
“What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme.
His (Saddam Hussein’s) military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them.” -- Tony Blair, Foreword to Iraq “dossier”
KOS has a great rant about the ABC News article on the Bush administration'slatest shift in justification for the war.
"Sending a message" may be a legitimate reason to go for war, so why not argue it? If the administration was so sure of itself that it was right, and that such a "message" was necessary, then why not make that argument to the American people and the international community?Read the whole thing.Instead, as this administration is wont to do, it obfuscated, misdirected, LIED, and did everything in its power to avoid stating the REAL reasons for the war.
Problem is, the rest of the world saw right through it. We demonize France and Germany for refusing to play along with a pathologically dishonest administration, yet it turns out they were right. The lies were naked, and easily exposed. And now the administration itself (including Bush himself) are now admiting that perhaps there are no WMDs in Iraq.
Bob Harris, filling in today for Tom Tomorrow, also reminds us of Bush's statement at the start of the war that we were to "disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." He also provides a link to an article that tells of our use of satellite technology in the war, including satellites that are "capable of gathering information in Iraq at a resolution 'keen enough to read large newspaper headlines from space'," but which, somehow, couldn't see the WMD being moved, hidden or destroyed.
You know, some days I'm almost scared to start my daily surf through the various news sources and blogs I read each day. I never know what I'm going to find next, and sometimes I'm not sure I want to.
Now that the administration has had to admit that we may not be able to find the WMD they were so sure Saddam had, they're floating yet another justifcation for the war: Showing the world how tough america is, and that democracy is the best hope for the future.
So, if WMD weren't the primary reason for the war, why did we make such a fuss about them?
"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."I don't know about anyone else, but when someone feels they need to tell me that they're not lying, it usually makes me less likely to believe that they aren't, but that's just me.
This latest attempt at justifying the war is premised on the idea that 9/11 "changed everything" and that the United States needed to make an object lesson of someone in order to show nations, particularly in the Middle East, that it's not a good idea to mess with us. We also wanted to send the message that democracy is good.
Senior officials decided that unless action was taken, the Middle East would continue to be a breeding ground for terrorists. Officials feared that young Arabs, angry about their lives and without hope, would always looking for someone to hate — and that someone would always be Israel and the United States.Of course, that message about democracy is getting a bit muddled at the moment. As was recently reported, the US has been caught off guard by how much the Shi'ite majority in Iraq wants it's own government - and how strong of a force they are to be reckoned with. The problem, of course, is that if the Shi'ites are able to establish the kind of government they want, it will be a fundamentalist theocracy - pretty much the last thing we want to see there. So now we end up in the position of telling Iraq "Sure, you can have democracy - just don't pick a form of government we don't like". It kind of defeats the purpose of it, doesn't it?Europeans thought the solution was to get a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. But American officials felt a Middle East peace agreement would only be part of the solution.
The Bush administration felt that a new start was needed in the Middle East and that Iraq was the place to show that it is democracy — not terrorism — that offers hope.
One of the biggest complaints anti-war advocates had before the war was that the justification kept shifting - Saddam had WMD, Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda, Saddam might give WMD to al-Qaeda, Saddam treated his people badly, and so on - whatever they administration thought would win it the most support on any given day. Now, even though the war is over, they're still changing their justifications.
This is one of those things that you never know for sure if it's really "true" or someone with a bit of imagination and a good sense of humour, but either way it's rather amusing - and (as Atrios pointed out) Santorum has, in a way, opened himself up to questions like it. I suspect, though, that whether the "original" call is real or not, Santorum's office will be getting more than a few calls along the same line. I don't have much sympathy for Santorum if that's the case, but I do kinda feel sorry for his staff...
At any rate - go read - it's short and it's funny, and we all need a good laugh.
In a speech at an Abrams tank facility in Lima, OH, today, President Bush admitted that Iraq may have destroyed it's chemical weapons before the war.
"He tried to fool the United Nations, and did for 12 years, by hiding those weapons," Bush said. "And so it's going to take some time to find them. But we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth."The way he says that, though, makes it sound like there would be no difference as to whether they were destroyed, moved or hid, when, in fact, there would be a huge difference - if the weapons were destroyed, then we had no reason for beginning the war.
I had commented briefly on this in a previous article, but I think its an important enough point to bring it up again. The number one reason for the invasion was to disarm Saddam of these weapons of mass destruction that we insisted that he must have. Saddam, of course, kept insisting he didn't have any, but we said he was lying.
Now, however, even President Bush is admitting that it is possible that he destroyed all of his weapons sometime prior to the war, or else he moved or hid them. Now, if he moved or hid them, and we can prove it, that would go a long way to backing Bush's rationale for the war in the first place. If, however, Saddam had destroyed them - which is what we had been demanding that he do - then there was no need to start the war. Saddam would have been complying with our requirements for avoiding an invasion.
Here's the thing, though, if Saddam had destroyed the weapons, why didn't he tell us that he destroyed them? I would think that he'd want to, so that we wouldn't invade. That would be the only logical reason for him to have destroyed them - forestalling the invasion. Otherwise, why get rid of your best weapons with an unfriendly army knocking at your door?
I suspect that Bush is using the "he destroyed them" possiblity as a way of avoiding admitting that maybe Saddam just didn't have any. For Bush, he believes it would be less embarassing for Saddam to have inexplicably destroyed his weapons right before an invasion designed to get those very weapons away from him, than to admit that they (the Bush administration) were either wrong, and Saddam didn't have them in the first place, or that they were lying about them.
Jack Balkin has an excellent piece that offers an overview to the "Right to Privacy" and a look at how the changing mores of society guide how that right is implemented by the courts. Below is an exceprt, but I highly recommend reading the entire piece. (If the permalink is bloggered go to http://balkin.blogspot.com/ and scroll down to Monday, April 23 and the article titled "Rick Santorum and Homosexuality.)
The right of privacy is always responding to changing notions of what is sexually appropriate and inappropiate. Today most people in the United States (and certainly most young people) think that heterosexual sex between unmarried individuals is permissible. It was not always thus. The sexual revolution changed people's views about the morality of pre-marital sex. That, in turn, changed what people thought the state had a right to regulate. Most people now probably think that it is none of the state's business whether heterosexual couples have sex and whether they wish to live together outside of marriage.The same thing, I would submit, is happening with same-sex relations. When the Supreme Court first considered the issue in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick, homosexuality was only beginning to win widespread social acceptance. Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court, filled with people of a much older generation, could not muster five votes to protect the rights of gays and lesbians. What was surprising was that there were already four votes to do so. Now, with Will and Grace one of the top-rated comedies on television, it is quite clear that a very large number of people have changed their views. It is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court begins to protect same-sex relations. Whether they will do so through extending the right of privacy or through the use of the equal protection clause is yet to be determined. But they will change constitutional law to accomodate changing social mores. However, since there have been no similar changes in social attitudes about incest or polgyamy, there is no reason to think that courts will protect those practices. As I have said, the reason is not based on logic, but experience, which, as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once said, is the real source of the life of the law..
Conservative religious groups used to have the upper hand in the debate over gay rights. But now they have seen the writing on the wall. They are, for the most part, resigned to the Supreme Court's overruling or severely limiting Bowers v. Hardwick. Santorum's comments should be understood in this light. He is giving this feature of right wing politics its last hurrah.
More Republicans have joined the call for Senator Rick Santorum to apologize for his recent remarks.
The group, Republican Unity Coalition, includes former president Gerald Ford and Mary Cheney, the daughter of current Vice President Dick Cheney. They describe themselves as a "gay-straight organization dedicated to making homosexuality a non-issue". I really like the way they put that because, really, homosexuality should be a non-issue.
Republican Senators Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island) have both issued statements condemning Senator Rick Santorum's comments on sexuality and his contention that there is no right to privacy.
"Discrimination and bigotry have no place in our society, and I believe Senator Santorum's unfortunate remarks undermine Republican principles of inclusion and opportunity," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, according to a statement from her office.This is the second time in recent weeks that Senator Snowe has taken a noticable stand in opposition to her party's policies. Her opposition to President Bush's tax cut proposal even prompted one group, "Club for Growth", to create and ad about her comparing her to the leaders of France who tried to "stand in the way" of Bush's push for the war in Iraq. (In a nice touch of irony, Maine has a large Franco-American population, and there are reports that the ad may have actually helped strengthen support for her.)Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island, released a similar statement on Thursday.
"I thought his choice of comparisons was unfortunate and the premise that the right of privacy does not exist -- just plain wrong," he said. "Senator Santorum's views are not held by this Republican and many others in our party."
I hope more Republicans will follow their lead, but I'm not holding my breath. There is pressure from conservative groups such as the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition for Republicans to stand in support with Santorum. So far, most Republicans, including President Bush, have chosen to remain silent on the issue, apparently in hope that it will quickly blow over.
"It is clear that many top GOP leaders cannot bring themselves to offer a spirited defense of marriage for fear of being accused of bigotry by Democrats and their allies among homosexual activists," said a statement from Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council.The Christian Coalition released a statement Thursday, blasting the "liberal organizations and the liberal media" for trying to "foster a jaundiced agenda," and hailing Santorum as a "man of honor."
"Homosexuality clearly is an alternative lifestyle," said Roberta Combs, president of the group. "We stand with and support Senator Santorum."
From DailyKOS, a suggestion for the Democrats:
We all talk about the Democratic Party standing for something. Well, there it is.Well, it's one sure way to differentiate the Democrats from the Republicans, and it might help remind some people what we stand to lose if things keep going as they have been.The party of personal liberty.
It's a winner, both tactically (helping us win elections), and philosophically. Government can and should lend a helping hand. But it should also protect our individual freedoms from those (like Santorum) who would tear them away.
Do read the entire piece - he has some good points about Liberitarians and how they might just fit in with the Democrats better than the Republicans - and wouldn't that be a boost next November?
I just hope someone passes this on to Terry McAuliffe at the DNC. Or maybe a lot of someones. ;)
Arthur Silber at Light of Reason has an interesting post on the Santorum flap. In it he makes a couple of points that I wish I had recognized, because I think that they are very important. First, Santorum seems to be under the impression that the basic "unit" of society is the "stable, healthy family", NOT the individual, and second, that the governments purpose is not to protect the individual but rather to protect society. Both of these concepts fly in the face of what America is supposed to be - a pluralistic society where individuals have freedoms and it is the freedom of the individual that is necessary to protect, not society.
The entirety of the interview, and these last statements in particular, make it unmistakably clear that, for Santorum, the purpose of government is not to protect individual rights, but to protect "strong healthy families," "the basic unit of our society." Note that his idea of "strong healthy families" is one growing out of his particular beliefs, including his religious beliefs; you might have quite a different idea of a "strong healthy family," as might many millions of other people. But beyond this, Santorum could not be more mistaken: "the basic unit of our society" is the individual, not "a healthy, stable, traditional family" or any other "unit" that someone might put forth. The smallest minority is the individual -- and it is the individual's rights that government properly should protect, especially against people with views like Santorum's.When individual rights become subordinate to one particular view of society, we step away from being a free nation and begin to more closely resemble the fundamentalist theocracies that our own government decries on a regular basis. That many of Santorum's views derive from his own particular religoius belief just make the comparison that much more apt.The other element worthy of note is the breathtaking arrogance of this statement: "The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire." Please keep in mind the following: what Santorum is talking about in this interview is sexual activity conducted in private by consenting adults. But Santorum proceeds from what is, in fundamental terms, a collectivist premise: he believes that government properly has the power (or in his terms, the "right") to criminalize behavior which might endanger "strong healthy families," thus in his view endangering society in general. In other words, the purpose of government is to protect "society" (which presumably includes those who thinks as he does, but no one else at all), but not to protect you specifically, or any other individual.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has announced that it is filing a suit against Shippensburg University in Harrisburg, PA, claiming that their Code of Conduct it has adopted to regulate student behaviour violates their right to free speech. Shippensburg, of course, denies that they are doing any such thing. Shippensburg's Code of Conduct, which is typical of colleges nationwide, gives each student a "primary" right to be free from harassment, inimidation, physical harm or emotional abuse, and a "secondary" right to express a personal belief system in a manner that does not "provoke, harass, demean, intimidate or harm" another.
The university also prohibits conduct that "annoys, threatens, or alarms a person or group," like sexual harassment, innuendo, comments, insults, propositions, jokes about sex or gender-specific traits and even "suggestive or insulting sounds," leering, whistling, obscene gestures.
The president of the university, Anthony Ceddia, supplemented the code last month with a policy limiting demonstrations and rallies to two specific "speech zones" on campus. Now, I can understand some of these restrictions. Students should be protected from physical harm, harassment, threats, intimidation or abuse, but since when did anyone have a right to not be "annoyed" or "insulted"? When I remember my own days in college, I honestly can't think of a day that went by in which I wasn't annoyed, insulted, had jokes made at my expense, was the recipient of demeaning comments or subjected to obscene gestures. As unpleasant as it was, I also knew that it was largely late-teens and early-twentysomethings being the general assholes so many people in that age range can be.
Granted, there are points where such behaviour rises to such a level that it needs to be addressed and, in many cases, controlled or regulated through rules and punishment. If it's of sufficient intensity that a reasonable person would find themselves hindered from being able to function as necessary in the learning environment, it's a problem. Other people's prejudices, immaturities and stupidity should not be allowed to interfere with someone's ability to get the education that they went to college for, and if a student is reasonbly in fear for their safety or well-being, there needs to be a mechanism in place that they can take advantage of to solve the problem. But more often than not, things never get that far. Feelings get hurt, people get mad, but no moreso than what happens in everyday life, where you have to face such behaviours without any "code of conduct" to protect you from the cruelty people can show towards each other. Learning how to deal with that should also be a part of a student's education, because you'll certainly need to know how.
FIRE is making this the kickoff of a campaign against overly restrictive codes of conduct at schools around the country. They're planning to file suit against at least one school in each of the 12 federal appellate court districts, and will be posting a database of regulations from schools around the country next month at http://speechcodes.org.
Creed, a band mostly known for their near-interchangable songs and status as "maybe Christian" band has been hit with a lawsuit alleging that Scott Stapp, the lead singer, was "so intoxicated and/or medicated that he was unable to sing the lyrics of a single Creed song.
Four fans of the rock group Creed filed a suit Monday demanding their money back for a Dec. 29 concert at the Allstate Arena in Rosemont at which, they claim, the band's singer was too drug-addled to remember his own songs.The plaintiffs are request class-action status on behalf of all who attended the concert that evening and have said that Stapp "left the stage on several occasions during several songs for long periods of time, rolled around on the floor of the stage in apparent pain or distress, and appeared to pass out on stage during the performance."
Now, for a rock performer to be stoned, drunk or otherwise "altered" on-stage is nothing unusual, but I'm not aware of any circumstances in which fans have been able to get their money back for a sub-par performance. Of course, with the way ticket prices have escelated over the years, there's a lot more money at stake now if the show ends up being poorly done. According to the suit, the four concertgoes had spent $227 total in tickets, service fees and parking. That's roughly $54 per person - not a cheap evening out.
What will be most interesting, however, is the impact this suit has among Creed's many Christian fans. The suit itself alleges that Stapp has a known drug or alcohol dependency that the other band members and their management company were aware of, yet the band has been hailed by many a good band for Christian teens. Even the "Focus on the Family" publication "Breakaway" has written about them. The article notes that Creed does not claim to be a Christian band and that they describe themselves more as asking questions and searching for the answers they don't have. It also says, however, that "Creed is by far the best option in a dark musical genre".
I don't know if the plaintiffs in this suit have any kind of a realistic chance of prevailing in this suit, but I have to say I really feel for them. I've been to over 50 concerts in my life, and know how angry I'd be if, after the usual mad scramble and hours waiting in line to get decent tickets, unbelievable ticket prices, trying to find a place to park that's reasonably near the venue and everything else that goes into just getting to the concert, the band or artist I was there to see couldn't perform their own songs because he was just a bit to wasted - regardless of what he might have been wasted on. Good luck, guys!
Just as an FYI: There's a new computer worm on the prowl that takes advantage of concerns about SARS to get people to open e-mail attachments, thus infecting their system. As always, the best rule of thumb is to not open e-mail attachments, even if you think you know who it's from.
Anyway, here are the details, courtesy of the Sidney Morning Herald.
Anti-virus software maker Sophos has issued a warning about a new computer worm that takes advantage of the worldwide concern over the virus causing Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).Additional information available at the link above.
The mass-mailing worm, which has been named W32/Coronex-A, sends itself to all contacts in Outlook address books and attempts to dupe innocent computer users into opening an attachment offering details on the current SARS epidemic.The worm uses different subject lines, message bodies and attachment names to try and lure users into opening the attachments, including: "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome", "SARS Virus" and Hongkong.exe
Paul Ducklin, head of technology for Sophos in the Asia-Pacific, said the worm had no destructive payload. "The first time the worm is run, it shows a message with the text "SARS Virus, corona virus", and then copies itself to the Windows folder as Corona.exe. It then creates a registry entry so that corona.exe is run automatically each time Windows is started," he said.
"Every time it runs, it sends mail to everybody in your Outlook address book."
Atrios at Eschaton is doing a great job following up on Sen. Rick Santorum's statements regarding his belief that we have no right to privacy and that the government should be able to regulate private sex acts in our own homes, along with the reactions to his statement.
One statement Santorum made that, so far, isn't getting quite as much attention as the initial quote likening consensual sex between adults to bigamy, incest, adultery and polygamy is his contention that teens who were molested by priests were just engaging in a consensual, adult relationship.
In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship.This is truly an outrageous statement, and is no different than claiming a rape victim "asked for it" or otherwise brought the attack on herself.
As for Santorum's contention that the victims of these priests were engaged in just a "basic homosexual relationship", Atrios provides several quotes regarding former priest John Geoghan, including this:
I felt a little funny about it," McSorley recalled in an interview. "I was 12 years old and he was an old man."I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like any kind of a "basic relationship" - hetero- or homosexual - to me.Riding home after getting ice cream, McSorley says, Geoghan consoled him. But then he patted his upper leg and slid his hand up toward his crotch. "I froze up," McSorley said. "I didn't know what to think. Then he put his hand on my genitals and started masturbating me. I was petrified." McSorely added that Geoghan then began masturbating himself.
Atrios also notes that Ari Fleischer claimed today that the President didn't have any comments on Santorum's statement because "typically" the President doesn't comment on Supreme Court cases, rulings or findings. That quote is accompanied by a quote from the President's remarks on the affirmative action case involving the University of Michigan that was recently argued before the Supreme Court.
Blogspot has been having some problems lately with permalinks to specific entries in blogs maintained there, so it's best just to go to Eschaton to check out his posts. I'm sure we've not yet heard the last of it, either.
From the Watch:
Support The Troops, Fund The VA A Virtual MarchYou can also get information on how to reach your Congressional representative by scrolling down a ways and looking for the "Contact Congress" form on my sidebar. Just plug in your zip code and it will take you to their contact information.Having gotten a lot of enthusiastic response to a suggestion to hold a virtual march in favor of supporting our troops via educational and health care funding, we're going to go ahead and work on getting the word out.
Steven Charest of To The Barricades made the very good suggestion that instead of doing it on May 1st, we do it on Memorial Day. This year, Memorial Day falls on Monday, May 26th. But having a suspicion that our legislators don't want to work on Memorial Day weekend anymore than most the rest of us, I called the Capitol switchboard, and it turns out that government offices will be closed that day. And for the remainder of the week, congress will be out of session.
But they'll be there the week before that, so I propose Thursday, May 22nd. This will give stragglers enough time to get their calls in before the weekend, and still sends the message.
What you can do: If you know anyone at Move On, Win Without War, or whatever your local flavor of peace organizer goes by, get in touch with them. Ask them to spread the word about this to their membership. Also, get the word out to people you know, your friends, anyone you can find. Include the number to the Capitol switchboard with any announcements, and the numbers for your area representatives if you want to target the message to a particular location.
Tell everybody. Tell them if they can't get through the first day, try back the next.
Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121
For local numbers, you can look them up at Congress.org. You can always call local offices when the main DC numbers are busy.
Yesterday, it was reported that not only are officials in the Bush administration losing faith in the intelligence they had indicating where WMDs could be found, but that their lack of pre-planning for the need to secure potential WMD sites may well make it easier for any biological or chemical weapons Iraq may have had to fall into the hands of terrorist organizations and others. Today we learn that they weren't prepared for the Iraqi Shi'ite majority to want to run their own government after Saddam was removed from power, and may be unable to prevent them from taking over and creating a fundamentalist Islamic government, such as is found in Iran.
As the administration plotted to overthrow Hussein's government, U.S. officials said this week, it failed to fully appreciate the force of Shiite aspirations and is now concerned that those sentiments could coalesce into a fundamentalist government. Some administration officials were dazzled by Ahmed Chalabi, the prominent Iraqi exile who is a Shiite and an advocate of a secular democracy. Others were more focused on the overriding goal of defeating Hussein and paid little attention to the dynamics of religion and politics in the region.It turns out that, while many in the administration believe Chalabi to be a Shi'ite leader, he's not nearly as popular in Iraq as they had thought he would be, and the main Iraqi Shi'ite organisation, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) not only has close ties to the fundamentalist regime in Iran, but also has shown little interest in working with the US, as demonstrated by their boycott of the first meeting of US officials and Iraqi political and religious leaders, held recently, to discuss the future of Iraq."It is a complex equation, and the U.S. government is ill-equipped to figure out how this is going to shake out," a State Department official said. "I don't think anyone took a step backward and asked, 'What are we looking for?' The focus was on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein."
Who, exactly, runs a war with this little planning for the aftermath? We have seen that a great number of the assumptions about what would happen after the war would be wrong. While the reaction to our presence hasn't been as poor as some of us on the anti-war side had feared, it's certainly not nearly as warm as many on the pro-war side anticipated. We weren't prepared for the looting and chaos, and, as a result, have not only made it easier for our enemies to get a hold of any WMDs (if, in fact there are any, something we still do not know), but we've let their hospitals be cleaned out of all their equipment and medicines, were unable to stop people from stealing samples of highly dangerous, if not lethal, strains of cholera, black fever, HIV, polio, and hepatitis from Iraqi's disease control center, and managed to lose countless treasures and artifacts from the museums and libraries that were ravaged. We obviously didn't have any idea of who or what we would establish as an interim government during the messy transition, or how we were going to go about helping the Iraqis form their own government to run their newly freed nation. At times it seems like the only thing we were prepared to do was protect Iraq's oil reserves.
The level of incompetence in planning and executing this war is not, in the least, mitigated by the fact that we "won" it so quickly. That we would win at least the military engagement part of the war was never in question. It would have taken even greater incompetence than I think (or at least hope) Bush is capable of to lose it. But despite the military victory, its hard to find much else that could be considered "well done".
Sadly, the result of all this incompetence is what we're going to have to live with for quite some time to come.
Rob at Emphasis Added hits it out of the park again today, with his commentary on the flap over Rick Santorum's comments, sexual repression, reactionary politics and homophobia.
The psychologist and political theorist Wilhelm Reich made an intriguing link between the dynamics of sexual repression and reactionary politics, arguing that the latter was an externalization of the repressed individual’s lack of control over powerful sexual urges. Essentially, the authoritarian tendencies of political movements on both the far right and far left represent the efforts of sexually repressed individuals and social masses to reproduce the misery of their own repression on everyone else, and it is no accident that sexual Puritanism and “family values” are part of the vocabulary of every historical authoritarian movement. In Reich’s view, the lifting of sexual repression as a feature of social mores will inevitably result in a more progressive politics. (This is a radical simplification, and those interested should consult Reich’s Mass Psychology of Fascism and The Sexual Revolution, both from the early 1930s, for more information.)Joe Bob says "Check it out!".
The following "News Brief" is NOT true. It is satire, from the Onion. As with many of their pieces, however, it makes an excellent (and sharply barbed) point.
Tortured Ugandan Political Prisoner Wishes Uganda Had Oil
KAMPALA, UGANDA—A day after having his hands amputated by soldiers backing President Yoweri Museveni's brutal regime, Ugandan political prisoner Otobo Ankole expressed regret Monday over Uganda's lack of oil reserves. "I dream of the U.S. one day fighting for the liberation of the oppressed Ugandan people," said Ankole as he nursed his bloody stumps. "But, alas, our number-one natural resource is sugar cane." Ankole, whose wife, parents, and five children were among the 4,000 slaughtered in Uganda's ethnic killings of 2002, then bowed his head and said a prayer for petroleum.
Howard Dean has now issued a call for Sen. Rick Santorum to resign from his leadership position in Congress. Currently, Sentorum is the Republican's #3 man.
Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean on Wednesday called for Republican Sen. Rick Santorum to resign his leadership post after the lawmaker compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery.Go Howard!
"Gay-bashing is not a legitimate public policy discussion; it is immoral. Rick Santorum's failure to recognize that attacking people because of who they are is morally wrong makes him unfit for a leadership position in the United States Senate," Dean said in a statement.
At this point, I haven't yet decided who I will support for President in the 2004 election, but I have a feeling it will wind up being a tough call between Howard Dean and John Kerry. Both seem to have a number of strengths, but I haven't yet identified what their major weaknesses are - and every candidate will have a few. I would, however, like to recommend checking both of them. Dean is garnering a lot of excitement in some quarters right now - not just for his denunciation of Santorum, but because of his stand on other issues as well - including the Iraqi war. Kerry got a major burst of publicity a couple weeks ago when he called for a "regime change" here in the US and was blasted by the GOP for daring to suggest we need a change of presidency during a way.
Information on Dean is available at his official campaign site Dean for America and his official blog Dean: Call to Action.
Information on John Kerry is available at his campaign site John Kerry for President.
Lots going on today in blogland - and the general media - about Senator Rick Santorum's comment that allowing "consensual (gay) sex" in the privacy of the home would allow anything in the privacy of the home, including adultery, bigamy, incest and polygamy.
In a Salon article yesterday, Andrew Sullivan noted that the actual quote from Sen. Santorum was actually a much broader comparison.
First off a simple question: What did Santorum actually say? The reason I ask this is that I don't know anyone who speaks in parentheses. Did the AP reporter add the "(gay)" part to provide context for the quote? But such context could easily be provided by a simple sentence beforehand, while leaving the actual quote intact. From the story, it seems as if reporter Lara Jakes Jordan added the "(gay)" in order to get around her poor sentence construction. If so, she ruined a huge and damaging Freudian slip. Because it's clear from the quote that simply consensual sex -- gay or straight -- is precisely what Santorum wants to police.Atrios notes that, in another quote from the same interview, Santorm claims that post-pubescent men (i.e. teenagers) who had sex with Catholic priests were engaged in a "basic homosexual relationship" that was "consensual" - ignoring, of course, that the victim is still a minor (and would be considered the victim of molestation under almost any law). Just as sexual relationships between patients of any age and their doctors or therapists are considered unethical, and, in some cases, illegal, because these professionals hold a position of authority in the patient's life, so does a Priest hold a position of authority in a parishoner's life, and thus is able to exert a stronger influence on their victim, in effect coercing them through abuse of their perceived power.
SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.DailyKOS points out that, while condeming the gay "lifestyle" and how allowing consentual sex be unregulated in the privacy of the home, Santorum makes sure to clarify that he doesn't have any problem with the gays themselves.
But being a good Christian, Santorum doesn't condemn the homosexual. No siree.And how does Santorum justify his desire for the government to be able to regulate all private sex acts? He says that the regulation of sexual activites - the regulation of an individuals passions and wants - is necessary because society must support the family.I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. [...] I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. and I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions.
You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.And, of course, the reason we must protect "the family" is because of children.[..] And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children.So, Santorum wants the government to have the right to regulate individual sexuality because "deviant" practices undermine the "family", and the family is important because that's what produces children.
I would absolutely love it if some reporter could sit Santorum down again and ask him a few more questions. For example, if certain kinds of sexuality are harmful to "the family", and the family is important because it produces children, should all non-reproductive sex acts be banned? What do you do with infertile people, who physiologically cannot have children? And what about couples like my husband and I, who, knowing that we would make rotten parents, have taken steps to ensure that we don't have children? Should we all be told that it's ok for us to have sexual desires (just as he thinks its ok for gays to have sexual desires for people of the same sex), but that we shouldn't act on those desires (just as Santorum believes gays should refrain from acting on their desires)? Where does the line get drawn? Should the government be involved in regulating things such as what sexual positions are allowable - for example, making the "missionary" position the only legal position since that is the one believed to be best for encouraging conception?
Bizzarely, Santorum seems to think that such decisions should be left up to the individual states - so that people who live in one state could outlaw all sex except procreative sex, and another state could allow pretty much anything anyone could want.
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.I find it outrageous that this is a conversation that we should even need to have. Our sexual lives should be precisely that - ours! Santorum believes that there should be no right to privacy in this country, and that without this right, the government could then step in and regulate sexuality. But there may even be a way around that. Now, this is just my own personal "pet" theory, and maybe it wouldn't work at all, but it seems to me that there have been many actions that have been held to be forms of expression or "speech" - things such as flag burning, various forms of art - including performance art - and so on. What is more "expressive" than a sexual act? Now, granted, one Senator speaking out does not a crisis make, so "emergency" tactics are not needed now, nor is widespread panic - but it can't hurt to at least consider what kinds of tactics might be useful for when future cases arise.
On the whole, this will likely turn out to be a tempest in a teacup, but ideas like this cannot be ignored. If they are not shouted down immediately, people who feel the same way will think that these ideas are acceptable, and they're not. Yes, Sen. Santorum and others who agree with him have their right to their beliefs and they have the right to express them. I am in no way suggesting that the government should do anything to shut them up. But the protest against these ideas must be loud and strong so that they cannot find places to flourish. I'm not willing to let the government into my bedroom. I hope you're not, either.
Today's Washington Post and MSNBC have an article on the failure of the Bush administration to push-through their much desired "faith-based initiatives" legislation. With all of the focus on the war in Iraq, news of it's defeat almost got lost. At least I hadn't heard about it, and this is a story I've been watching for.
After 26 months of tussles over Bush's "faith-based initiative," the sponsor of the legislation in the Senate agreed to remove any mention of religion in a bill whose stated purpose was helping religious charities. All that was left was a package of charitable tax incentives-and even those were barely 15 percent of the amount Bush had proposed."Bush's plan would have allowed religious charities to compete for direct government funding to provide social services, in particular to the poor, while still allowing them to maintain the spiritual aspects of their programs. Part of what made the program controversial to liberals is that people who are entitled to government aid could end up being required to go to programs run by religious group (especially if no secular groups are providing the needed service), which in turn would be allowed to minister to the individual or possibly even push them to attend some kind of religious services in exchange for their aid (they would not be able to require those seeking aid to attend, however). The groups would also be allowed engage in religious discrimination when hiring and other aspects of running their operations.
For religious aid groups to push attendence at religious services or to discriminate in their hiring practices, etc., is perfectly acceptable when they are privately funded and serving those people who choose to make use of their services voluntarily. It's when clients are required to make use of their services (for example, if they win a governmental contract to provide services in a certain area) and when they are being funded by the government that it becomes problematic. When that happens, the government ends up essentially supporting their religious activities, something that it is not supposed to do.
For conservatives, however, the concern was that because the government would be funding religious groups, they would end up having to become more secular in order to conform with governmental requirements. Just as the government is not supposed to fund religious activities, it is also not supposed to tell religious groups how to operate (within certain guidelines - religious groups obviously cannot engage in activities that would otherwise be considered criminal, except under certain circumstances, such as the use of peyote in certain Native American religious rituals).
Some aspects of legislation have been put into operation through executive orders, and Bush has established an office for faith-based initiatives, but the defeat of this legislation, at the very least, sends the message that there is little support for measure of this nature within Congress - and, by extention, the general public.
Even before Bush was elected, there were discussion on programs of this nature in Congress, and Bush made it clear in his campaign that he would push strongly for his "faith-based intiatives". During the summer of 2000, when the Presidential campaigns were in full swing, the House held debates on "charitable choice", which is one program Bush had very much wanted to see put in place.
While debating the merits of the bill on the House floor, Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, who is opposed to the bill, asked whether Wiccans would be eligible for charitable choice funds. Souder remarked, “It is unlikely under President Bush that the Witches would get funding.” Edwards responded by saying that Souder had proved his point and that no bill should be passed, if, under a possible future Bush administration, government officials would pick which religions would get funding, and thus give federal sanction to some religions while withdrawing it from others.I have no doubt that Bush will continue to put as much of his desired policy into effect though executive orders. I am glad, however, that Congress has said "no" to this legislation and made it clear that there is little support for this kind of proposition in either party.
Emphasis Added has an excellent analysis of the problems the US will face trying to help Iraq become a secular democracy, especially in light of the Shi'ite majority's apparent preference for an Islamic theocracy. I strongly recommend checking it out. An excerpt:
If Iraqis are to be free to practice their religion without resort to an Islamic state, then any government cannot be representative of the majority, at least so long as the majority favors theocracy. But if democracy is to succeed, then the population must be secularized to the extent that they acknowledge a separation between religious and civil authority -- a separation which they have never seen as necessary or legitimate.
The irony is that the Administration who must negotiate this delicate balance, while representing a secular democracy, is itself neither democratically elected nor secular in outlook.
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has an interesting column today about the difficulty reporters had getting answers to questions from the White House last week. In two separate press conferences, deputy press secretary, Claire Buchan managed to dodge virtually every question put to her by the press corps - even on such apparently innocuous topics as whether or not the President's parents would be joining him for Easter or if any of the POWs would be attending the church service.
He also commented on the latest flap regarding the Bush administration's apparent lack of objection to plans from Christian groups to proseltyze to Muslims while provinding aid to them in Iraq.
Muslims were upset that Franklin Graham, who had condemned Islam as evil, preached at the Pentagon last week. Now comes word that the White House held a private briefing for 141 evangelical Christian leaders March 27 to discuss the Iraq war and other subjects.Whether Bush "shares" these views or not, and whether he holds briefing for other groups or not, Bush's tacit approval of their actions - evident by his not trying to stop them - is only going to make matters worse. Muslims will - and to an extent already do - assume that they are acting on the behalf of America rather than being a church group operating independently of the American government. They know that Bush has the authority and the ability to tell them to stay home, or to avoid anything that could be construed as an attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity. They also know he hasn't and probably won't.Those invited included Jerry Falwell, who apologized last year for calling the prophet Muhammad a "terrorist," and broadcaster Marlin Maddoux, who has proclaimed an "irrefutable connection" between Islam and terror. Also invited were the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, which is sending food to Iraq labeled "grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ," and Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who said Iraqis are "desperately in need of the gospel." Invited, too, was D. James Kennedy, whose ministry published an article calling Islam "one of the greatest challenges to Christianity."
A White House spokesman said Bush does not share these views and that similar briefings were held for groups such as veterans and think tanks.
Not enough can be said about how disasterous this could be. Muslims are already angry at us for so many things and attempting to essentially witness their religious out of existance through the combination of proclaiming it to be evil and pushing the Christian faith instead only gives them that much more to be angry about.
Howard Dean, a Democratic candidate for president and the Vermont governor who signed that state's "Civil Unions" law, allowing gay couples to form legal relationships similar to marriage, has posted a statement to his official blog about Rick Santorums comparison of consensual gay sex to adultery, bigamy, incest and polygamy:
In an interview published yesterday with the Associated Press, Rick Santorum, the third highest ranking Republican in the Senate, compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. I am outraged by Senator Santorum's remarks.As I noted yesterday, Santorum's comments equate consensual gay sex with acts that are either deceptive or exploitave in nature, neither of which is a inheirent part of gay sex between consenting adults.That a leader of the Republican Party would make such insensitive and divisive comments --comments that are derogatory and meant to harm an entire group of Americans, their friends and their familie -- is not only outrageous, but deeply offensive.
The silence with which President Bush and the Republican Party leadership have greeted Sen. Santorum's remarks is deafening. It is the same silence that greeted Senator Lott's offensive remarks in December. It is a silence that implicitly condones a policy of domestic divisiveness, a policy that seeks to divide Americans again and again on the basis of race, gender, class, and sexual orientation.
I hope that more will also speak out against Sentorum's comments and make it clear that consenting gay adults have the same right to love whomever they choose as any other couple of consenting adults, and that making public statements otherwise is as bad and as shameful as making other bigoted comments.
Link via Atrios
There are currently reports of two different discoveries of mysterious powders - one in Florida and another in Tacoma.
According to CNN:
A mail distribution center in Tacoma, Washington, was evacuated early Tuesday after a powdery brown substance initially tested positive for the toxins that cause botulism and plague, federal officials said.As for the situation in Florida, MSNBC is reporting:The officials emphasized that initial field tests often prove to be inaccurate.
On the scene, Jolene Davis of the Tacoma Fire Department said she was not aware of any reports that the sustance had tested positive for botulism or plague toxins. She also said four out of five subsequent tests of the substance had proved to be negative, with one test still pending.
IN FLORIDA, emergency crews were investigating a white powder found in the air cargo building at Southwest Florida International Airport near Fort Myers. Six people were taken to a hospital for possible decontamination. The air cargo building is separate from the main terminal and the investigation did not affect passenger travel.More information as it becomes available.
The Bush administration seems to be finally acknowledging that maybe the intelligence they had prior to the war may not have been nearly as good as they thought it was. The Washington Post and MSNBC are reporting that "planners and those participating in the hunt" worried that information and materials related to WMD may have been stolen during the looting and chaos that has been plaguing Iraq since Saddam's regime fell.
It seems to me that this is just more evidence that the Bush administration simply did not plan at all well (or maybe they just didn't plan at all) for what to do after the main fighting of the war had been completed and the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq began. While they managed to have a company of Marines available to secure the Ministry of Oil, there has been a great deal of condemnation for the many other things that we seem to have been able to secure. Sadly, while the loss of the national treasues of the Iraqi museums and libraries is cultural tragedy, the lack of security for the sites the administration believed were locations where WMD may have been being manufactured or stored could end up being catastrophic.
[I]f such weapons or the means of making them have indeed been removed from the centralized control of former Iraqi officials, high-ranking U.S. officials acknowledged, then the war may prove to aggravate the proliferation threat that President Bush said he fought to forestall.It is absolutely ridiculous that the Bush administration did not have better plans for securing the sites they believed were likely to hold key evidence for the WMDs they claim Iraq has. Apparently, it has only been in the last few days that they have been moving to get the sites they have not yet checked secured, though it may already be too late there, as well.“It’s a danger,” Douglas J. Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, said in a telephone interview. There are signs, he said, “that some of the looting is actually strategic.” Former Baath Party and Iraqi government officials appear to be “doing at least some of the looting” of government facilities, he said, “including those that might have records or materials” relating to weapons of mass destruction.” [Emphasis mine]
The article also mentions the report from yesterday that the administration has spoken to an unnamed scientist who supposedly has led officials to samples of chemicals that might have been able to be used in creating chemical weapons, but experts caution that almost any chemical that can be used in creating chemical weapons will also have legitimate civilian uses. Even Donald Rumsfeld was hesitant to make any claims based on this reported find, saying only that he had "nothing to add" to the vague reports that have been released about it.
In other news regarding the search for WMDs, Hans Blix has accused the US of having tried to discredit the UN inspector's work in order to futher their justificaion for the war, such as leaking information that Blix had not included in oral reports given to the UN (for example, when he didn't mention the "drone" that Iraq had - and which turned out to be little more than a remote control "model" airplane made of balsa wood). He also noted once again his concern that the US and UK had taken seriously documents the International Atomic Energy Agency has "easily" determined were false, and said that the question of just who falisfied the documents was "disturbing".
Though the US has said that they do not seen any "immediate role" for a return of the UN inspectors, many on the council feel "independent UN verification that the weapons have been destroyed would help to win international support for the swift lifting of economic sanctions against Iraq."
In my opinion, if we're having such difficulty finding any evidence of the WMDs and are concerned that whatever evidence may remain could possibly be stolen or, worse, sold or given to other enemies of ours, it would be logical to begin working with the UN again on weapons inspections, and allow them to assist us in the search.
This is not a situation in which we should be worried about petty disagreement or "saving face". We should be worrying that, if, in fact, there are WMDs in Iraq - as the Bush administration has assured us there are - they need to be found and identified.
In a statement sure to shock lawmakers everywhere, Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania reminded America that if the Supreme Court decides that citizens have the right to consensual gay sex in their own home, it could lead to people thinking that it is perfectly acceptable to engage in adultery in your own home as well.
No, seriously, that's not too far off from what he raelly said. Here's his quote from an Associated Press interview published on Monday:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."Sen. Santorum seems to be missing a few points in making his statement, not the least of which is that places where adultery is illegal in America are few and far between (indeed, if any even still exist).
Personally, I consider adultery to be one of the more grevious actions one can commit. I do not approve of it, I would not tolerate it from my husband, nor would I engage in it personally, and I tend to be a bit judgemental of people who do. But as morally wrong as I may think adultery is, I also recognize that, except in the case of my own marriage, my opinion on adultery counts for exactly squat.
In comparing homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery, Santorum seems to be missing the point that these things are not always truly comparable.
In most cases of bigamy, for example, only the bigamist knows what's going on. As with adultery, it's most common that each of adulterer or bigamist's additional partners are completely in the dark about the existence of the others, and the adulterer/bigamist stays busy trying to keep juggling without dropping any of the balls. The main feature that adultery and bigamy have in common which makes both of them objectionable to many people is that they are based on deception.
With incest and polygamy, what you are typically looking at is exploitation. Incest involves one family member taking advantage of the trust given to them by another - usually younger - family member and abusing that trust to gain sexual gratification. Polygamy, as it is most often thought of, generally features a man who gathers to himself many wives, frequently several years younger than himself, and, in some cases, the younger sisters or daughters of earlier wives. As with incest, the perpetrator takes advantage of the naivete and trust that the younger girls have and turns it to his own goal of gathering multiple sex partners that he can have a fair amount of control over.*
Consensual gay sex, however, is neither decitful nor exploitave. In fact, aside from the gender of the partners, it's very much like heterosexual sex. Sure, you can have gay relationships that involve deceit or exploitation, just as you can have strait relationships that have those same qualities - but those qualities are not what defines the nature of a gay relationship. And just as my opinions on adultery don't count for anything outside my own relationship, people's opinions on homosexuality shouldn't carry any weight outside of their own relationship, either.
It's one thing to speak out about situations in which people are being exploited or manipulated without their knowledge or against their will - but if everyone involved in the relationship is aware of exactly what is going on, is capable of giving their consent and has voluntarily and freely done so, then why should it be any of my business how or what they do -- and why should it be any of Senator Santorum's business, either?
*(Note: There are other, non-exploitive, forms of polygamy that are seen from time to time, which I may write more about later. These relationship groups are significantly different, however, in that they are made of consenting adults who are well aware of what they are getting into, and generally do not involve one dominant person manipulating younger or more vulnerable partners for their own gain.)
Blogcritics is a nifty site that offers reviews and commentaries on books, movies and music, as well as a sampling of some great blogging on a variety of topics (under their "Etc." category). I've been doing a bit of writing for them, and am really pleased to be involved in what I've always considered to be a quality project.
In just the last few days, Blogcritics has undergone a revamping, making the site not only look better, but also easier to use. If you haven't had a chance to check it out yet, swing on by and see what you think.
Franklin Graham has made it clear that he plans to take his humanitarian aid organization "Samaritan's Purse" to Iraq, not only to help provide humanitarian support in the aftermath of the war, but also to prosyltize to Muslims and try to convert them to Christianity.
Not long after the 9/11 attacks, Bush made the unfortunate decision to use the word "crusade" in describing the War or Terror. Even though it may have been a few centuries, Muslim's are still very touchy about the whole topic of the Crusades - and understandably so.
In the Arab News, Dr. Mohammad T. Al-Rasheed has published an article that discusses the Arab view of Franklin Graham's plans, and how Graham's known closeness to Bush now makes it appear that maybe Bush really is planning a new Crusade to bring Christianity to the Middle East.
Needless to say, this is not a good thing.
The hidden items on this war's agenda are becoming clearer by the day. Graham is a close friend of Bush and his family. He was the one who delivered the invocation at this president's inauguration. For him to come proselytizing and evangelizing in the heartland of Islam is an insult, and a dangerous one at that. He should understand that he is not authorized to speak in the name of Jesus. Muslims know Jesus. Granted, that they do not know him as the "Son", but they know he does not condone the hatemongering Graham is so accomplished at.Iraq is home to the Shiite holy places. Graham has no idea what that means in terms of the dogma, fidelity, and deep faith these places and their residents have. I cannot put it better than Steven Waldman who wrote: "I am not sure any of this means that America's foreign policy objectives are served by having a Bush-loving, Islam-bashing, Muslim-converting Christian icon on the ground in Iraq tending to the bodies and souls of the grateful but deeply suspicious Muslim population. Or, to put it more simply, the idea is absolutely loopy."
I might add that it is also extremely dangerous and will play into the hands of extremists on all sides. It will not do for the Bush administration to say that Graham has the right to go where he wishes. They should stop him.
No one has the right these days to go where he wishes, least of all to the United States. People are vetted, interrogated, finger-printed, and perhaps denied a visa to enter America. So what gives this madman the right to enter Baghdad when we know what his agenda is? Will the occupying power facilitate his entry?
I'm sorry, but this doesn't even come close to passing the sniff test. According to the New York Times, the US has found a scientist - who cannot be identified out of fear that he may be sujected to reprisals (from whom?) - who claims that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons up until just a few days before the war, when he destroyed them.
This scientist also claims that he has kept some of the materials used to make these banned weapons, and has supposedly turned these over to the US. As for the rest of the illegal weapons, well, they're in Syria now. Wouldn't you just know it.
Oh! I almost forgot to metion that this scientist also says that, until recently, Saddam was working with al-Qaeda.
Isn't it just great how it all fits together so perfectly? Everyone expected Saddam to use his biological and chemical weapons against our troops, but he didn't. Neither the UN weapons inspectors nor our soldiers have been able to find any chemical or biological weapons. Well, says this scientist, that's because Saddam got rid of the right before you all showed up! Bush seems to be angling for an excuse to attack Syria next. Well, says this scientist, Saddam gave Syria some of those weapons, so they've got them now! Bush claimed that Saddam and al-Qaeda were working together, but hasn't been able to provide any proof. Well, says this scientist, I happen to know that they were!
But wait! There's more!
The Americans said the scientist told them that President Saddam Hussein's government had destroyed some stockpiles of deadly agents as early as the mid-1990's, transferred others to Syria, and had recently focused its efforts instead on research and development projects that are virtually impervious to detection by international inspectors, and even American forces on the ground combing through Iraq's giant weapons plants.Wasn't that just a stroke of brilliance on Saddam's part? To be able to work on developing things we wouldn't be able to find - even after he's out of power and we pretty much have free access to anywhere we want?
See, aside from this all just being too damn neat and tidy, part of what bothers me is that it just doesn't make sense. Iraq is not known to be a super high-tech country. For them to be working on developing things "impervious" to our ability to detect them seems more than a bit far-fetched. Even worse, why would Saddam want to get rid of what would have to be some of his most effective weapons right before he knows he's going to be invaded? He obviously didn't intend to go down without a fight - and yet he's supposed to have given away or destroyed his most lethal arsenal right before we show up. I honestly can't imagine that he'd be that bent on trying to prove Bush wrong - especially since he knows that if he is killed or overthrown in the war, we're going to have the kind of access necessary to find out if he the stuff anyway.
The Bush administration is going to have to do a lot better than one unnamed scientist who may be able to show them where some components that could possibly be used to make chemical weapons are located, and who has some pretty wild claims, to convince me of much of anything. They've shown on far too many occasions that they're far too willing to stretch the truth - or just make it up wholesale - for me to take anything on "faith". It's a bit of the old "boy who cried wolf" syndrome - tell enough lies, and eventually those who are paying attention won't believe much of anything you have to say.
UPDATE: Hesiod at Counterspin Central has an interesting point on this story as well. There are apparently some in the media and right-wing circles who are trying to use this guy's story as proof that Bush was justified in invading Iraq. Hesiod notes, however, that what this story says is that Saddam was destroying these weapons, which is exactly what we not only wanted him to do, but what we told him he'd have to do in order to avoid being invaded.
As you may have noticed, different strings looks a bit different today. I've freshened up the template a bit, and added some features like a list of recent posts, categorization of entries and better archiving, and a search engine.
My hope is that this will make it easier for you to find some of the older articles that have been posted and to see what all has been covered here since the blog's inception.
Over the next few days, I'll be catagorizing every entry in the blog. There are over 500 of them, so it's going to take a bit of doing, but I think in the long run, it'll be worth it!
Thanks again for taking time to visit, and, as always, please feel free to leave any thoughts or comments you'd care to share!
Kriselda
Can someone tell me in what universe this actually makes sense?
It seems that we've now gone and rehired the police who worked for Saddam - yes, the one's who were known for raping and robbing and otherwise abusing the citizenry - and we're having them act as police on our behalf now.
Huh?
As one Iraqi woman put it "We were afraid of them before, why should we not be now?". I'd say that's a pretty good question, and one that Bush, Rumsfeld and anyone else involved in the occupation of Iraq should figure out an answer too pretty quickly.
The police officers are asking people to give them a chance, to show that they can be good public servants.
An officer who would identify himself only as Captain Ali, because of a prohibition against speaking to the media while on rounds, said that slowly they would regain control of the city. He said there were some bad police under Saddam. But he notes that there were many concerned public servants as well. "This is a new beginning for Iraq," he said. "People must begin with trust, and they must have some patience."
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that it will be an easy sell, nor does it make it a good idea in the first place. Hopefully, these police officers will recognize that they can't get away with the heinous crimes they committed under Saddam's rule and will prove to the citizens of Iraq - and the world, that they can behave responsibly and fairly.
Secular Blasphemy notes that after the president of China demanded that health officials release accurate information on how much SARS has been affecting the nation, the official number of cases in Bejing alone has jumped from 37 to 334.
According to CNN, the Health Minister and Mayor of Bejing have both been fired as well.
This is something I wrote in a post earlier this morning:
In any situation like this, there has to be a balancing of the benefits to humanity in general and the potential drawbacks of taking action. We also have to look at what other options are available. Are there ways we could help the people in a repressed country take control of their own fate and support them as they overthrow their own dictator rather than going in and doing it for them? That's a question we never really asked about Iraq, as far as I know.
Generally when a liberal points out that we have to look at what other options are available, the question of "What other options are there" gets raised. How to Save the World has an exellent overview of some of the various other measures that can be tried, and suggestions how different options and combinations of options might be effective in other countries.
He has also posted a map, copied below, that points out why I think that - even though freeing repressed people is both important and good - it can be a two-edged sword as a justification for war. Look at how much of the map is purple - those are nations that are not considered "free". Now, granted, there are various levels of repression in those countries - just because they're all purple doesn't mean they're all equally as heinous to their citizens. But it demonstrates the size and scope of the problem of trying to free everyone.
Yes, there are times when military intervention is warranted - but as Dave notes in his overview, it should be the absolute last resort. There were still other options we hadn't tried in Iraq which could have accomplished the freedom of the Iraqi people without war.
Jonathan Alter has an interestiing article on smugness in this week's Newsweek, pointing out how our smugness about the victory in Iraq may well prove to be our Achille's Heel. One thing he notes is that apparently, there were suggestions made that we should fly in 3,000 MPs from Europe to help protect the supply lines and maintain order in Baghdad, but that Rumsfeld decided against doing so because the MPs would eventually have to be replaced by reservists, and if reservists had to be called up, it might be considered the same as admitting that we hadn't sent enough troops in the first place. And Rummy wants us to believe that we didn't "allow" the looting to happen? We did - and it looks like we did it to save his pride.
He also talks about how difficult it is for either side in this war debate to admit when they're wrong. He calls liberals to task for not being willing to admit that the pro-war side was right about the need to liberate the Iraqi people:
Let's be clear about the doves. They never said the United States wouldn’t win militarily; their objection was based on other factors (rejection of “preventive” war, botched diplomacy, etc.). And they may be proved right: history’s jury will be out a long time. Even so, I can’t get over how churlish the left has become. When did the liberals take the “lib” out of liberation? This was a totalitarian regime we’re talking about, with a boot on the face of the Iraqi people. The same folks who led the charge against fascism in Europe; who rightly spoke up against the U.S. government about “disappearances” in El Salvador and Guatemala; who carried high the banner of human rights—now they yawn at revelations of mass graves in Iraq and argue that the Iraqis will be no better off than before. Freedom’s just another word that liberals have figured out how to lose.
Now, so far, I haven't heard any on the anti-war side say that it's a bad thing that the Iraqi people are free - but I also don't recall gaining freedom for the Iraqis being very high on the pro-war side's long list of justifications for the war. Sure, they'd trot it out now and again to try and persuade those in the middle to support the administrations actions, but it was something they used more as a tool for persuasion and not as something they really believed was a significant goal of the war.
As for me, I do think that the Iraqis freedom is a good thing - a very good thing. But as a justification for going to war, it's problematic. There are many oppressive regimes around the world that we pay little or no attention to and do nothing about. If we were to start deploying our army to free every repressed people there is, we'd be stretching ourselves extremely thin. I'm not indifferent to the suffering of people who live in such horrendous conditions, but I'm also a realist when it comes to just how much one country can do.
In any situation like this, there has to be a balancing of the benefits to humanity in general and the potential drawbacks of taking action. We also have to look at what other options are available. Are there ways we could help the people in a repressed country take control of their own fate and support them as they overthrow their own dictator rather than going in and doing it for them? That's a question we never really asked about Iraq, as far as I know.
I've never been much in favour of the US going in and overthrowing the governments of other countries. Just as we can justify considering a government to be so heinous that they deserve to be kicked out, other countries can come with justifications to say that ours does, too. I seriously doubt that there's any nation out there - or even a group of nations - that could really pose that big of a threat to us, but the principle is what's important. We have to recognize that everything we say we can do to other countries, they can turn around and try to do to us - and if we keep making enemies at the pace we have been, they just might.
In a move that is apparently supposed to make people concerned about their privacy being violated feel more at ease with the work of the Homeland Security department, a new "privacy czar" has been appointed. The Bush administration is known for making odd appointments, from putting Admiral John Poindexter in charge of the "Total Information Awareness" program to making John Ashcroft the Attorney General. This one, though, almost managed to defy belief.
The new Homeland Security privacy czar is a former executive from Doubleclick - an online advertising firm that has been roundly criticized for their continued efforts to make as much money from gathering demographic information as possible and showing little, if any, regard for the privacy rights of individuals.
O'Connor Kelly's appointment comes as the Bush administration is under fire for data-mining plans like Total Information Awareness and CAPPS II, which profiles airline passengers. When debating the creation of the department last year, Congress required that the secretary appoint an official to ensure that new technologies sustain privacy protections and to verify that the agency's massive databases operate within federal guidelines.
I suppose it could be argued that an executive from a company that has seemingly broken ground in the various ways someone's privacy can be invaded is likely to know most of the various tricks used to do so, and as such, can help better safeguard people's privacy from the government. For some reason, though, I don't find that idea very comforting.
Link via Secular Blasphemy
There have been reports, recently, about non-governmental aid groups trying to gain access to Iraq in order to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqis in the aftermath of the war. The organization "Save the Children", for example, has a plane loaded with enough medical supplies to treat 40,000 people, as well as emergency feeding kits intended to help malnourished children. So far, however, they have been denied permission to land in Abril, which is located in northern Iraq.
Part of the dispute is that the US has said that no aid workers will be allowed into the area until we are sure it is safe - but the UN has already made its own declaration that it's safe enough that aid workers should be allowed to start working.
Save the Children's Emergency Program Manager, Rob MacGillivray, noted that in refusing to allow the plane to land, the US may be in breach of the Geneva Conventions.
"The lack of cooperation from the U.S. military is a breach of the Geneva Conventions and its protocols but more importantly the time now being wasted is costing children their lives."
U.S. officials were not immediately available for comment.
Under the Geneva Convention, occupying forces are obliged to protect civilians, restore law and order and open up space for humanitarian relief.
At the same time, another aid group, Samaritan's Purse, is also trying to gain access to Iraq to help with provding emergency supplies and services to Iraqi civillians. There are, however, two important distinctions between Samaritan's Purse and Save the Children. Save the Children is based in Britian, where as Samaritan's Purse is an American group, and Samaritan's Purse is also an evangelical organization. They are led by Franklin Graham, son of evangilist Billy Graham, and a close associate of George Bush's.
In addition to distributing aid, Samaritan's Purse wants to attempt to proseltyze to the Iraqi people and lead them from the "very evil and wicked" religion of Islam to Christianity. This would, of course, be beyond a PR disaster. Any aid groups allowed into Iraq are going to appear to have the approval - and thus the support - of the American government. Muslims tend to be very sensitive about people trying to convert them - so much so that in many Islamic countries it is a crime to even attempt it. And Graham's reputation is well known over there. His comments disparaging Islam are widely known in the Arab world, and he is very unpopular there.
Yesterday, Graham was invited to conduct a service for Christian employees at the Pentagon. Ministers from other faiths were invited as well, but many who are familar with how Graham is viewed by Muslims have indicated that allowing him to do the service at the Pentagon may only make problems worse if his organization is allowed into Iraq.
Graham angers Muslims not just because of his inflammatory statements, but because he is close to President Bush and thus has a certain imprimatur that others who have criticized their religion don't necessarily have.
Although the president has been careful not to antagonize Muslims - he has gone out of his way to characterize Islam as "a religion of peace" - Muslims are well aware of the ties between the Bush and Graham clans: Franklin Graham gave the invocation at Bush's inauguration in 2001, and Billy Graham, who has long advised American presidents, was instrumental in Bush's born-again conversion.
"It sends entirely the wrong message," Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said of Bush's ties to Graham. "It seems to offer government endorsement of the bigoted views of Franklin Graham.
There is also a great deal of concern about what message would be sent if Graham and Samaritan's Purse are allowed to enter Iraq - particularly if secular organizations, such as Save the Children" are denied enterance.
The American-Islamic group's Hooper said that even if Samaritan's Purse enters Iraq strictly as a private group not funded by the government, it will be interpreted by Iraqis as a U.S.-sanctioned organization.
"There's no such thing as a private, nongovernmental organization when America controls who gets in," he said. "The atittude now is we're the most powerful country on earth, and we'll do what we want."
Because of Graham's close ties to the President, I doubt that they will be denied enterance to Iraq, and I agree that allowing him to do so will be a huge mistake. While many Iraqis are happy to be free from Saddam Hussein and are expressing their gratitude to American soldiers, there is a great deal of anger - not only because of the war itself, but because of the rioting and looting that has occured in the wake of the war, and the fact that we've done little to stop it. There is a great deal of resentment over the loss of Iraq's great historical treasures, and many feel that America has little respect for Iraq, it's history, it's culture or it's people. Allowing an aid group in that is led by a man who has made public statements condemning their religion isn't going to help reduce that resentment one bit, and may serve to turn some of the people who are grateful against us as well.
ABC News is reporting that investigators are almost certain that the Shuttle Columbia was doomed at takeoff when a piece of the foam from the external fuel tank struck the orbiter.
The evidence comes from an old magnetic tape recorder that is part of the Orbiter Experiment Support System, sources said.
It shows an unusual temperature increase in a key sensor just behind the leading edge of the left wing near the spot where foam that fell from the shuttle's external fuel tank is suspected of striking the shuttle, just 81 seconds into the flight.
The temperature spike happens within the next 40 seconds. Usually during this phase of flight, the temperature would be decreasing or holding steady, sources said.
"All the evidence is pointing there," a knowledgeable source told ABCNEWS. "It's kind of like the lady in California. Everybody knows it's her, but they just can't officially say it yet." The data comes from a temperature sensor behind the front spar of the left wing near a shuttle's protective thermal panels known as reinforced carbon carbon panels, or RCC. These panels are supposed to protect the shuttle from the heat of re-entry.
For those keeping up with the Laci Peterson case, the bodies of the woman and infant that washed up near Richmond, CA earlier this week have been identified as being Laci and her unborn child. Police have also arrested her husband, Scott, for her murder.
Earlier this month, I had a post about the way Homeland Security funding was being distributed, and the impact the lack of federal funds was having on a number of states. The money is being distributed in two ways: first, states are given equal portions from one part of the funding, then the rest is distributed based on the state's population. If this sounds familiar, its because its the same basic basic concept as the methods used to determing how many Congressional seats are alotted to each state (each state gets 2 Senate seats and House seats are based on population), which also determines how many electoral votes a state has.
I had also commented on Paul Krugman's column which explained this distribution pattern, and noted that, just as the formula gives disproportionate power to smaller states in elections, it also gives smaller states more money per capita for Homeland Security than larger ones, even though the larger states also contain areas that are more likely to be targets for terrorist attacks. Krugman also pointed out that these smaller states are very valuable to George Bush right now because those are states which tend to be more likely to vote Republican than many of the larger, and largely Democratic, states. The issue, however, goes beyond a matter of whether this distribution scheme is "fair" or not, and is having serious practical implications for states like California, which is having to cut back on education spending in order to provide it's citizens with reasonable protection from potential threats.
Today, Eric Alterman writes, in part, about the impact the lack of federal Homeland Security funding is having in New York, and the picture he paints is grim, indeed.
The Economist compares New York City to Atlas, bearing the weight of the world on its shoulders. Already reeling from a massive deficit, declining income and the economic aftershocks of 9/11, the city must pay an estimated $1 billion a year for emergency and counterterrorism costs. Bush could care less. After attempting to stiff New York entirely, Congress has finally agreed to kick in about $200 million, far more than Bush proposed. My shaken city can ill afford to make up the difference. It already has 4,000 fewer cops than it did two years ago but must assign more than a thousand of those remaining to the terrorist beat. It may shutter forty fire companies. Massive layoffs, tax hikes and cutbacks in every kind of social service are in the offing. And Gotham is hardly alone. Enhanced security measures cost the nation's cities an estimated $2.6 billion in the fifteen months after 9/11.
There's a certain level of perverseness in the way the Bush administration raises the flag of 9/11 every time it wants to restrict our civil rights or violate our privacy just a bit more (and how they waved that flag for all it was worth to convince people that we should go bomb Iraq), yet they don't want to spend any real money to help make us any safer than we were before the attacks happened. As with everything else, 9/11 only matters when it serves their purposes. If remembering all the lives lost on that day and trying to prevent a similar tragedy in the future is going to require them to do something they don't want (say, for example, not cutting taxes so there might be more money to fund security programs), then it seems to become irrelevent.
Personally, I'd rather see us not cut taxes - and maybe even raise them a bit (not a lot, but some) to provide more funds for Homeland Security measures if those measures would help us be able to protect ourselves without needing to cut into our civil rights or privacy. Since the neocons seem to want more police power and fewer individual rights, however, I doubt that even if they had unlimited funds, they'd be willing to give back any of the power and rights they've already taken.
Alterman also point out, though, that the problems with the way the Bush administration is handling Homeland Security go beyond just an uneven distribution of funds. He points out that on several occasions, Bush has blocked even cost-effective means of increasing security.
Several investigations by the media have found serious problems with security at power plants, yet there has been little movement to provide legal mandates or funding for power plant operators to increase security. Bush's own energy secretary had provided a report indicating how much it would cost just to begin increasing power plan security, but Bush would only agree to propose 7% of that amount.
Some other examples:
Bush refused to compensate healthcare workers injured or killed by the smallpox inoculation program. His budget is squeezing the Coast Guard, in charge of port security. He is starving "first responders"--the very heroes of 9/11 to whom he dishonestly promised so much. And the Customs Service got not a single penny in new funding in the Administration's budget. With everyone losing sleep over "loose nukes" falling into terrorist hands, Bush even tried to cut overseas nuclear security funding by 5 percent.
These are not minor issues. The atmosphere in Washington is such that Ted Stevens, R-AK, felt comfortable saying that he didn't think first responders deserve overtime pay if they're responding to a national emergency:
But also there were powerful people such as Senate Appropriations Committee chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) suggesting that rather than lobbying for more money, the emergency workers should be volunteering their overtime out of a concern for national security.
"Those people overseas in the desert," Stevens said, "they're not getting paid overtime ... I don't know why the people working for the cities and counties ought to be paid overtime when they are responding to matters of national security."
Of course, Stevens seems to be overlooking the fact that combat troops do get "combat pay", which does help provide some (though not nearly enough, in my opinion) extra compensation during times when their lives are on the line.
In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington DC, Bush's response was great. He set a great tone of unity and cooperation, and helped bring many parts of this nation together. For those first few weeks, he actually showed himself to be the "uniter" he has claimed he is. Since then, however, his track record has been abyssmal. September 11 now is only remembered when it's politically expedient, and Homeland Security only matters when it can be used to increase governmental power. When it comes to matters of governmental responsiblity or - Gods forbid - a need for the government to spend money, forget it. It no longer matters.
And, of course, it will be we who suffer for it in the long run.
Reading through the many blogs I check every day, I've seen, time and time again, conservatives who say that if Saddam really had destroyed the WMD's that we know we sold him, why didn't he offer any poof or documentation of it. I've often wondered what this proof might have looked like -- is there a "international weapons destruction plant" that issues receipts for the destruction of weapons? Or was he supposed to have photographs of the destroyed weapons? What, exactly, would constitute proof?
Recently, though, another question occured to me. How, exactly, do we know he didn't provide some kind of proof, and that it was among the 8,000 pages of the 12,000 page report Iraq made to the UN, that the US removed before allowing anyone else in the world to look at it? I have to say, I have so little faith in our government that it's quite conceivable to me that they could have done precisely that, though, of course, I can't say for sure how likely it is.
A report in the Sunday Herald from Scotland (posted to CommonDreams.org) notes that Kofi Annan seemed to regret having allowed the US to edit the only original copy of the dossier, and that other nations had complained about being denied the ablity to see the full file. The US, however, claimed that it needed to remove the pages because they were "'risky' in terms of security on weapons proliferation"
It is important to note that the five permanent memebers of the Security Council - which include the US, UK, France, Russia and China - were allowed to see the entire dossier, but none have given any indication of what may or may not have been included in the information provided. France, Russia and China, however, were never in favour of this war - even though they had seen the full dossier - which means that whatever was in that report didn't convince them Iraq was a threat or in material breach of resolution 1441, and may have helped convince them that it wasn't an immediate enough threat that war was justified at that time. I have to admit that I'm not sure exactly why they would stay silent if there had been evidence that Iraq had destroyed any weapons they might have had, but we also don't know what we said we would do if they allowed any of this supposedly "risky" information to be made public. (And how "risky" can it be if we will let China see it, given that they're one of the few countries left that might have the military might to at least challenge us, and we're always so worried about them getting a hold of our military secrets?)
So, at this point, I don't know how likely it is that information on the destruction of the weapons might have been in the dossier, but it is a possiblity, and the missing pages do leave a number of unanswered questions.
I received a message from The Interfaith Alliance today on two issues involving church-state separation issues:
Walter Jones’s “Houses of Worship Church-Politicking” Legislation Returns with 101 Co-Sponsors
As the nation recovers from the effects of war and a devastating economy, two members of Congress, who often work in conjunction with Religious Right pressure groups have quietly introduced divisive bills that seek to undermine and overturn the separation of religion and government under the guise of patriotism.
U.S. Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) has introduced his “Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act” (H.R. 235), which bears a striking resemblance to his “Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act” that failed last year by a vote of 178-239 on suspension. This year’s bill, authored by Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, would allow clergy to issue political endorsements from behind the pulpit on behalf of their house of worship and allow churches to publicize their endorsements through paid advertising at any time before the elections.
Current federal law upholds the integrity of houses of worship by stating that houses of worship, like other 501(c)(3) organizations, cannot legally engage in partisan political activities and retain their tax-exempt status. This provision has served as a valuable safeguard for the integrity of both religious institutions and the political process. H.R. 235 would lift these important safeguards, and allow houses of worship to keep their tax-exempt contributions while endorsing their favored political candidates.
TIA believes that this bill will serve to divide congregations along partisan lines and eventually lead to a time when congregations are not identified by their faith tradition, but instead by the political ideology of its leadership. When pulpits, bimahs and other sacred desks, become stumps on which ministers stand to hand out political endorsements, the prophetic voice of the religious community — arguably religion's most important contribution to the nation — will be silenced.
TAKE ACTION ON THIS LEGISLATION NOW!
Contact your congressman by using the Interfaith Community Action Network and urge them to oppose H.R. 235
Ernest Istook’s School Prayer and Ten Commandments Constitutional Amendment Starts with 88 Co-Sponsors
U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) has introduced his “Pledge and Prayer Amendment” (H.J.Res. 46), which would amend the Constitution to affirm the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance; sanction prayer in our nation’s public schools; and allow the display of the Ten Commandments and other religious symbols in the public square, including court houses and schools. This amendment is similar to one Istook proposed in 1998. That effort received a majority of the vote in the House of Representatives but failed to muster the two-thirds majority required for passage.
TIA is firmly committed to defeating both of these bills, which are bad for religion, bad for politics and bad for America.
For further developments on either the Jones bill (H.R. 235) or the Istook Amendment (H.J. Res. 46) be sure to visit: http://www.interfaithalliance.org/Issues/IssuesList.cfm?c=50
To join or support the efforts of The Interfaith Alliance, please click on the link below: http://www.interfaithalliance.org/JoinGive/JoinGiveMain.cfm
Both of these are issues I feel very strongly about. One of the great things about this country is that the government is not allowed to endorse any religion or spiritual path (including the absence of one) over any other religion or spiritual path. This it supposed to help ensure that every citizen, regardless of their religious belief, can feel a part of the community and be assured that they can follow their heart and conscience in practicing their chosen faith (or in not practicing their lack of one.)
The first bill, which would allow churches to endorse political candidates could have the effect of making it difficult, if not impossible, for leaders in at least some areas - and probably on the national level - to get elected unless they are able to gain the endorsement of the church or religious leaders. This would mean that just as many politicians are now beholden to corporate interests, they could also end up being beholden to religious interests. This would put them in the position of having to do things like support certain legislation that the church wants to see passed - whether it has the support of the majority of the people or not. Politicians would be expected to follow the church's agenda on issues such as abortion and gay rights.
As it stands now, we've seen just how dangerous a President who is owned and operated by big business can be. Do we really want to find out what one who is owned and operated by the church could do?
As for Istook's amendment, the man just never gives up. It seems like I've been hearing about one amendment or another of his for years now. Proponants of posting the Ten Commandments in schools always claim that it's appropriate because "our laws are based on them". Yet if you look at our laws, that's not entirely true. Sure, we have laws against killing and stealing, but most of the rest of the Commandments don't appear in our laws at all. We (thankfully) have no laws saying that you must worship only the Christian God or prevent anyone from doing anything on the Sabbath in order to "keep it holy". If people want to, it's legal for them to have "graven images" or "idols" in their home and to worship these if they so choose. There are no laws against taking the name of the Lord in vain, nor are there laws requiring children to honour their father and mother. Adultry certainly isn't illegal, or our jails would be bursting at the seams. Lying in certain circumstances - such as when you're under oath - is illegal, but lying in general doesn't violate any laws. And as George Carlin noted the 10th Commandment, which says it is wrong to wants your neighbors things (including his wife), would pretty much wipe out the entire basis for a capitalistic society. "Coveting" is the foundation of our entire economic system!
So, lets dispence with the "foundation of our laws" nonsense. Only 2 (and a half, since lying is illegal in some situations) of the 10 Commandments show up in our laws. That's only 25% of the whole document, which, were this a copyright case, would probably qualify as "fair use".
As for the rest of his suggestions, I know that I, as a Pagan, would be very uncomfortable meeting with a government official if he had the 10 Commandments on the wall, and I would be worried that, if my faith came up at some point, he or she would hold it against me. Were I a parent, I would be outraged if my child was being lead in prayers by his or her teacher to any Gods other than the ones I would choose to raise my children with, and I've never thought that the words "under God" belonged as part of our pledge. They weren't in the original version - they were added during the communist scare to try and make us sound more "moral" than the "Godless Soviets". We should simply return the Pledge to the way it was originally written and leave it at that.
People are supposed to be free to worship as they choose. People who work for the government or who work in the private sector are all welcome to do as they see fit about their spirituality in their homes and other time "off the clock". They can have as many displays as they want of any religious documents, ideas, imagry or whatever else might strike their fancy there. Surely, it's not too much of a burden to ask that people go for 8 hours a day without having to have their religon blasted out at everyone who approaches their desk? And in the criminal courts, religion is already a liablity for people of some faiths. There's no need to reinforce the idea that only Christianity "matters".
Please follow the links above and help to defeat these two measures.
I would like to thank a visitor to this site, Deb Conrad, for posting a copy of a letter she had received from the Office of the Cheif of Chaplains into the comment section of the blog (It's attached to the first story on this matter that I posted several days ago). Since I have posted several times on the issue of Josh Llano and the report of his using baths as a bribe for giving baptisms, I wanted to go ahead and post the test of that message to the main blog, so that it can be more easily found. Ms. Conrad also has several other points in the comment she left, and I do suggest reading it in its entirety.
Here is the letter she received:
Based on your earlier inquiry about the report of CH Llano, a US Army Chaplain, I wanted to offer you the following information. Thank you for your concern and interest. I hope this reassures you about the expectations of the Army and work of Army chaplains.
The free exercise of religion is a foundational issue to us in the chaplaincy. In fact, we first became aware of this at about 9:30 pm last Thursday, and by 10:00 pm that night, the Chief of Chaplains requested additional information. The Army respects and actively accommodates the religious practices of all soldiers. In accordance with the practices of many Baptist traditions, the Army provides water for full-body immersion baptisms when it is available.
Based on news reports and questions from members of the media, the Office of the Chief of Chaplains requested additional details on the accuracy of the quotations and the nature of the actions performed by an Army chaplain while in Iraq. There are some factual problems with the article. There have been tens of thousands of water produced each day at the Corps Support Base and readily available to soldiers for all personal hygiene, drinking water, and enough to allot water for a baptismal pool during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Army does not condone religious coercion. The chain-of-command, supported by the Chaplain Corps, ensures that soldiers are free to exercise their religious beliefs. The local commander has direct knowledge of the chaplain's action and has very high regard for the work of the chaplain.
Access to water was never used in any way as a bribe for baptism. Chaplain Llano states he did not offer any quotes or statements in response to questions by the reporter. He indicates she overheard conversations he had with another officer and these were presented as quotations. The supervisory chaplain has direct knowledge of the chaplain's actions and indicates the religious activities described by the reporter are attended by the choice of the soldiers. The Joint Force Land Component Commander in Kuwait has received no complaints of religious coercion from soldiers in the field.
The threshold for concern about protecting the free exercise is extremely low. Chaplains have performed their religious rites, sacraments and ordinances representing the faith group which sends them and provide for the religious support of all soldiers. The Chief of Chaplains affirms and commends the chaplains, chaplain assistants and directors of religious education deployed with US soldiers providing religious support at the risk of their lives.
Chaplain (Lt Col) Eric Webster
Office of the Chief of Chaplains
While I must say I'm not happy that the author of the original article (Meg Laughlin at the Miami Herald) apparently used overheard comments and presented them as if they were quotes from an interview, I must say I'm glad to hear that Lt. Llano was not behaving in the manner the article portrayed. I am also quite glad that the Office of the Chief of Chaplains looked into it and was able to provide a response. I never have gotten a response to my own message about the situation, but it's good that one has been made.
I know that information about the original article, and, in fact, copies of my own post about it, were passed around the net. I hope that people will also be willing to pass around copies of this response, so that it can be out there as well - especially given that it appear the intial article did not paint a true picture of what was happening.
Thanks again, Deb, for sharing your thoughts and the response you got!
From ABC News.com:
Dangerous strains of cholera, black fever, HIV, polio, and hepatitis may have been lost during the post-war looting of Iraq's key disease control facility, ABCNEWS has learned. The U.S. military is worried they may be used as weapons.
In an exclusive report on ABCNEWS' Good Morning America, Brian Ross revealed that scientists at Baghdad's central public health laboratory are worried that an unknown number of viruses have been stolen.
They say looters took refrigerators full of the deadly viruses Friday, but they're not sure what's actually missing. "They are in containers, all of these things taken together, cholera, AIDS and black fever," one unidentified Iraqi woman told Ross.
Tim Robbins was recently invited to speak at the National Press Club. One part of his speech was particularly moving:
For all of the ugliness and tragedy of 9-11, there was a brief period afterward where I held a great hope, in the midst of the tears and shocked faces of New Yorkers, in the midst of the lethal air we breathed as we worked at Ground Zero, in the midst of my children's terror at being so close to this crime against humanity, in the midst of all this, I held on to a glimmer of hope in the naive assumption that something good could come out of it.
I imagined our leaders seizing upon this moment of unity in America, this moment when no one wanted to talk about Democrat versus Republican, white versus black, or any of the other ridiculous divisions that dominate our public discourse. I imagined our leaders going on television telling the citizens that although we all want to be at Ground Zero, we can't, but there is work that is needed to be done all over America. Our help is needed at community centers to tutor children, to teach them to read. Our work is needed at old-age homes to visit the lonely and infirmed; in gutted neighborhoods to rebuild housing and clean up parks, and convert abandoned lots to baseball fields. I imagined leadership that would take this incredible energy, this generosity of spirit and create a new unity in America born out of the chaos and tragedy of 9/11, a new unity that would send a message to terrorists everywhere: If you attack us, we will become stronger, cleaner, better educated, and more unified. You will strengthen our commitment to justice and democracy by your inhumane attacks on us. Like a Phoenix out of the fire, we will be reborn.
And then came the speech: You are either with us or against us. And the bombing began. And the old paradigm was restored as our leader encouraged us to show our patriotism by shopping and by volunteering to join groups that would turn in their neighbor for any suspicious behavior.
In the 19 months since 9-11, we have seen our democracy compromised by fear and hatred. Basic inalienable rights, due process, the sanctity of the home have been quickly compromised in a climate of fear. A unified American public has grown bitterly divided, and a world population that had profound sympathy and support for us has grown contemptuous and distrustful, viewing us as we once viewed the Soviet Union, as a rogue state.
Read the of his speech as well. There are some incidents he describes - such as his nephew being told that Susan Sarandon (Tim's partner) is endagering the troops, a neice being told that Tim and Susan were not welcome to attend the school play, as well as things that may not affect them personally, but illustrate just how far this nation has fallen in the last few months.
This is the text of a new "op-ad" being run by TomPaine.com:
Register For Peace
The Only Peace Demonstration The President Can't Ignore
An irresponsible war of choice, launched by an arrogant administration with shifting justifications and heedless of world opinion, has sparked a new wave of activism in the United States. Millions of Americans hit the streets to protest.
President Bush dismissed them and their concerns.
Would he listen any better if every protestor pledged to vote next year? If everyone who carried a sign, made a speech, sent an email, wrote a letter or lit a candle for peace registered one new voter every month between now and November 2004? If each new voter was called five times before Election Day?
Ballots can keep bullets from flying. Find out how to register to vote and what other groups are doing to educate and activate Americans.
Check out www.TomPaine.com/register
This is one good message to pass along.
Scientists have confirmed the identity of the virus that causes the lethal new disease known as severe acute respiratory syndrome, the World Health Organization said Wednesday, marking an important step toward developing new drugs to combat the disease.
In experiments conducted at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, Netherlands, scientists infected monkeys with the coronavirus suspected of causing of SARS and found that the animals developed the same symptoms of the disease that humans do.
The test was a crucial step in verifying the cause of the disease, which so far has killed 161 people worldwide, mostly in China and Hong Kong, and made 3,293 people ill in 22 countries.
I'm impressed with how quickly the world's medical community has jumped on this disease and found the virus that is causing it. This kind of quick action can save many lives, by being able to develop tests and treatments to deal with the illness.
Yet, I can't help but think about how the response to SARS has differed so much from the initial response to AIDS. Even after AIDS had killed 150 people and made 3,500 ill, the scientific response - and the funding necessary to mount a scientific response - was severly lacking. My hope is that SARS was just an easier nut to crack, which is likely, since it is a varient of a fairly well-known virus, and not that it got more attention since it's victim profile includes nearly everyone and not just primarily a group of people who - unfarily and wrongly - are often disliked and subjected to any number of forms of discrimination.
Maybe science - and those who hold the scientific pursestrings - have realized that not jumping on a new, contagious disease is dangerous and foolish, and so have been willing to pursue it more aggressively. Similar effort can be seen in the work being done to find ways to stop the spread of the West Nile virus as well.
Still, it's sad to look back on the start of the AIDS epidemic and wonder how many lives could have been spared if doctors, scientists and governments had jumped on solving that mystery with the same fervour that is being shown now with SARS and West Nile. I hope that the lesson's been learned and that what we're seeing now is the result of the realization that diseases need to be addressed on more than just the popularity of the victim profile.
Uggabugga has posted a copy of a poster made by the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS which talks about why Mr. Rogers is now in Hell. It even has a rending of what they think the conversation between Matt Sheppard and Fred Rogers must have been like when they met in Hell a few weeks ago.
It astounds me that someone can be that sick and, well, evil. What they have to say is pretty vile stuff, so I suggest caution in reading it.
I have to say, though, I still think the scariest thing about the whole Westboro Church is that it's leader, the disbarred Fred Phelps, actually tried to run for the Governor of Kansas - and on the Democratic ticket, no less. That was the year I changed my voters registration from independent to Democrat so that I could vote in the Democratic primary and help make sure Phelps got knocked out of the competition as early as possible - and I've left it Democrat ever since, just incase the nithing decides to try it again. (The linked article notes that Phelps was the only Democrat who had filed for the election, but the Kansas Democratic Party was able to recruit another candidate in time for the primaries and election, thank the Gods!)
If you're not familar with Phelps, he's a guy that even Rev. Jerry Falwell thinks is over the line:
"I found it almost impossible to believe that human beings could be so brutal and vicious to a hurting family," said the Rev. Jerry Falwell.
Ain't Kansas great? ::sigh::
ADDENDUM: Just thought I'd give you a taste of how seriously fucked in the head this guy is. Here's an excerpt from an interview he gave to "Black Table".
BT: Right. So, when was the last time you guys were in New York City?
FRED: Well, it hasn't been long ago. We've been up there three times since Sept. 11 picketing with big signs that say "Thank God For Sept. 11" and that the FDNY is a fag fire department.
BT: Why's that?
FRED: Well because they're laced with fags and their fag agenda and their chaplain was fag priest named Mychal Judge
BT: Oh, yes… that's right.
FRED: And any outfit that's that dumb or evil -- I mean an out-of-the closet fag priest?! And they bragged about it! And they need to be picketed. And they're not heroes and we got signs that say all that.
When St. Patrick's Cathedral was honoring them on a Sunday not long after Sept. 11 and they had all those fire trucks lined up there and they're praising them to the high heavens then we were over there with signs saying that they're not heroes and they're all bound for hell. Now, that's the way you preach.
Let it never be said that figuring out what the Bush administration is up to is an easy task. There are times I wonder if any one department knows what any other department is over, and if Bush himself even knows that the departments exist. Ok, so that last part may be a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the idea...
Earlier, I posted about an article in the Guardian that claimed Bush has vetoed the idea of war in Syria. Tonight, however, Canada.com is reporting that, once again, we're sending out clear signals that war with Syria is pretty much the next item on our agenda. The Canada.com story is dated April 15th and according to Google's news page was updated within roughly the last half-hour, so it would be the more recent of the two articles. I don't know if that makes it the more accurate, but...
At any rate, here's a bit of what they had to say about it:
The White House pointedly refused to rule out an attack on Syria yesterday, a country it accused of being a "rogue nation" and a "terrorist state."
On the same day the United States said major combat operations in Iraq were at an end, Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, fuelled indications Washington would next target Syria, headed by a branch of the same Baath Party that once ruled in Baghdad
[...]
"We always leave options on our tables, but our course of action with Syria is focused on reminding Syria this is a good time to re-examine their support of terrorism, and a good place to begin is with their harbouring of the Iraqi leaders who have fled to Syria," he said. "They should not be allowed to find safe haven there."
Mr. Fleischer then quoted a months-old unclassified Central Intelligence Agency report that charged Syria with having stocks of sarin toxin.
"It's a relevant fact," Mr. Fleischer said when asked why he was only now presenting the report.
At least Bush won't have to memorize a new script for this one...
Let us hope that Bush doesn't change his mind. If this is true, it may be one of his smartest moves yet:
The White House has privately ruled out suggestions that the US should go to war against Syria following its military success in Iraq, and has blocked preliminary planning for such a campaign in the Pentagon, the Guardian learned yesterday.
In the past few weeks, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, ordered contingency plans for a war on Syria to be reviewed following the fall of Baghdad.
Meanwhile, his undersecretary for policy, Doug Feith, and William Luti, the head of the Pentagon's office of special plans, were asked to put together a briefing paper on the case for war against Syria, outlining its role in supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein, its links with Middle East terrorist groups and its allegedly advanced chemical weapons programme. Mr Feith and Mr Luti were both instrumental in persuading the White House to go to war in Iraq.
Mr Feith and other conservatives now playing important roles in the Bush administration, advised the Israeli government in 1996 that it could "shape its strategic environment... by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria".
However, President George Bush, who faces re-election next year with two perilous nation-building projects, in Afghanistan and Iraq, on his hands, is said to have cut off discussion among his advisers about the possibility of taking the "war on terror" to Syria.
UPDATE: Found this quote over at Tom Tomorrow's blog. Not only is the callousness of the marine's response astounding, the overt racism isn't going to help matters, either.
"Is this your liberation?" one frustrated shopkeeper screamed at the crew of a U.S. tank as a gang of youths helped themselves to everything in his small hardware store and carted booty off in the wheelbarrows that had also been on sale.
"Hell, it ain't my job to stop them," drawled one young marine, lighting a cigarette as he looked on. "Goddamn Iraqis will steal anything if you let them. Look at them."
If it's not a marine's job to try and stop looters, then what exactly is his job? We promised these people that we would help them after Saddam left power, and while it's true that there is going to be some chaos during the transition period, I consider it unconscionsable that we aren't doing more to prevent some of the looting and other violence that's occuring. Take some of the marines who are guarding the oil ministry and spread them around a bit.
And regardless of what Donald Rumsfield might say, we are allowing this to happen - by not taking steps to prevent it from starting or stopping it when it happens, we are allowing it. We decided it was our reponsiblity to "liberate" the Iraqi people, and we took it upon ourselves to overthrow their government. We now must take it upon ourselves to take control of this nation and do everything we can to restore order as quickly as possible so the transition to a new, democratic, true Iraqi government can be established, and we can get get out of there (if, of course, we ever have any intention of doing that.... but that's a whole different rant.)
Found via Tom Tomorrow, a US News blurb that is one of the most terrifying things I've read in quite some time:
With Republicans expecting President Bush to roll to reelection in 2004, their focus is fast turning to 2008 and whom the GOP will run against expected Democratic nominee Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Now, Whispers is told that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush looks strong. "If Jeb is in the mix" for the nomination, says a top GOP official, "it's his."
We can't spare anyone to protect the rare, irreplacable artifacts housed at the National Museum in Baghdad, keep small-business owners from losing so much merchandise that they can't afford to reopen their businesses, prevent the wholesale theft of hospital equipment, including beds, MRI and CAT scan machines, along with medicines and medical files, but we can spare an entire company of Marines to protect the Oil Ministry? Uh, guys? You're priorities are showing!
Some Iraqis, however, question the allocation of U.S. forces around the capital. They note a whole company of Marines, along with at least a half-dozen amphibious assault vehicles, has been assigned to guard the Oil Ministry, while many other ministries -- including trade, information, planning, health and education -- remain unprotected.
"Why just the oil ministry?" Jaf asked. "Is it because they just want our oil?"
Somehow, you'd think that our great and wise leaders would realize that allowing such looting to occur while protecting only those assets that are of importance to us (not the Iraqis), will do nothing to engender good will, and, in fact, can take what gratitude and positive feelings the Iraqis may have towards us for our helping get rid of Saddam and turn it to anger, hatred and a refusal to cooperate for taking their already bad situation and making it significantly worse.
"I tell the United States, 'You wanted to overthrow the government so you should have taken responsibility and put one soldier in front of every government building,' " said Saad Tuema, a portly, middle-aged engineer who claimed not to have slept in three days because he has been hunting looters. "Instead, they just stood by and let it happen."
That is a common perception here. Some attribute the lack of an aggressive U.S. response to a miscalculation. Others ascribe it to underhanded motives.
"They wanted to let these robberies happen so the Iraqi people will be bankrupt and they will need American assistance," said Mehdi Zuemi, a clerk in the Foreign Ministry who observed his office being destroyed today. "They'll use our oil to pay for it."
I swear, nothing about this war has been handled well or made any kind of real sense. And this kind of stuff is just pathetic. I used to think America was better than this. Now I just hope we can be again one day.
I know several people have been following the disapperance of Laci Peterson. ABC News is reporting that over the weekend, a full-term male fetus was found near Richmond, CA, and that another body had washed ashore today. Obviously, speculation is that this may well be Laci and her unborn child, a son she had planned to name Connor.
Richmond is about 75 miles away from Modesto, Calif., where Laci Peterson, 27, was about 7 ˝ months pregnant when she disappeared last Christmas Eve.
Her whereabouts have been unknown ever since, and hope that she is alive has all but vanished.
Local police said it was still too early to tell the gender of the adult corpse, but said that reporters could infer that it was female, because the Modesto police had been notified.
MSNBC has posted a list of the soldiers who have died so far duing the Iraqi war along with where they were from and how they died. The numbers tell a sad story, though. Of the 31 British soldiers who died, 20 of them died outside of actual combat, either in accidents, from friendly fire or of illness.
The list has the following disclaimer, which should be kept in mind when looking at the totals below:
The casualty figures listed below come from a database maintained by The Associated Press. Names of service members who have died are entered only after their official release by the military. Since names are not always released immediately, the number of names in the database may not correspond to overall numbers of deaths reported by military authorities.
By my count, here are the total, broken down by cause of death and how many were British (of note since their casualty numbers, total, are low, but so many were killed outside of combat).
| Cause of Death | Total Killed | British Deaths (included in total) |
| Killed in Action | 76 | 6 |
| Helicopter Accidents | 28 | 12 |
| Land Accidents | 17 | 1 |
| Friendly Fire | 6 | 6 |
| Other (non-combat) (includes drowning and illness | 6 | 1 |
| No cause listed | 2 | 2 |
While every death is tragic, I find it very sad that so many soldiers - US and British - were killed outside of combat. Certainly, accident will happen - especially in a situation as chaotic as war - but it seems that, proportionally speaking, there were too many this time.
A really interesting article on what happens when a reporter dares to question the purpose of the daily news briefings, and ends up being challenged by Rush Limbaugh.
But I was not a war reporter. I did not have to observe war-time propriety, or cool. I was free to ask publicly (on international television, at that) the question everyone was asking of each other: "I mean no disrespect, but what is the value proposition of these briefings. Why are we here? Why should we stay? What's the value of what we're learning at this million dollar press centre?"
It was the question to sour the dinner party. It was also, because I used the words value proposition, a condescending and annoying question - a provocation.
Still I meant it literally: other than the pretence of a news conference - the news conference as backdrop and dateline - what did we get for having come all this way? What information could we get here that we could not have gotten in Washington or New York, what access to what essential person was being proffered? And why was everything so bloodless?
Stop me if you've heard any of this before....
The Bush administration said Monday it will consider diplomatic, economic and other steps against Syria, saying it was concerned that Damascus is harboring fleeing Iraqi leaders and developing its chemical weapons capabilities.
Oh, stop there? Yeah, that does sound a bit familiar -- harbouring people we want to "get" and developing chemical weapons -- I wonder if they have any better proof this time?
"With respect to Syria, of course we will examine possible measures of a diplomatic, economic or other nature as we move forward," Powell said.
Oh. Of course. Tell me, will you be sincere in looking to diplomatic solutions this time? Or will it just be another delaying tactic to get enough soldiers in place to start another war?
The secretary said he had no specifics on who the Iraqi leaders are who have allegedly fled to Syria. "I can't quantify how many might be slipping across the border," Powell said.
At the White House, presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer had a similar message. Fleischer rejected Syria's fresh denials of having a chemical weapons program. "It is well corroborated" that Syria has such a program, Fleischer said.
Ah. Well. That's good enough for me. Ari said it. I believe it. That ends it. Right?
Ugh. Ok, sorry... I can't keep that up for any length of time. If Ari said it, it tends to make me want to question it even more. Ari - along with President Bush, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and, oh, most of the rest of the administration - isn't very high on my "credibility scale". The fact that, so far, there's still no evidence of chemical or biological weapons, or the presence of al-Qaeda, doesn't exactly help them any, either. Sure, they could still find some, and I realize that is a very good possiblity - but as of now, they haven't - and yet they think I'm going to believe them when they start flinging the same basic accusations about another country. Sorry. Not gonna happen.
Syria's deputy ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, said the administration's flurry of charges was a "campaign of misinformation and disinformation" meant to divert attention from the "human catastrophes" taking place in wartime Iraq.
Hmmm... Ya think?
I know this whole thing with Syria has been building for the last week or so, but I'm still flabbergasted by it. It's bad enough when Hollywood takes a popular movie, decides to make a sequal, and takes almost exactly the same set up, but just plugs a few new characters into the forumla - but for our government to do it, and to be so blatantly obvious about it, is just sickening. I just hope that maybe the way this has come up all of a sudden, with essentially the same charges and same rhetoric, maybe those who supported the Iraq War will at least take a moment to pause and wonder why we're rushing into a replay, but believe me, I'm not holding my breath.
In an interesting move, lawyers for John Muhammad, one of the two men accused of the Washington DC "sniper" shootings last fall, have requested and been granted access to a mitigation expert in the hopes of finding ways to make Muhammad seem more sympathetic to a jury (should the case go that far). A mitigation expert might also be able to help Muhammad's lawyers negotiate a better plea bargain for him, should they decide to go that route. One factor they're planning to investigate is whether or not Muhammad may have been exposed to gas or chemical weapons during the first Gulf War, and if they might have had an effect on his mental health.
Mr. Shapiro said his client was an Army engineer in the 1991 war. Persian Gulf war veterans who served with Mr. Muhammad said they believed he once threw a grenade into a tent full of fellow soldiers. None of the soldiers were killed, and the grenade-throwing incident could never be officially tied to Mr. Muhammad.
Prince William law enforcement officials said yesterday that Mr. Muhammad's former wife, Mildred, had told them that she noticed strange changes in his behavior after he returned from the war, and she told investigators that he had said that after the grenade incident, fellow soldiers tied him down and would not allow him to reach for his gas mask during a suspected chemical attack.
I understand why our criminal justice system makes room for mitigating factors when it comes to determining what charges should be brought against a person, whether they are guilty of a crime or not and how harsh of a sentence they deserve if they're convicted. At the same time, I don't feel that we necessarily require adequate proof that either the mitigating factors existed or that if they did exist that they had a significant impact on the person's ability to control their behaviour or understand what they were doing. For example, I have no problem with the idea of either reducing or dismissing a murder charge against someone who was obviously in immediate fear for their own life - such as when a burglar breaks into their home or if an abusive husband has begun another round of attacks. But I find the idea of "imperfect self-defense" to be preposterous.
"Imperfect self-defense" is when someone believes they have reason to be in fear for their life, and feels the only option they have is to kill whomever is threatening them - but they do it at a time when the person is asleep, unable to defend themselves or otherwise not currently engaged in the threatening behaviour. One of the best known examples of this defense is from the Menendez brothers trial, where they tried to claim that their lives were in danger from their abusive father, and that they shot both of their parents to prevent them from being able to abuse them again. The thing was, at the time they shot their parents, they weren't engaged in any kind of threatening or abusive behaviour - they were simply sitting in their den, engaged in their usual evening activities. In that case, of course, the jury saw through them and convicted them anyway, but the same defense has been used, sucessfully, in many other cases.
One of the biggest problems with "imperfect self-defense", however, is that the person charged with the murder usually had several other options available to them - such as leaving an abusive marriage, moving into their own home (in the case of young adults, like the Menendez brothers, who were still living with their allegedly abusive parents), and seeking police assistance or protection, among other ideas. Yet the person still chooses to commit a murder, and then asks society - as represented by the justice system - to forgive them, since they thought they might truly be in danger. (You know, the more I'm writing about this right now, the more it sounds like the same reasoning used by the Bush administration in justifying the war on Iraq....)
Mohammad may not be claiming "imperfect self-defense" - but looking at the possible exposure to chemical weapons during the Gulf War doesn't strike me as making much more sense. From the reports in I've read so far, it doesn't sound like there's any actual proof that he even was exposed to chemicals while in the Persian Gulf - and while his former wife says his personality had changed quite a bit after he returned from the war, there are many things other than chemical exposure that could have led to that - including the horrors of war itself. Yet do we want to give all soldiers an "out" if they decide to commit murder when they leave the army, by saying that participating in a war can be traumatic enough and change your personality enough to turn you into a murderer? If we make that excuse for one soldier, we have to be prepared for any soldier who thinks he can get away with it to try using the same excuse. Even if they stick with the idea that it was exposure to chemicals that made him a killer, do we want to give that exuse to any Gulf War I veterans who might need it - especially with no known proof (at this time) of exposure to chemical weapons or evidence that they can cause such a personality change?
When reasons for mitigation are clear, when there is evidence that some outside factor or force was acting on the person charged, and when we can demonstrate that said factor or force would have the effect necessary to reduce a person's own culpability in a criminal act, then mitigating factors need to be taken into consideration and charges or sentences need to be modified in accordance. But lets not just let people come up with flimsy excuses with little evidence and no way of showing that what they claim affected their behaviour actually did. We keep stepping further and futher away from requiring people to be responsible for their own actions, and that's a trend that needs to be halted in its tracks. Now.
Audblog is now available for Radio Userland, so I thought I'd go ahead and give it a try. The message itself is nothing spectacular, but if you'd like to hear what I sound like, click here to check it out.
I think Rebecca at Suddenly Routine has one of the best explainations yet for having started a blog - and I have a feeling that, at it's root, its not that different than the reasons many bloggers took the plunge.
"different strings" is expanding!
Well, sort of :)
I decided I wanted to start offering reviews of books, movies, TV shows, and music, as well as info on popular culture and entertainment news. Since this has always been a reasonably serious blog, however, I didn't want to change it's focus. As a result, I've started a new blog at http://reviews.differentstrings.info. I don't expect that I'll have quite as much material there as I do here, but I thought it would be fun, and I hope you'll stop by to check it out. Right now, I've got a review of the new "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" DVD that was released yesterday, and there's more to come!
Recently, Katrina Leung, a prominent Republican and Asian-American activist, who had been used by the FBI as an "asset" (code name "Parlor Maid") in learning what the Chinese were up to for roughly the last 20 years, was arrested on suspsicion of being a double-agent who gave many of our secrets back to the Chinese. She apparently had been having an affair with one of her "handlers" - who was also one of the top agents in our Chinese counterintelligence program - and was able to obtain classified material from him when he would leave papers and other materials in a room with her, unattended.
If the charges are true, the damage from this case could be huge. The Washinton Post notes that [t]op FBI officials have told members of Congress that every Chinese counterintelligence case investigated by the FBI since at least 1991 may have been compromised by a suspected agent of the Chinese government arrested in Los Angeles this week.
Several cases have likely been compromised, including the "big" ones that have made the news over the last 2 decades, such as the investigation of Wen Ho Lee who was accused of selling secrets from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, whether nuclear secrets regarding neutron warheads were transferred from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and claims that the Chinese were trying to funnel large amounts of illegal contributions to politicians in the 1996 elections. This last one may end up being the most interesting, as Leung was well known to be a prominent Republican supporter and the investigation of the 1996 campaign-financing concerns focued mainly on Democrats, including Bill Clinton, who was President at the time.
One of the more interesting twists to the case is that Leung's handler and lover, James J. Smith, was alerted to the possiblity that she was a double agent in 1991, most likely by William Cleveland, Jr., a former Chinese counterintelligence agent, who was also having an affair with Leung. Cleveland had left the FBI to work at Lawrence Livermore Labs in 1993, and resigned from his post there last week as the story broke. Currently, he has not been charged with any espionage, but is under investigation.
Officials are suggesting caution should be taken before judging the situation:
Goss, a former CIA officer, stressed that charges against Leung and Smith have not yet been proven. FBI officials who supervise double agents such as Leung "are given a lot of latitude," he said, and may have legitimate reasons to provide bits of sensitive information.
If the FBI is unable to make a case against her, howeverk, the IRS just might. Apparently, in addition to potentially stealing secrets and giving them to China, Leung was also cheating on her taxes.
The 29-page government affidavit that details the espionage case against Leung also alleges that for more than a decade she has failed to report sizable amounts of her income to the Internal Revenue Service and has contrived elaborate tax schemes to defraud the government.
Federal investigators allege that Leung did not report the payments and expense reimbursements that the FBI gave her over nearly two decades on her taxes, even though she was advised twice by Smith to do so. The affidavit also charges that Leung was paid more than $1 million by a technology company based in Hong Kong, money that she did not report on tax forms.
Leung also had been claiming mortgage- interest deductions on her taxes for a residence that was not mortgaged, according to the affidavit. It details an alleged scheme in which Leung pretended to refinance a home that she owned by paying a foreign company that she and her husband controlled.
In the affidavit, an FBI agent asserted that Leung admitted to the alleged tax scheme when she was questioned by agents investigating whether she was spying.
I'm curious to see how much play this case gets. Given Leung's connections to Republicans, and, in particular, fund-raising for Republican politicians, this could be a real bombshell - especially since one of the cases that she may have compromised is the one involving Johnny Cheung, who, in 1999, admitted to having been given $300,000 that he was supposed to give to the Presidential campaign of President Clinton in 1996, though only $20,000 of the money was ever traced to the DNC.
With 20 years of Chinese counterintelligence on the line, the amount of damage Leung could have done may well be incalcuable, and who knows how many agents or politicans may be touched by this scandal. This will take a thorough, careful and fair investigation - not exactly what the FBI is always known for - but hopefully they'll be able to get this one right.
Rightly or wrongly, California is known as a pretty goofy place. (Ok, so it's mostly rightly...). The latest evidence? The city of Palo Alto wants to outlaw the use of body language during political debates.
"Do not use body language or other nonverbal methods of expression disagreement or disgust," a new list of proposed conduct rules reads.
I can, of course, understand the point. I think most of us tend to find it very annoying when we're watching a debate and the person who doesn't have the floor is calling attention to themselves with exaggerated eye-rolling, sighs, gestures and other general body language to try and "express" how they feel about the other person's comments. I remember that kind of behaviour even became a bit of an issue in the Bush-Gore debates during the 2000 election.
Personally, I think it would be best if debaters refrained from engaging in such theatrics, as they not only distract from the other person's point (and the whole purpose of a debate is to allows both sides a chance to present their views to the public in a format designed to allow the audience to compare and contrast the arguments that are made), but they also tend to make the person making the gestures look rather immature - as if they're concerned their arguments can't hold up against their opponant, and they have to distract the audience instead, if they have any hope of winning.
But making a rule against such demonstrations of disagreement? That just seems to go a bit too far - and runs the risk of becoming even more of a distraction in and of itself. Face it, politicians are petty. They kind of have to be. And you know that if such a rule is made, there will be people who will then spend more of their time and energy scanning to see who is making faces than they will spend actually listening to what's being said - and who can't just see the arguments over whether someone made a expression of disgust or was trying to suppress a belch?
Link via Blogcritics
This, of course, is exactly the kind of thing many of us who opposed the war with Iraq have been worried about. India is now issuing warnings that Pakistan would be a "prime case for pre-emptive strikes", and a "fit case" for US action, since they have been known to support terrorists, as well as having 'weapons of mass destruction' (I'm still trying to figure out what a weapon of minimal destruction is, but that's a whole different entry).
Given that there is also apparent evidence that Pakistan is currently giving shelter, and possibly even aid, to members of the Taliban, who are trying to retake control of Afghanistan, it would seem that by the standards of our attack on Iraq, Pakistan should be right up there on our list. (But they're still nominally on our list of allies, last I heard.)
So, what justification do the Indians offer for a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan?
"There are enough reasons to launch such strikes against Pakistan, but I cannot make public statements on whatever action that may be taken," Fernandes told a meeting of ex-soldiers in this northern Indian desert city on Friday.
Fernandes said he endorsed Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha's recent comments that India had "a much better case to go for pre-emptive action against Pakistan than the United States has in Iraq (news - web sites)."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Bush administration tell us that they had evidence of why we were justified in attacking Iraq, but that they couldn't show all of it to us for reasons of national security? (This was before Colin Powell's presentation to the UN in February).
In any event, if we don't want to see all out war between Pakistan and India, we're going to have an awful hard time figuring out how to dissuade them - especially since they're obviously and carefully framing their justification in terms as close to the ones we used for attacking Iraq. Given that the Bush administration seems to have 2 left feet when it comes to doing the diplomatic tango, somehow I have a feeling this is not going to go well, and any aversion of war between those two nations is going to be brought about by forces outside of the US.
Sorry for the slow blogging today, but hubby left me a copy of "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" on my desk this morning. Probably the most depressing thing for me about being homebound is that I can't see movies when they open. That may sound trivial, but with the net, I can access most anything else I want, I have lot of people I enjoy talking to, and I don't feel closed in at all. So "movie days" are happy days because I can finally see what the fuss is all about, and with this one, I'm positively enchanted. I figure taking some time off of the sturm und drang of the world is allowable when there's something this fun to enjoy :)
Probably more later, once I rejoin this world again... (right now I just want a touch of flue powder, you know?)
Can someone explain to me why the Bush administration can ask for $62 million to broadcast prime-time American shows at the Iraqis (and others in the Middle East), but they can't remember to ask for money to help rebuild Afghanistan?
The efforts in Iraq are the most urgent part of a long-range administration plan to blanket the Arab world with programming promoting American ideals, including a future 24-hour satellite station, the Middle East Television Network.
The White House has asked Congress for $62 million for the satellite station, which is scheduled to go on the air by year's end. The station, also overseen by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, will feature news, original Arabic programs and dubbed versions of U.S. prime-time fare. Station officials said they have hired a research firm that began conducting polls and focus groups in Persian Gulf states last month to help shape the programming.
From Reuters:
The nephew of an Iraqi cleric hacked to death by a mob in a mosque in Iraq on Thursday said on Friday his killers had killed a total of six people and taken control of the holy city of Najaf.
U.S. forces stationed nearby were doing nothing to restore order, he said, quoting residents of Najaf for his information.
"The Americans are five kilometers (3.1 miles) from Najaf and do not want to interfere." [...]
Arab News, which carried the original story that both Al-Khoei and Al-Khazraji had been killed is reporting that Al-Kohei's death has been confirmed by his family, but Al-Khazraji's death has not.
If Al-Khazraji is still alive, and has the backing of the US in being one of the new Iraqi leaders, this could end up being very interesting - given the accusations against him of being a war criminal and his CIA-aided escape from Denmark. There's a certain perverse irony in the idea that we overthrew Saddam, justifying it in part by pointing out how he had gassed his own people (even though there have been questions about whether it was him or the Iranians who were truly responsible for that event), and yet are supporting someone accused of the same crime for a leadership role in the "new" Iraq.
Sadly, whether Al-Kazraji is alive or not, by helping him escape from Denmark, we've once again shown our disregard for the laws of other nations and apparent belief that we can do whatever we want. It's important to note that Al-Khazraji was only being held on suspicion of war crimes - he had not yet been convicted - but by sneaking him out of Denmark, we have helped him circumvent their laws and the investigations into his actions. Ironically, Denmark is one of our allies in this war.
Here's the latest update on the 'Baths for Baptisms' story [from the Mercury News]:
The U.S. Army Office of the Chief of Chaplains is checking into a report by Knight Ridder Newspapers that an Army chaplain in Iraq withheld clean bathing water from U.S. soldiers who did not first agree to hear a sermon and be baptized.
The allegation against Chaplain Josh Llano, 32, of Houston, has drawn heated responses from religious, civil libertarian and atheist groups who say the practice amounts to religious coercion. Army officials said that so far their investigation hasn't shown that to be true.
[...]
Army Chief of Chaplains Gaylord Gunhus said he believes Llano was simply joking with soldiers of the Army V Corps combat support system at Camp Bushmaster near Najaf.
"I have confidence in my chaplains," Gunhus said from his office at the Pentagon. "It had nothing to do with keeping people from having water or anything at all. Speculation is, he was jesting with a bunch of folks."
[...]
Llano could not be reached for comment on Thursday. But Rudd said Llano told investigators he does not recall making those statements. She said Llano's commanders have denied the water-for-baptism allegations. Knight Ridder reporter Meg Laughlin, who wrote the original story, noted that she was not alone when Llano made the statements.
[...]
Rudd said the investigation would be conducted on an informal basis and would not require input from the Army Office of Inspector General.
I must say I find it amusing that Llano says he "does not recall making those statements" - I'd think most people would remember what they tell a reporter - but I am glad to see that an investigation (even if it's "informal") is underway.
ABC News is reporting that the flag that was placed of the face of Saddam Hussein on the statue that was pulled down yesterday morning wasn't just any flag. It was the flag that had been flying at the Pentagon on 9/11, when it was attacked.
"I was just trying my best to get the chain around his neck and put the flag on his head," Chin told ABCNEWS' Good Morning America. "Pretty much at the moment I was just doing what I was told to do by my commanding officer," he said.
The televised gesture drew mixed reactions around the world and anger from a commentator on the Arab news network al Arabiya.
"That should have been the Iraqi flag," said an al Arabiya announcer.
U.S. military leaders have set boundaries on American flag displays in an effort to avoid provoking Arab emotions over the war in Iraq. U.S. troops have been ordered not to display flags, whether the American flag or those of their military unit, in Iraq.
[...]
"And the flag — it was on the Pentagon when it got hit on 9/11. That was the same flag, and me being from New York, it kind of all goes together a little bit. It was a team effort, which made it even better, you know," he said.
Now, maybe I'm being overly skeptical, but what are the odds that a tank that just happened to be in the right area to assist with tearing down that statue would also just happen to have that particular flag with it? And given that the troops are supposed to be under ordered to not display flags, why would Cpl. Chin's commanding officer tell him to put it up there?
I've seen some claims that the entire statue-pulling was a "staged" event, done more for PR purposes - to give the Americans the image of cheering crowds of Iraqis greeting their liberation with joy - than any actual spontaneous happening. Shock and Awe offers some images of the area where the statue had been, showing that the crowd appears to be much smaller than it looked on TV - and suggesting that the TV images were carefully framed to provide the impression that the crowd was larger. My only problem with that theory is that most of the images were being fed by Abu Dubai, an Arabic news station that seems an unlikely candidate for going along with a US-led PR stunt.
[UPDATE: CalPundit has an excellent pair of comparison photos - one showing how the demonstration looked on TV and one of a shot taken from a distance giving a better perspective of the size of the crowd.]
The bit about the flag, though, bothers me. Someone had to make a decision to send that special flag over to Iraq so that it would be available to be used there - in spite of the ban on displaying our flag - and someone had to have put it on that tank, with - at the very least - a good suspicion that the tank would be able to play some kind of a role in a symbolic gesture, during which the 9/11 Pentagon flag could be displayed. Otherwise, why risk something that is a genuine artifact that should be kept safe as a reminder of what happened that day?
There could have been significant symbolism in the act of placing that flag over Saddam Hussein's face on the statue - given the widespread belief that he may have struck at us on 9/11, but that the flag - and this nation - survived and have now taken him down. It could even have been powerful symbolism, if there were any evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, but there isn't, so the gesture was, at best, empty.
[The last paragraph has been edited slightly for clarity (9:28pm CST) -- I was not intending to imply that Saddam actually had struck at us, only that the act of putting the Pentagon flag over his face seemed to be trying to - once again - send the message that he did, even though there is still zero evidence to support that allegation. The original paragraph is below:
There was significant symbolism in the act of placing that flag over Saddam Hussein's face on the statue - the idea that he may have struck at us on 9/11, but that the flag - and this nation - survived and have now taken him down. It could be powerful symbolism, if there were any evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, but there isn't, so the gesture was, at best, empty. ]
Note: I am referring to several news sources in this post, most of which seem to have different spellings for the names of the people they are reporting on. Please excuse any confusion this may cause
A very strange story is coming out of Iraq - Arab News is reporting that "[f]ormer Iraqi general Nizar Al-Khazaraji and Islamic scholar Majid Al-Khoi’i have both been executed by Iraqi residents of Najaf," along with an American soldier who was serving as their bodyguard. The reports indicates that the two men had been supported by the American government as possible leaders for Najaf, and that after they were killed, their bodies were futher mutilated by the crowd. Reports so far have been somewhat conflicting - particularly in the identity of who was killed.
In an article published earlier by the Arab News, prior to the murders, the men represented two of the three opposition movements that were vying for control of the city:
According to a well-known Najaf resident, business owner and local leader, who asked that he not be further identified, there are now three different opposition movements vying for control in the city, each under a different leader. He gave an indication of what may lie ahead for Iraq’s disunited people.
According to this source, Nizar Al-Khazraji, a general in Saddam’s Ministry of Defense who defected in the 1990s and has been living in Denmark, is one of them. He is a native of Najaf. He is America’s number one choice. The leader of the second movement is Majid Al-Khoi’i, an Islamic scholar who, after 1991, went to the US after Saddam ordered his death.
Al-Khazraji has a very interesting history, and has been the subject of many stories in the last two months. Until March 17th, he had been under house arrest in Denmark as the result of alleged war crimes and possible role in the gassing of Kurds. At that point, he simply disappeared, and even his son seemed to have no idea where he might have gone.
The circumstances around former Gen. Nizar al-Khazraji's disappearance were murky and few details were released. He had been under house arrest in his adopted country of Denmark since November.
Prosecutor Birgitte Vestberg is investigating claims that al-Khazraji, a former Iraqi army chief of staff, was responsible for poison gas attacks in northern Iraq in 1988 that killed more than 5,000 Kurds.
[...]
Under the Geneva Conventions, which calls for countries to prosecute or expel war criminals, Denmark is obligated to investigate claims he was involved in the poison gas attack.
On April 2, Reuters reported that Denmark was asking the US for help in locating al-Kazraji:
In a letter to U.S. Ambassador Stuart Bernstein, Justice Minister Lene Espersen cited several Danish newspaper articles suggesting that the Central Intelligence Agency may have been involved.
"Against this background...I kindly ask you to provide me with any information from relevant American authorities on the circumstances under which Khazraji disappeared and his whereabouts since March 17, 2003," she wrote.
Espersen noted in her letter that the disappearance had been the subject of intense debate in Danish media and in parliament. She said she was enclosing a selection of newspaper articles offering theories on what had happened to Khazraji.
Then on the 6th, South Africa's News24.com reported that al-Khazraji had escaped from Denmark with the help of the CIA, because American officials considered him a potential successor to Saddam Hussein.
Former Iraqi General Nizar al-Khazraji, touted as a possible successor to President Saddam Hussein, is now in Kuwait after escaping from Denmark last month with the help of the CIA the Danish daily Politiken reported on Sunday.
Citing a report by the former head of the CIA's counter-terrorism department - a copy of which was obtained by the paper. Apparently the US sees Khazraji as their preferred successor for Saddam in a post-war Iraq, a view that is not shared by the Pentagon.
The ex-CIA official, who completed the confidential report on March 28, said the US intelligence services secretly extracted Khazraji and that he was currently helping US forces in the war against Baghdad.
Oddly -- or perhaps not -- none of this appears to have been covered in any of the major US news sources - at least not that Google News can find.
The BBC is reporting the death of Abdul Majid al-Khoei:
Assailants armed with knives attacked Abdul Majid al-Khoei inside the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf - one of the holiest sites for Shia Muslims, Fadhel Milani told BBC News Online.
A colleague who had been accompanying Mr Khoei confirmed his murder in a telephone call to the foundation, Dr Milani said.
His murder has been "strongly condemned" by the Bush administration. Spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said it was a reminder of "how dangerous the situation is inside Iraq".[...]
Although Mr Khoei was usually accompanied by coalition forces, the officers do not enter the mosque and so were unable to rescue him, Dr Milani said.
Dr Milani said that he believed Mr Khoei's association with the coalition forces had provoked the attack, saying "certain people did not want him in that role".
He said other colleagues from London would now "think twice" before returning to Iraq.
The Associated Press described the attacks this way. Note that no mention of Al-Khazraji is made:
Witnesses told reporters that a meeting was being held among leading mullahs about how to control the shrine, which had been under the control of the hated Haider al-Kadar, of Saddam's Ministry of Religion.
In a gesture of reconciliation, al-Kadar was accompanied to the shrine by Abdul Majid al-Khoei, a high-ranking Shiite cleric and son of one of the religion's most prominent ayatollahs, or spiritual leaders. He had just returned a week ago from exile in London to help restore order after the city was liberated by U.S. troops.
When the two men appeared at the shrine, members of another faction loyal to a different mullah, Mohammed Baqer al-Sadr, verbally assailed al-Kadar.
"Al-Kadar was an animal," said Adil Adnan al-Moussawi, 25, who witnessed the confrontation.
Apparently feeling threatened, al-Khoei pulled a gun and fired one or two shots. There were conflicting accounts over whether he fired the bullets into the air, or in the crowd.
Both men were then rushed by the crowd and hacked to death with swords and knives, the witnesses said.
This looks to be a story that will need to be watched - I'll update further when I get more information. I suspect, however, that both this kind of violence - and note that the reported victims of the killings were both supported by the US - and this kind of confusion is something that, sadly, may become more commonplace as the we go forward from here.
Since the reported fall of Baghdad yesterday, I've seen many people go into a "gloat" mode, bragging about how the war is over, all the anti-war "naysayers" have been proven wrong, and the whole thing has been a great success. I disagree. The first phase of the war may be done, but the war - in full - has a ways to go.
As for saying that those who opposed the war having been "proven wrong", it has to be understood that nothing has truly changed in terms of why we opposed the war in the first place. Few, if any, of us were against the war because they thought Saddam would win. There has never been any serious doubt that we would succeed in pushing him from power. And while freedom for the Iraqi people - if it truly works out to be that - is an incredibly good outcome, this isn't a case of the ends justifying the means.
The Bush administration promoted the war under false pretenses, claiming they were willing to give diplomacy a chance, when it is clear that they never intended for any diplomatic outcome to succeed. The rationale for the war kept changing. We still don't know the real reason Bush wanted this war so badly. There were options other than armed aggression that would have helped deal with the issues of whether or not Saddam had biological, chemical or nuclear weapons and with achieving the freedom for the Iraqi people. To date, there has been no solid - or even credible - evidence of any ties between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, in spite of the many claims to the contrary from Colin Powell and others in the Bush administration.
The war was sold to us with lies, false 'evidence', insinuations, shifting goals and phoney 'diplomatic' efforts. These things will not change - they cannot change - and as such, those who opposed the war cannot be "proven" to be wrong. Whether the war is right or wrong is not a matter of absolute truth - it is a matter of opinion, and opinions can't truly be proven one way or the other.
So, has the war "worked"? Is it a "success"? Those are questions that can't be answered right away. There are still pockets of Fedayeen and Republican guards, who are loyal to Saddam and to his Baath party, who will likely continue fighting, though they will eventually be crushed. Currently, Saddam's regime no longer has control of several areas, including Bahgdad, but it's unclear if his regime has now lost power throughout the entire country (last I heard there was still some fighting going on in various areas). Even once he has lost total control of the nation, there will still be need for soldiers to help with law enforcement and general peace-keeping for quite a while to come.
Of course, the true measure of whether or not the "liberation" of the Iraqi people has been successful will come when they are able to have their first truly democratic elections, with no interference from us, and are able to establish, run, and maintain their own system of government under a constitution of their choosing, so that it truly reflects their own beliefs, desires, and values.
What happened this week is a step. An important step, but it is certainly not the end of the journey, and it is not a guarantee of success. The Iraqi people must be given the necessary assistance to develop a government and a nation that is appropriate to them, and learn how to run and defend it for themselves. Otherwise, this will never truly be a liberation, rather little more than an occupation.
The other measure of whether or not this war has been a success is something we may not know, in full, for another generation or more. What we have done brings with it the possibility - some would say probability - of having created so much anger and resentment, that it may bring a new generation of soldiers to the al-Qaedas, Hizballas, and Hamases of the world, with their anger focused directly at us. We may not see that anger right now, but it could be festering beneath the surface, both among Iraqis who have seen their country torn, now, by war, with untold numbers of their friends and families killed - including many who were conscripted - unwillingly - to be soldiers for Saddam and to attack our forces, and among the other Arab nation, who may now be concerned that they will be the next subjects of our bombs.
If things do not go well for the Iraqi people - if we provide them with the same kind of support we've provided to the Afghanis (which is so poor that the Taliban is actually beginning to make a comeback) - the cost will be paid in American blood, and in quantities beyond belief. It was noted, yesterday, that, when the communist governments fell a decade ago, there was great jubulation when the people first realized that they had gained their freedom. But a few months down the road, as the transition to the new governments, the new economies, and the new way of life proved more difficult than many had anticipated, and led to lawlessness and a lack of a sense of security, many wondered if this was truly what freedom was about, and some became a bit nostalgic for the old ways when they at least knew what to expect and felt safer.
Even if we do our best, it is likely that some in Iraq will experience some of these same feelings. They won't necessarily want Saddam's regime back, but they may long for the days when at least they knew what to expect under his control. Those who feel that way are another potential source of soldiers for the terrorists, as they may feel that their old lives were taken from them without their consent.
There are many other costs that we may not be able to see, and, yes, it is possible that things will actually go smoothly, but we don't know that right now. We can't. We're dealing with a situation that is somewhat rare - a people who have lived under great oppression, but who did not throw the shackles of oppression off for themselves; an outside force came in to remove the oppressor - and now these people are faced with an uncertain future being guided by a country that, at many points, had been considered an enemy.
Has the war been a success? Only time will truly tell, and we may not know the answer for many years.
Robert Perry at consortiumnews.com has a very interesting article about Bush, the war in Iraq and the changing nature of the American public in general. Some select quotes - I strongly suggest reading the full article:
In the latest sign of a troubled American democracy, a large majority of U.S. citizens now say they wouldn’t mind if no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, though it was George W. Bush’s chief rationale for war. Americans also don’t seem to mind that Bush appears to have deceived them for months when he claimed he hadn’t made up his mind about invading Iraq.
As he marched the nation to war, Bush presented himself as a Christian man of peace who saw war only as a last resort. But in a remarkable though little noted disclosure, Time magazine reported that in March 2002 – a full year before the invasion – Bush outlined his real thinking to three U.S. senators, “Fuck Saddam,” Bush said. “We’re taking him out.”
[...]
“Looking back, the major landmarks of the past year appear to have been carefully designed to leave no alternative but war with Iraq – or an unlikely capitulation and abdication by Hussein,” Broder wrote on the eve of the war. Noting Bush’s post-Sept. 11th doctrine of waging preemptive war against any nation that he deemed a potential threat, Broder said, “It quickly became clear that Iraq had been chosen as the test case of the new doctrine.” [Washington Post, March 18, 2003]
Once Bush had chosen the site, there was virtually nothing the Iraqi government could do to avoid war, short of total capitulation. As a demonstration of both America’s military might and his own itchy trigger finger, Bush had decided to make Iraq his Alderaan, the hapless planet in the original Star Wars movie that was picked to show off the power of the Death Star.
“Fear will keep the local systems in line, fear of this battle station,” explained Death Star commander Tarkin in the movie. “No star system will dare oppose the emperor now.”
[...]
Bush's behavior seems to be tracking with the imperial style he unveiled last year to Bob Woodward in an interview for the book, Bush at War. "That's the interesting thing about being the president," Bush said. "Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
[...]
Bush has orchestrated a fundamental change in the historic American spirit. Since the days of the Revolutionary War, Americans have rooted for the underdog. But now, apparently by wide majorities, the American people are cheering as U.S. troops mow down Iraqi soldiers today like British imperial forces used modern rifles to cut down Zulu tribesmen fighting with spears a century ago.
This change in spirit has been picked up in recent polls, as Americans show little regard for international law – except when it’s needed to protect U.S. POWs – and care little about the deaths of Iraqis. Many respondents saw no problem in the possibility that Bush had misled the nation in justifying the war.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 69 percent of Americans endorsing the war even if no weapons of mass destruction are found. “I would not feel that I had been sold a bill of goods by the Bush administration,” 27-year-old law student Brad Stephens said. [Washington Post, April 5, 2003]
The USA PATRIOT act was passed as emergency legislation to provide additional powers to the Justice Department and law enforcement officials during a time of crisis. Because it was an act for a time of crisis, there were "sunset" provisions written into the act that will cause it to expire in 2005. Now there is a movement to repeal the "sunset" provision and make the act permanent.
I am urging you to vote AGAINST the repeal of the "sunset" provisions and help ensure that the USA PATRIOT act does expire, as planned, in 2005. The act contains many provisions that sharply curtail the civil rights of American citizens, a condition that cannot be allowed to continue.
We are always hearing that is is our freedom - the rights that define who America is and what She stands for - that so threatens those who hate our nation and leads them to strike out at us in attacks of terrorism. Clamping down on our freedoms may make us feel safer from the threat of terrorism, and may make it appear that we are "doing something" to prevent future terror attacks, but all we're really accomplishing is surrendering to what the terrorists want in the first place. That simply cannot be our response to their attacks.
We cannot be a free people unless we also take risks - and as we sit here, having fought a war ostensibly to bring the Iraqi people freedom - it would be shameful for us to turn around and simply give up our own.
Please vote against the proposed repeal of the USA PATRIOT act "sunset" provisions, and allow the law to expire in 2005 as was intended.
I just had a bit of a surprise. I had read over at Eschaton that they are going to investigate the story about the chaplain giving baths for baptisms, so I decided to read the article, published by the Houston Chronicle. About 2/3 of the way down, I found the following paragraphs:
The story generated outrage online -- one person who posted a message on one Web site described the article as "disturbing." Another unidentified person posted a letter addressed to Gunhus that cited the Army's requirement that chaplains be "sensitive to religious pluralism and be able to provide for the free exercise of religion."
"It is my hope and my request that you will take immediate action to put an end to Chaplain Llano's tactics and remind him of his obligation," the e-mail stated.
If you look at the post below entitled "Letter to the Chief of Army Chaplains", you'll notice that the quote above is from the last paragraph of my letter. I'd noticed over the last couple days that my letter had been posted to various message boards (at least 5 that I know of, and I only know of them because they included links to the site and showed up on my referrer list), but I never expected to see any part of it, credited or not, show up in a newspaper.
What makes it even more fun is that a few months back, I had applied for an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) for different strings, and had just gotten my approval and number today. That's not all that big of a deal - they're free, and you just have to fill out and application to get one (located at http://lcweb.loc.gov/issn/issnhtml.html), but there's still something kind of fun about having your blog listed as a publication with the Library of Congress, you know?
At any rate, I hope you don't mind my indulging in a bit of "happy happy" self-promotion or whatever you want to call it, but I'm feeling kind of bouncy at the moment. :)
From the New York Times:
Working with the Bush administration, Congressional Republicans are maneuvering to make permanent the sweeping antiterrorism powers granted to federal law enforcement agents after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, officials said today.
The move is likely to touch off strong objections from many Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress who believe that the Patriot Act, as the legislation that grew out of the attacks is known, has already given the government too much power to spy on Americans.
The landmark legislation expanded the government's power to use eavesdropping, surveillance, access to financial and computer records and other tools to track terrorist suspects.
When it passed in October 2001, moderates and civil libertarians in Congress agreed to support it only by making many critical provisions temporary. Those provisions will expire, or "sunset," at the end of 2005 unless Congress re-authorizes them.
But Republicans in the Senate in recent days have discussed a proposal, written by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, that would repeal the sunset provisions and make the law's new powers permanent, officials said. Republicans may seek to move on the proposal this week by trying to attaching it to another antiterrorism bill that would make it easier for the government to use secret surveillance warrants against "lone wolf" terrorism suspects.
Remember, there's a little box down a ways on the sidebar over there
For most of the last hour, I've been watching the Iraqis, with the help of the Marines, tearing down a statue of Saddam Hussein. I'm sure if you watch any news today, you'll get to see at least part of it, as I have a feeling it's going to be repeated often.
It was interesting to see the whole thing, though. Starting with a rope noose and a sledge hammer, some of the Iraqis were trying to pull or pound it down. After a bit, a Marine tank recovery vehicle was brought over. As the Marines climed up to hook their gear up to the statue, one of them took an American flag up and used it to cover Saddam's face. Fairly quickly, someone apparently told the Marine to take the American flag down, and shortly thereafter an old Iraqi flag (one without the Arabic writing Saddam had added to it) was taken up and hung from the statue. They then proceeded to yank the statue down, at which time the Iraqis pounding and jumping on it. Good for them.
I ventured into enemy terratory for a bit today -- the notorious Free Republic site. Atrios had a link to a thread there about the current unemployment problems (noting that several of the posters were frustrated with the job market themselves, and welcoming them to the Bush economy.) I found "tag" line there, though, that I absoultly love and wanted to share:
If they truly are God's laws, he can enforce them himself.
Beautiful!
I'm writing this in 'real time' as I'm watching news right now...
MSNBC and CNN are reporting the fall of Baghdad, complete with pictures of jubuliant Iraqis (getting ready to pull down a statue of Saddam) and Kurds. Given the many reports of the falling of Umm Qasr and Basra (and later retractions), I sincerely hope that this is not premature. From the pictures on the screen, though, it looks to be real.
John Seigenthaler and Tim Russert on MSNBC have noted a couple of times now that people should keep in mind that this is not a time for gloating - and to keep in mind that there is still a very long road ahead to establish order and help set up a new democracy with the Iraqi people.
Right now I'm watching a number of Iraqi's trying to topple a statue of Saddam from the heart of Baghdad. It's a very touching sight, strongly reminiscent of the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe a decade ago.
Tim Russert made another excellent point that I hope people will keep in mind. Right now, they're celebrating - just as they did when the symbols of Communism fell - but in the former Communist countries, within a few months, the people were unsure if freedom was really such a good thing because of the difficulty of the transition to a new government, including periods of anarchy. Many felt that, while under the old government, they didn't have as many freedoms, at least there was some sense of order and security. The Iraqis may also face such a period in their future, and I seriously hope that we will be there to help them get through it.
The war is not done, however. There are still battles going on in parts of Baghdad, and areas where there are Iraqis - including Fedayeen - who are willing to fight against our troops.
Dick Cheney has just come begun speaking - he is recognizing the soldiers who have died, and speaking also about Michael Kelley and David Bloom. He also acknowledged the foreign journalists who have died. (The focus on the journalists makes sense since he is speaking to a group of newspaper editors.) MSNBC's screen title is now referring to this as a "partial capture" of Baghdad. Cheney is pointing out that there is still much work to be done. He also is taking time to point out that the retired generals who were "embedded in TV studios" had criticized the plan but now the "wisdom" of the plan is becoming more and more apparent. After spending some time talking about all the high tech tools used in this war, he is now providing a comparison between Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
In the pictures that they're showing, a large portrait of Saddam is now on fire, and the Iraqis who are trying to pull down the statue have recruited a tank to help them - not having gotten very far with ropes and sledge hammers.
Cheney is reminding everyone that we cannot afford to be overconfident and that we should not underestimate the forces who remain who are loyal to Saddam's regime. He says that the worst may still be ahead.
Col. Jack Jacobs (US Army, Ret.), speaking on MSNBC, notes that we may not have sufficient force in the Baghdad area to fully control the city, which may be a problem, but he does feel it is a surmountable one.
Watching this, I cannot deny that if we can achieve TRUE freedom for the Iraqi people, that would be a very good thing. I do not, however, believe that the ends justify the means, and I think that we could have found other ways to achieve the same results without having to kill so many Americans and Iraqis - civilians and soldiers alike.
Both CalPundit and Atrios today have blurbs about an oratorio by Richard Einhorn called "Voices of Light". I must join them in offering the piece my highest recommendation. My husband picked it up on a lark a couple years ago and it was love at first listen. It is one of the most impassioned works I've heard in quite a long time, and I feel very lucky to have discovered this gem.
The music was inspired by Dreyers "The Passion of Joan of Arc", a movie with a history which is almost as fascinating as the movie itself. Below is a summary of that history, paraphrased from the liner notes of "Voices of Light":
"The Passion of Joan of Arc" was made in 1928 by Carl Theodoral Dreyer. The movie itself has an interesting history. The script was taken, mostly, from the actual transcripts of Joan's trial - though the action was compressed from several months into a single day for dramatic purposes. The Catholic Church censored the film somewhat prior to its release, but it was still hailed as one of the greatest films of the day, and Maria Falconetti, the lead actress, gives what is still considered one of the most extraordinary performances ever filmed.
Shortly after the film's premiere, a fire destroyed the negative and virtually all prints of the movie. Dreyer ended up reconstructing the entire film from outtakes that were left over from the original filming and had survived the fire. Sadly, this second print was also destroyed in a fire. Rather than making a third print, Dryer gave up and moved on his next project.
Over the next several decades, various prints of the film that had not been destroyed by the fires, but were these were highly corrupt versions of the movie. Another copy, though it was clear which version it was, was found in the vaults of Cinémathčque Française. Then, in the fourties and fifties, a version of "Passion" was put together by the French historian, Lo Duca. It is thought he may have used prints of the various versions then in circulation. He added a Baroque score to the film. Dryer was so displeased with this version of his film that he completely disowned it.
Amazingly, in 1981, in the back of a closet at a Norweigan mental institution, several film cans that has been shipped to the Norweigan Film Institute were discovered, including what was determined to be a print of the original 1928 masterpiece, with Danish intertitles (the screens of text between scenes used during the silent area in place of spoken dialogue).
In 1988, composer Richard Einhorn, who had been thinking of writing a work about Joan of Arc, came across the film in the New York Museum of Modern Art. He had never heard of the film or the director, but says that when he finished watching "Passion", he "walked out of the screening room, shattered, having unexpectedly seen one of the most extraordinary works of art that [he] knew".
Inspired, he wrote "Voices of Light", one of the most stunning works of music I have ever heard. Its not something I can easily describe. It was written to go with the film, but also to stand alone. The lyrics are taken from the writings of female medieval mystics, including Joan herself.
The Criterion Collection has put together a DVD containing both "The Passion of Joan of Arc" (with English intertitles) as well as "Voices of Light". One thing that is nice about the DVD is that you can watch it with no background sound, the way it was originally created, or with "Voices of Light" as a soundtrack. The music works incredibly well as a soundtrack, and has the combination has been known to bring me to tears.
From MSNBC:
April 8 — Conclusive testing is still pending, but the latest tests indicate that barrels found in central Iraq do not contain chemical weapons agents, as first suspected, U.S. military sources said on Tuesday. Another suspicious find was also being investigated, while a third report dealing with rockets was discounted by a top general.
“I’ve seen nothing in official reports that would corroborate that,” Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal told reporters at the Pentagon. He was referring to news reports Monday that Marines had found rockets, possibly packed with sarin and a mustard agent, at a warehouse outside Baghdad.
This quote from an ABC interview of Barbara Bush, printed in Newsday, has been getting a lot of play on some of the left-leaning blogs:
"But why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it's going to happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Oh, I mean, it's, not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? And watch him suffer."
It certainly makes the former First Lady sound rather callous and more than a bit shallow - and she may well be. But when reading her entire comment, and not just this portion of it, it gives a bit of a different perspective to it:
"He sits and listens and I read books because I know perfectly well that - don't take offense - that 90 percent of what I hear on television is supposition, when we're talking about the news. And he's not, not as understanding of my pettiness about that. But why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it's going to happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Oh, I mean, it's, not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? And watch him suffer."
Reading the full quote, it seem apparent to me that she's not saying that body bags and deaths are irrelevent, but rather than TV news that's irrelevant because the vast majority of it these days is supposition instead of fact.
The "beautiful mind" part, though... that's just a little weird.
From Reuters:
NEAR KERBALA, Iraq (Reuters) - New U.S. tests indicate that substances found at sites in central Iraq are not chemical weapons agents as first suspected, U.S. military sources said on Tuesday.
"The latest tests turned out negative," one source said.
U.S. military officers said on Monday that initial tests on substances found near the central Iraqi town of Hindiya suggested the presence of nerve agents sarin and tabun and the blister agent lewisite.
The military sources said it was not yet clear what the substances were. One officer had said on Monday that they might turn out to be simple pesticides.
I haven't yet found any additional information on the alleged Scud missles with potential chemical weapons payloads that were said to have been found and pointed at Isreal. If I come across more information on that, I'll be sure to post it. It's interesting, though, that so little has been said about it. I'm wondering if there actually was such a find, or, if as seems to happen often in wartime, stories got spread and grew a bit in the telling?
If you hear anything, please post it in comments - I'm very curious to find out more about this.
I've noticed that over the last couple of days I've received a number of hits from people looking for information on Lt. Josh Llano, the chaplain who has been offering baths in exchange for baptisms. I thought to make it easier, since I've written several posts on the subject, I'd make a little index to the different posts:
Thanks for taking the time to stop by, and I hope you'll find other posts of interest as well :) Please feel free to leave any comments in the comment section - I'm interesting in your thoughts as well!
No comment on this - none is needed. Just go read Paul Krugman today - he does an excellent job discussing what real patriotism (as opposed to the neocon version), and why we need more of it. An excerpt:
The biggest test of a politician's patriotism is whether he is willing to sacrifice some of his political agenda for the sake of the nation. And that's a test our current leaders have failed with flying colors.
Consider the case of Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, who also piled on Mr. Kerry last week. As it happens, during the war in Kosovo Mr. DeLay was a defeatist, and blamed his own country for provoking Serbian atrocities; any Democrat who said similar things now would be accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Mr. DeLay's political agenda hasn't shifted a bit now that we're at war again. He's still pushing for huge, divisive tax cuts that go mainly to the rich: "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes," he says. And he's still eager to slash any and all domestic spending. In the midst of war he pushed through a budget that included sharp cuts in, yes, veterans' benefits.
Witch Hunt
Lyrics by Neal Peart
Music by Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson
From the 1981 album Moving Pictures
The night is black, without a moon.
The air is thick and still.
The vigilantes gather on
The lonely torchlit hill.
Features distorted in the flickering light,
Faces are twisted and grotesque.
Silent and stern in the sweltering night,
The mob moves like demons possesed.
Quiet in conscience, calm in their right,
Confident their ways are best.
The righteous rise
With burning eyes
Of hatred and ill-will.
Madmen fed on fear and lies
To beat and burn and kill.
They say there are strangers who threaten us,
Our immigrants and infidels.
They say there is strangeness to danger us
In our theatres and bookstore shelves,
That those who know what's best for us
Must rise and save us from ourselves.
Quick to judge,
Quick to anger,
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand.
I first heard this song 22 years ago. At the time, I remember thinking that - from what I could tell anyway - things weren't at all like the song made it sound. I figured that Neal Peart (Rush's lyricist) must have been looking back on the 50's and the blacklisting, or something of that nature. I couldn't really imagine people holding the kind of attitudes the song portrays.
Over the years, though, I've seen the song become more and more relavent - more reflective of what's happening in the world, to the extent that on most sites that ask for a "favourite quote" or something of that nature, I almost always cite the last line of the song - "Ignorance and prejudice and fear go hand in had". (Yes, I have a bad habit of quoting Rush [the band, not the idiot] on a somewhat regular basis. Most Rush fans do *g*)
While it may well be that part of why I see it as more relavent now than I did when I was younger has to do with my own move from trying to fit into the mainstream - where it's sometimes hard to see what's really going on - to standing on the sidelines, looking in (and being quite content to stay there), when I read about the threats of violence against protestors, things like the USA PATRIOT act and PATRIOT II, Total Information Awareness, bigotry against Muslims, people of Middle Eastern origin (or who just look like they might be), French people (or anything with French in the name) and the lengths some are willing to go to try and silence dissent, I realize that this is a song that, sadly, will never be out of date.
I don't understand how we can justify the way we've ignored Afghanistan since having overthrowing the Taliban government. We made promises to the Afghani people - just as we're now making promises to the Iraqis - and yet there are now reports that the Taliban is regrouping and working to be able to take over Afghanistan once again. An Associated Press article notes that:
The soldiers and police who were supposed to be the bedrock of a stable postwar Afghanistan have gone unpaid for months and are drifting away."
[...] From safe havens in neighboring Pakistan, aided by militant Muslim groups there, the Taliban launched their revival to coincide with the war in Iraq and capitalize on Muslim anger over the U.S. invasion, say Afghan officials.
Karzai said the Taliban are allied with rebel commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, supported by Pakistan and financed by militant Arabs.
The attacks have targeted foreigners and the threats have been directed toward Afghans working for international organizations.
Abdul Salam is a military commander for the government. Last month he was stopped at a Taliban checkpoint in the Shah Wali Kot district of Kandahar and became a witness to the killing of Munguia, a 39-year-old water engineer from El Salvador.
Last I heard, we still considered Pakistan at least nominally an ally, and yet there is apparent evidence that they are cooperating with the Taliban in their struggle to regain power in Afghanistan.
I really don't have a lot to say on this one - I'm just flabberghasted that not only did we abandon the Afghanistanis just like we did the Iraqis after Gulf War I, but now we find that the regime we went in to overthrow is not only trying to make comeback, but they're doing it with the help of one of our so-called allies! And this isn't just any regime, either. The Taliban was instrumental in helping Osama bin Laden escape after the World Trade Center/Pentagon attacks and there's never been any real question that they have supported al-Qaeda. Yet we're putting all of our time and energy into Iraq.
We clearly owe the Afghanistani people our support and protection. I would have no qualms about sending more troops into Afghanistan to help maintain the peace while the country rebuilds and a new, democratic government gains the strength it needs to stand on its own. I just hope the Bush administration decides to do something before the Taliban can take over again. That would be a tragedy of inhuman proportions.
I've removed the link to "The Agonist" from my "The War" sidebar section. According to Wired, Sean-Paul Kelly, the editor, has apparently been copying material word-for-word from a subscription he had to Stratfor.com, a military intelligence gathering service, and posting it without attribution. He also had posted at least 2 items from Stratfor with attributions that would indicate they came from his own sources, and not the subscription service.
Given the populatiry that The Agonist has had during this war, along with the publicity it's received from the mainstream media discovering blogs, Kelly's actions could prove harmful to the general reputation of blogs - and particularly those blogs that ascribe to be journalistic - something I find quite sad. Sean-Paul has posted a formal apology on his site, if you'd like to read his side of the story as well.
Personally, I don't consider myself to be a "journalist" even though I run a current-events-oriented blog. I see myself more as an unpaid, unsyndicated, self-published opinion columnist, at best, and a rambling hothead at worst. While I make a good faith effort to attribute material properly on a regular basis, being human (and a bit scatterbrained at times), I may miss doing so on occasion. I would ask that if any of you see that I've not given attribution to something that appears to be quoted material, please call it to my attention (and I hope you would have done so, even if I'd not asked. I don't intend this to be just a one-way blog - and if I screw up, I expect to be called on it.)
Found this over as Eschaton. I sincerely hope that the families of these soldiers never read this article. Somehow I don't think that they'd appreciate his belief that their sons were injured - and, from the description of the rest of the article, nearly killed - so that he wouldn't be shot. The arrogance of his comments is mind-numbing. An excerpt:
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The soldiers were there for a reason.
The logical, rational explanation is that they were there because their tank caught fire and had to be destroyed. So, without a ride, they jumped onto the armored personnel carrier with me.
I prefer to believe it was the hand of God that put them there, one behind me, one to my left. They were there to protect me.
Had they not been there, I most likely would not be now typing this.
Less than 30 minutes after the two soldiers joined me, both were wounded by bullets that could have hit me.
The soldier behind me was hit in the left wrist and the left eye by a bullet that struck the side of the armored personnel carrier and shattered.
A bullet hit the soldier to my immediate left in the right arm, just a few inches from my left arm. The bullet broke his arm, entered his body just below his armpit and came out his back.
I know their names, but their families may not have been notified yet.
A LiveJournaler wrote to the Southern Baptist Convention regarding the "baths for baptisms" chaplain, and received a prompt response. David Mullis, the Military Chaplaincy Associate, responded that "...the practiced described is totally out of line with normal chaplaincy practice as wells [sic] as that of Southern Baptist practice. The practice is neither theologically or ethically sound nor is it taught or expected as a practice to follow." (A copy of the letter sent to Rev. Mullis and his reponse are both available at the above link.)
While the SBC doesn't necessarily have control over Chaplain Llano or what he does, it is heartening to see the denomination he claims to represent does not support his actions. (And it's also good to see such a quick reponse from them). Hopefully, their disapproval of the way he's behaving will help Chaplain Llano see that what he's doing is unethical and he'll stop of his own accord.
I like to keep track of who's referring visitors here - just out of curiosity, mainly - but sometimes I come up with a referrer that just stumps me.
Today, I've gotten roughly 10 hits from a site called "MyCoupons.com". I've visted there, and it's exactly what it sounds like - a whole bunch of coupons and shopping tips (kind of nice, actually). If anyone who's found this site from MyCoupons.com would like to tell me what kind of a link there is, I'm dying to know :)
Thanks!
Kriselda
April 7 — U.S. experts are investigating three independent reports that American troops have found Iraqi chemical weapons, including some 20 rockets armed with warheads containing deadly sarin and mustard gas that were apparently ready to fire. [MSNBC]
This is a story to watch. So far, each time there's been an announcement that we've found chemical weapons, there's ended up being a catch - yesterday's find turned out to be pesticides, a find a day or two before that were conventional explosives, and the toxic agents found in the Tigris and Euphrates rivers appear to have come from a training camp in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq where Saddam has many enemies and no power.
I know many won't agree with this - as is their right - but even if this find is genuine, though, it isn't going to change my thoughts on the war much. I still believe that, had the inspectors been given adequate time and support, they would have been able to find anything the military may come up with - and that the same result could have been achieved without all of the deaths and destruction the war brings.
Right now, I'm liking John Kerry very much. Not just for having said that maybe we need a regime change here in the US (a phrase he backed off of somewhat once the criticism starts - though he's not backed down on the idea that Bush needs to be replaced), but for actually pointing out that if the Republicans want to criticize him for speaking out against the war or against the Bush administration, they'd better not try to question his patriotism - since he actually fought during the Vietnam War as opposed to the many conservatives who found ways to avoid going.
Kerry is someone I'll have to watch as the Presidential campaign gets underway, but so far, so good. He's had his inconsistancies - such as voting to give Bush the authority to start the war and then complaining that we didn't spend enough time to really let diplomacy work - but, sadly, I expect that from a politician.
One thing I do find amusing about the way the Republicans are working themselves into a lather over Kerry's comments is that they seem to be outraged at the use of the word "regime" - as if that only denotes some kind of undemocratic government (ignoring, of course, the irony in that, given how Bush wormed his way into the Presidency). Yet as Eschaton and Ornicus point out, during the Clinton years, many conservatives used the term "regime" to describe the Clinton administration. How soon they forget.
The whole flap about Kerry does, however, bring up one other concern. For the last month or two, I've seen several suggestions from liberal bloggers that the Bush administration may find a way to cancel the upcoming elections so as to protect his ability to stay in power. While I wouldn't put much past them, I've always sort of felt that concerns about them cancelling the election were closer to paranoid than possible. Yet, whether he intended to or not, Mark Racicot has just made the situation worse, by making it sound as if war could be used as a justification to avoid the risk of replacing Bush. In responding to the controversy over Kerry's comments, issued a press release with the following statement [emphasis mine]:
Senator Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander-in-chief at a time when America is at war. Critical analysis offered in the best interests of the country is part of a healthy democracy. But this use of self-serving rhetoric designed to further Senator Kerry's political ambitions at a time when the lives of America's sons and daughters are at stake reflects a complete lack of judgment.
You don't have to be much of a conspiracy theorist to follow the reasoning there to its extreme conclusion. Now I just wish that some Democrats would have the courage to speak up and question exactly what he means by that - begin a debate on just how far this supposed "line" extends, and what happens if next November we're still at war? The first few to bring it up will be ridiculed horrendously, but if enough ask the questions, the more seriously they may be taken.
At the end of last year, blogs helped push the issue of Trent Lott's racism to the forefront of national debate. This may be another issue we want to work on pushing until it, too, is more widely discussed. Pointing out now whenever the Republicans make statements that imply that replacing Bush is somehow a bad idea - in the sense that even suggesting we should elect a new leader (which is all Kerry was doing) is "over the line" - may be the best way we have of waking up others to the possibility and thus defusing it. It's worth a thought, at least....
Earlier this evening, there were reports that troops in Iraq had found evidence of Sarin nerve gas, but, yet again, it turns out that wasn't exactly the case. Further tests showed it to be pesticides.
From MSNBC [under "Other Developments"]: Coalition forces were briefly on alert Sunday for a suspected chemical-weapon attack, after U.S. soldiers evacuated an Iraqi military compound, after tests by a mobile laboratory of a substance in an oil drum showed evidence of sarin nerve gas. More than a dozen soldiers of the Army’s 101st Airborne Division had been sent earlier for chemical weapons decontamination after they exhibited symptoms of possible exposure to nerve agents. But U.S. military officials said later that what was in the drum was actually pesticide. NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski reported that a later test confirmed that the contents were not sarin.
I've read several posts on other sites about the chaplain offering baths for baptisms. One frequent criticism of the anger at what he's doing is that he is doing the job of a chaplain - helping convert new souls to Christ, and that he's providing a religous service to those who want it. And its true that if someone wants to be baptized, he is there to provide it, though chaplains are supposed to provide spiritual aid to all soldiers, regardless of their spiritual path.
I've also seen arguments that the pool is probably intended to be a baptismal pool and not a place for bathing, and it's appropriate to restrict its use to those who are being baptized. I might be willing to buy that argument, were it not for the fact that the chaplain made it clear that he has no problem offering bribes to get people to agree to baptism, and that he knows the soldiers desire for a bath is a motivation.
One of the first quotes in the article is ''It's simple. They want water. I have it, as long as they agree to get baptized,'' he said. It doesn't take an special spin to see that he's making the use of the water a quid pro quo for the baptism. Interestingly, on a message board where my posts below have been quoted, one of the posters interpreted the above statement this way:
MY interpretation of the chaplain's statement: "I am an Army chaplain, and my job is to offer spiritual guidance and to baptize newly converted Christians out here on the front lines. If one chooses to become a Christian, one may be baptized here in the Baptismal pool. AS an Army chaplain, I will baptize newly converted Christians by immersing them in this baptismal pool, as that is the way Baptisms are performed for newly converted Christians, but I am not running a public bathhouse, and it is NOT my job to provide a bath for every soldier in this here Army, no matter how dirty they are. I am a cleanser of souls, not dusty bodies."
That's an interesting sentiment, but a plain reading of the chaplain's own words really doesn't support that. As he said, it's simple. He has something they want, and he has a condition upon which he'll give it to them - genuine spiritual desire doesn't appear to factor into it.
This is also supported later in the article, when the chaplain says: ''Regardless of their motives,'' Llano said, ``I get the chance to take them closer to the Lord.'' This seems pretty plain to me - it doesn't matter to him if the soldier is there for a spiritual cleansing or a physical one, as long as he has the chance to try and convert them.
The part that cinches it for me, though, that he truly is using the prospect of baths as a bribe to get people to be baptized, and not that he is simply offering the rite of baptism to those who want it, is the way he responded to the reporter's question about what he'll do when the portable showers that are on their way to Iraq arrive. Keep in mind, the only reason the portable showers should have any impact on what he is doing is if he is, in fact, using the idea of a bath as a lure to get someone into his sermons and baptismal ceremony. Otherwise, the showers would have no impact whatsoever on what he's doing, since you don't use showers for baptisms.
Earlier this week, word went out that portable showers might be installed here soon, but Llano was undaunted.
''There is no fruit out here, and I have a stash of raisins, juice boxes and fruit rolls to pull out,'' the chaplain said optimistically.
How does he respond? By listing other items he has available to use as bribes once the prospect of a bath isn't that big of a draw anymore.
Were I still a Christian, I'd be still be outraged by his actions. He is trivializing the rite of baptism by bestowing it upon people who may well not be sincere in their "acceptance" of Christ and who are just using it as a bargaining chip to get something else they want - be it a bath, raisins, juice or fruit rolls. It should means something more to the person than that - and the chaplain should want it to mean more than that. The ministry is more than just a numbers game, and to treat it as such takes the focus away from Christ and His relationship with the individual, and puts it on the minister and his "success" in making converts.
All of this, along with his failing in the basic chaplaincy requirement of providing spiritual services to soldiers of all faiths, are why I feel so strongly that what he is doing is wrong and needs to be stopped.
One thing longtime fans of the "Law & Order" Series seem to enjoy doing is watch the police procedural portion of the show to watch for the point where the cops will make a mistake which will later cause the district attorneys difficulty when evidence or statements obtained as a result of the mistake are thrown out of the case. The cops don't get it wrong in every episode, but because these are dedicated, passionate enforcers of the law, they sometimes get a bit over-eager to search a certain location before anyone has a chance to destroy evidence or to keep a suspect talking in hopes of gaining a confession.
According to an article in the New York Times, it looks like some real-life detectives may have exhibited a similar weakness when they finally had caught the DC-area snipers and had a chance to question Lee Malvo, the then 17-year-old co-defendent in the case.
Lee Malvo, the younger man charged in the Washington-area sniper attacks, indicated that he wanted to talk to a lawyer at the beginning of an interrogation last fall in which law enforcement officials say he confessed to several of the shootings, according to a summary of the interviews produced by the police in Fairfax County, Va.
Mr. Malvo, who has turned 18 since his arrest late last October in the shootings that terrorized Washington and its suburbs, told a Fairfax County detective that he had been promised that he would get to see his lawyers, according to the summary.
The detective, June Boyle, a 21-year veteran of the Fairfax police, told Mr. Malvo that he would be allowed to speak with his lawyer, but that she wanted to ask him a few questions about his background as a part of the booking process. Law enforcement officials say that in the hours of interviews that followed, which are recorded on five tapes, Mr. Malvo confessed to shooting several people, including Linda Franklin, an F.B.I. analyst whose death led to the capital murder charges that Mr. Malvo faces in a trial scheduled to begin in November.
It doesn't appear that this "error" is fatal to the case - there is other evidence tying Malvo to the killings - but it does raise the question of why a detective - especially one with 21 years of experience - would engage in such a violation of a suspects rights and risk losing the admissability of any confession that might result. In a case as high-profile as this one, you'd think that they'd want to take every precaution they could to preserve every piece of evidence possible - especially any statements made by the suspect while he's still recovering from the shock of being arrested.
It appears that part of what allowed the interrogation to happen in the first place is that John Ashcroft had ordered Malvo transferred from federal custody in Maryland to the local authorities in Virginia. Malvo's public defenders in Baltimore, however, had not been told that their client was being transferred, and Virginia had not yet appointed a public defender for him in their state. In addition, his court-appointed guardian had requested to be able to speak with him prior to the interrogation by the Virginia law-enforcement officers, but was denied. I suspect a good defense attorney may be able to make an argument that federal and local law-enforcement officials were deliberately trying to deny Malvo the right to have an attorney present at his interrogation - whether this was intentional or simply a major bungling of one of the more important aspects of a case like this.
Something else the article mentioned that I found very interesting is that it appears likely that the summary this information was taken from was leaked by the police themselves.
Mr. Malvo's chief lawyer, Michael S. Arif, did not return a call for comment on the summary. But John Spario, a lawyer for Mr. Muhammad, said that information about the summary fit into a pattern of leaks, presumably by the police, that threatened to derail both cases.
An investigator involved in the case said today that the sniper task force did not object to the leak because there was a strong likelihood that the statements would will be suppressed anyway. "This way at least the public will know what he said," the investigator said.
Whether that's the case or not, the anonymous investigator quoted above may have just helped shoot another hole in the prosecution's ability to try this case. In general, the motive for one side or another in a major case to leak information to "the public" that may not be usable in court is to reach any potential members of the jury pool. The police know that they may not be able to get the interviews - and Malvo's apparent confession - into court becuase of the procedural violations.
Getting the information out there now, however, get the idea that "he confessed" into people's minds. While juries aren't supposed to consider anything other than the evidence presented to them in the court room, if they're heard that "he confessed", that can have a big impact on how they view any other evidence. Weak evidence from the prosecution may be judged to be stronger because they know "he confessed" - and even strong evidence from the defense may become more dismissible to the jury for the same reason. The defense may actually be able to gain some leverage from this, and it shows significantly poor judgement on the part of those who made the leak and those who seem to approve of it.
This is a case that needs to be closely watched. Personally, based on what I've heard and read, I feel pretty strongly that they've got their men. I don't have much doubt about the guild of Malvo or Muhammad. I would hate to see the case, then, fall apart because the police were sloppy or didn't care about respecting the rights of either suspect at the time of the arrest, and now are showing disregard for the ability of the defendents to have an unprejudiced jury.
History News Network has a post about a story that I find nearly unbelievable.
According to phillyburbs.com (a publication of the Philidelphia Inquirer), a woman recently discovered that someone had stolen her credit card and used it to purchase tickets on a flight to Philidelphia for the weekend that President Bush and Homeland Security director Thomas Ridge were to have a meeting there. She also noted that the name of the person who'd charged the tickets to her card sounded Middle Eastern. Yes, being concerned about the situation because the man's name sounds Middle Eastern smacks of racial profiling, but even I have to admit that were I in the same situation, I'd probably be a bit more concerned if it was a Middle Eastern-sounding name than one that wasn't, though I'd be worried either way. It's not the best way to think, but it's also at least somewhat understandable.
At any rate, the woman decided to try and alert someone to what could be a potentially dangerous situation. She tried to call the airline, the FBI office in Philidelphia, the Secret Service, the Philidelphia police terrorist tip line, the airport police, and the police for the local area where the airport is located. Then she e-mailed the White House, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the General Services Administration, all the Philadelphia TV stations. In each case, except for two, she either was unable to reach anyone, was told it wasn't the kind of crime which that particular office handles or given other excuses as to why whomever she was speaking to couldn't help her any. The two responses she did get were from the Pennsylvania Homeland Security office, saying they couldn't do anything until Monday morning - an hour after the man's return flight was leaving Philidelphia, and from someone at the GSA who offered sympathy but couldn't help her since it wasn't a GSA problem.
"All my husband and I wanted was for this guy to be pulled from the flight and questioned," she said.
Given some of the examples we've heard about of people most wouldn't consider being a threat being checked at airports, delayed or prevented from getting on flights and other problems related to security issues, it doesn't sound like it shouldn't have been a difficult request to fulfill.
I just finished reading through all of the comment currently posted at Eschaton regarding the "baths for baptisms" chaplain, and I noticed something I found very disturbing.
Many of the comments suggested actions along the line of saying the chaplain should be sent home as soon as possible 'in a shipping container' or that he should be shot and other, similar violent actions.
In the last week, we've seen a number of posts both here and at other blogs decrying the use of violent images and language by the pro-war crowd and aimed at the anti-war advocates. A prime example is the outrage over Richard Condon's comment that anti-war protestors deserve a bullet to the head.
While I am completely outraged over this chaplains actions and insensitivity to his fellow soldiers and their individual spiritual needs, it is just as wrong for any of us to suggest he should be beaten, shot or otherwise sujected to violence for what he is doing as we say it is for the pro-war forces to engage in offering violent "solutions" to their problems with us. We can't expect them to play by rules we aren't willing to follow ourselves - no matter how good saying "he should be shot" feels when we're filled with anger at what he's doing.
A copy of my letter to Major General Gunhus regarding the "Baths for Baptisms" situation:
Major General Gunhus,
Today I read an article in the Miami Herald [ http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/5554317.htm ] that claims an Army chaplain named Josh Llano has control over a 500 gallon pool, which he allows our soldiers to use for bathing, but only if they first listen to an hour-and-a-half long sermon and then agree to be baptized. Given the current conditions of battle, many soldiers are reportedly desperate enough for a bath that they agree to his conditions.
It is my understanding that an Army chaplain is supposed to be "[s]ensitive to religious pluralism and able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel, their family members and civilians who work for the Army," according to the requirements for being a chaplain as posted on the Army Chaplian section of the goarmy.com website. [ http://chaplain.goarmy.com/chapl101/chapl02.htm ]. Obviously, if Chaplain Llano is coercing soldiers to undergo a religious conversion to his own personal faith in order to allows them access to a bath, he is not being at all sensitive to religious pluralism or providing for the free exercise of religion.
Admittedly, there are a couple of questions about the story - such as why, in the middle of a water shortage, does a chaplain have access to a 500-gallon pool of water, and how he keeps the water clean after allowing the soldiers to bathe, but I cannot imagine any reason why a reasonably reputable newspaper, such as the Miami Herald, would make up such a story. If it is true, however, as I suspect it is, this is a complete and intolerable outrage, and chaplain Llano must immediately be ordered to stop using such coercive tactics and allow soldiers free use of his pool, regardless of their religious affiliation.
The freedom to follows one's own conscious in regards to what spiritual path an individual chooses to walk is one of the fundamental freedoms that the country was founded upon. Individual spirituality is more than just an important liberty, however, it is also something that is deeply personal, and upon which a person depends in times of trial and crisis. I cannot imagine a more trying time for a person than to be involved in a difficult and controversial war in a foreign land with all of the uncertainty which that implies. Now, more than ever, is a time our soldiers need to be able to rely upon their own personal faith in whatever they've chosen to believe in, and to be able to receive support from the Army's chaplains which meets their needs - not the needs or desires of the chaplain him- or herself.
It is my hope and my request that you will take IMMEDIATE action to put an end to Chaplain Llano's tactics and remind him of his obligation to the men and women of our Armed Services - to provide spiritual support to them that respects their personal beliefs and right to the free exercise of their chosen spiritual path.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
From the requirements for being an Army Chaplain:
1. c. Sensitive to religious pluralism and able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel, their family members and civilians who work for the Army.
CAMP BUSHMASTER, Iraq - In this dry desert world near Najaf, where the Army V Corps combat support system sprawls across miles of scabrous dust, there's an oasis of sorts: a 500-gallon pool of pristine, cool water.
It belongs to Army chaplain Josh Llano of Houston, who sees the water shortage, which has kept thousands of filthy soldiers from bathing for weeks, as an opportunity.
''It's simple. They want water. I have it, as long as they agree to get baptized,'' he said.
[...] First, though, the soldiers have to go to one of Llano's hour-and-a-half sermons in his dirt-floor tent. Then the baptism takes an hour of quoting from the Bible.
''Regardless of their motives,'' Llano said, ``I get the chance to take them closer to the Lord.''
Link via Atrios
If anyone knows how (1) an Army chaplain got a hold of 500 gallons of water during a shortage and (2) how he keeps the water "pristine", I'd love to know. Despite those questions, however, I tend to believe that this story is true. I can't think of any reason a paper like the Miami Herald, which, in my experience, is a resonably reputable source, would make up something like this, and its not the kind of a story that is going to do much besides engender anger at the specific chaplain involved. It might be the kind of thing that would anger Muslims if they were to read it, but I'm not sure that many Iraqis have access to the Miami Herald.
Of course, if this chaplain were of any religion other than Christianity and forcing soldiers to convert before allowing them access to his bathing pool, there would be an uproar of immense proportions and the chaplian would be relieved of duty post haste.
I have to wonder, though, do soldiers who are already Christian have to go through the sermon and baptism as well? Or does he just not let them get clean since there's no conversion to be had?
If this story is true, this is a complete outrage. He is taking advantage of our soldiers need for hygine to force them into a religous act. Whether their conversions are genuine or not, the fact that he is using this kind of coersion is intolerable.
If I can figure out who to contact to express just how intolerable this is, I'll post the information here. If anyone else knows already, please leave a note in the comments on who to contact and how. Thanks!
UPDATE: One of Atrios' readers found the following information for contacting the Army Chief of Chaplains:
Chief of Chaplains
Maj. Gen.Gaylord T. Gunhus
gunhugt@occh-nt.army.mil
Deputy Chief of Chaplains
Brig. Gen. David H. Hicks
hicksd@occh-nt.army.mil
http://134.11.73.3/infoltr/january2001.htm
When I saw the title for Peters Stinfels NY Times article "A Pagan View of Waging War", I have to admit I was momentarily a bit worried. One of the hardest parts of being a public Pagan is that I hear from many people who assume that Pagans are violent - engaging in bloody rituals and sacrifices - and that our acknowledgement that death is a part of the natural cycle of things, that somehow means we "worship" death and want to bring as much death into the world as we can.
While every religion has a wide range of theological intepretations amongst its practioners, and while every religion also has it share of dangerous crackpots, in general, you'll find that most Pagans are more likely to be pasifists than warmongers, that few condone - and even fewer practice - any kind of blood sacrifices (non-blood sacrifices would be actions that involve giving up something that is a particular enjoyment, making donations of money, clothing, or other physical items, or volunteering to participate in some kind of community service program), and that while we don't view death as something that is, by necessity, evil (we see it more as just something that *is*), we certainly don't "worship" it, either, nor do we have any desire to bring death to ourselves or anyone else.
Now, as I said, these are generalizations, and I'm sure it's not hard for someone to locate an example on the Internet of a Pagan promoting violence, killing animals for ritual sacrifices or proclaiming that s/he worships death and can hardly wait to get there. Just be aware that they are no more representative of "mainstream" Paganism than people who claim God ordered them to kill someone, or that their religion tells them that whites are superior to all other races are representative of "mainstream" Christanity.
That said, I was extremely pleased to find these paragraphs about halfway through the article:
"Mr. Kaplan, a correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly with years of reporting experience from some of the world's most violent war zones, made the case for conducting United States foreign policy according to such an ethos in his book "Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos" (Random House, 2002).
Mr. Kaplan was not invoking the pantheistic spiritualities espoused by Wiccans and other contemporary adherents of nature religions. Rather, he was writing of the lessons to be drawn from the harsh world of the Peloponnesian Wars between Sparta and Athens as recounted by Thucydides, the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage as recounted by Livy, or the era of the Warring States in China in Sun Tzu's "The Art of War."
Maybe this doesn't sound like a real big deal, but having a article in a paper as widely read and generally viewed as "reputable" as the New York Times actually make the effort to distinguish modern Pagan
